Merged The razor of Hitchens and the Spirits!

[JayUtah]

Science itself has proved everything we see and can touch is an illusion.

Identify the field of science you think has done that.

It is all atomic particles

Yes, matter is made up of particles. There is nothing illusory, mysterious, or intractable about that.

...and atomic particles can all be converted back into pure energy.

Explain why you phrased it as "back to" energy. Define what you think is "pure energy." In past discussions, you have repeatedly equivocated between definitions used by physicists (which are precise and well-defined) and your woo concept of some kind of ineffable energy that you cannot adequately describe.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

There's a Shakespeare line just out of my grasp about being able to talk to the spirits. Anyone can do that, but do they answer? This thread feels a little like that.

 

[Scorpion]

Identify the field of science you think has done that.


Yes, matter is made up of particles. There is nothing illusory, mysterious, or intractable about that.


Explain why you phrased it as "back to" energy. Define what you think is "pure energy." In past discussions, you have repeatedly equivocated between definitions used by physicists (which are precise and well-defined) and your woo concept of some kind of ineffable energy that you cannot adequately describe.

I thought it clear that atomic physics has shown all matter is composed of atoms, therefore it is energy in another form, and not to solid matter we experience with our senses. We can already split the atoms of unstable materials to make atomic explosions, and electricity is the result of organizing loose electrons. Energy is all that existed at the big bang. Hydrogen came as it cooled down, and heavy atoms did not exist until they were created in stars and ejected into space when those stars died so no planets existed until the death of early stars. As for my using the term energy to describe psychic forces, I do not know what else to call it but psychic energy.

 

[JayUtah]

I thought it clear that atomic physics has shown all matter is composed of atoms

That is correct. However, that is not a fact that supports an argument for "everything we see and touch" being "an illusion." Vision—the interaction of photons with matter—and touch—the interaction between electron shells of adjacent matter, behave no differently now that we understand the atomic scale mechanism that creates those effects. The laws describing macro scale behavior are still correct, provable, and operative.

therefore it is energy in another form...

That form being matter, which obeys the same laws as Newton codified hundreds of years ago. There are deep physics discussions equating matter to "frozen energy," but none of that affects the fact that matter in its known state is responsible for the macro scale effects that we experience as vision and touch.

...and not to solid matter we experience with our senses.

Solid matter is composed of atoms. What we experience with our senses is the behavior of atoms.

We can already split the atoms of unstable materials to make atomic explosions, and electricity is the result of organizing loose electrons.

That is correct, but irrelevant to your claims.

Energy is all that existed at the big bang.

No.

Hydrogen came as it cooled down, and heavy atoms did not exist until they were created in stars and ejected into space when those stars died so no planets existed until the death of early stars.

That is a reasonably coherent explanation of expansion. It has nothing to do with claims that matter is illusory.

As for my using the term energy to describe psychic forces, I do not know what else to call it but psychic energy.

Call it whatever you want, but your attempts to equate it to physics concepts is completely wrong. What you call "energy" as some sort of component of your fanciful religious beliefs has absolutely nothing to do with energy as understood, defined, and discussed by physics.

 

[Pixel42]

There's a Shakespeare line just out of my grasp about being able to talk to the spirits. Anyone can do that, but do they answer? This thread feels a little like that.

Glendower: I can call the spirits from the vasty deep.

Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
But will they come, when you do call for them?

― William Shakespeare, King Henry IV, Part 1

​

 

[P.J. Denyer]

Calderaro, people on this forum have given you a lot of time & attention and had very little engagement back. How about you reassure us that you're not just another seagull poster by answering a really basic question?

Since you introduce introduced this hypothesis (it certainly isn't a theory), what do YOU understand the terms "Microtubules" and "Quantum Information" to mean and how do they relate to each other and/or interact?

Calderaro, instead of looping back to pointless non-questions, why not give the posters here the courtesy of a decent answer by addressing think s basic question about a hypothesis YOU introduced?

 

[Axxman300]

extraordinary evidence is subjective

Logic dictates that the existence of spirits would be an extraordinary fact, thus all evidence supporting their existence would also be extraordinary,

 

[Axxman300]

Science itself has proved everything we see and can touch is an illusion. It is all atomic particles, and atomic particles can all be converted back into pure energy.

No. Again, head down to the railroad tracks, stand in the middle, and wait for the next train to see how wrong you are about the train being an illusion. Yes, the train and you are both atomic particles, but you left out the three types of atomic bonding that will dictate the results of your contact with the speeding train. And yes, physics is the other major factor, but your body will be disarticulated, and "converted back into energy" long before the atoms of the train.

Philosophy class is fun, but don't skip the science class.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

Logic dictates that the existence of spirits would be an extraordinary fact, thus all evidence supporting their existence would also be extraordinary,

I really don't like that phrase, extraordinary claims require 'good' evidence, verifiable and if appropriate reproducible, the same as any other non-trivial claim. The only sense in which it would be 'extraordinary' would be it's effect. The evidence for eg. ESP would be no more extraordinary than the evidence for claiming to be able to consistantly score a basket from the centre line, demonstrate the claimed accuracy, greater than chance, under circumstances that rule out cheating. Proponents are of woo aren't being subjected to a tougher standard than everyone else, just The Standard that distinguishes evidence from opinion.

 

[JayUtah]

I really don't like that phrase, extraordinary claims require 'good' evidence, verifiable and if appropriate reproducible, the same as any other non-trivial claim.

This is one of two prongs to the criticism of the Sagan aphorism. The sufficiency of evidence for a proposition cannot vary according to the implications or side-effects of the proposition—that's bias. The ESP v. basketball analogy is a good one.

The other prong is the observation that "extraordinary" is a subjective determination. When @Calderaro says,

extraordinary evidence is subjective

he means to say that the proposed standard of proof is subjective, not that the evidence itself is subjective. (It may also be, but that's not what the legitimate criticism is trying to address.) But we already modify the standard of proof according to factors that vary from case to case. We are allowed to apply prima facie factors and a priori knowledge.

Since history and psychology furnish us with defensible, evident reasons for belief in spirits, it is reasonable to apply a standard of proof that is high enough to overcome those findings. Similarly when we know that a number of claims are made by imposters, we can incorporate that into a standard of proof. By analogy, if a stage magician claims he really does saw the lady in half, we are justified in applying a higher standard of proof than merely observing that he appears to. The higher standard of proof for claims in spiritism has less to do with whether the claim itself is extraordinary and more do to with objective circumstance. That heightened standard will be most evident in experiment design and statistical modeling, not in simply rejecting the data pos hoc.

Proponents are of woo aren't being subjected to a tougher standard than everyone else, just The Standard that distinguishes evidence from opinion.

Correct. The debate over whether a heightened standard is appropriate is moot when the claim cannot even meet an ordinary standard of proof. But the rhetoric flows from the notion that skeptics propose a standard of proof that is subjective, biased, and therefore likely too high, based on Sagan's advice. It doesn't change the picture of evidence, but it paints skeptics as irrational.

 

[Calderaro]

The medium just said it was my grandmother without her name. But I had a number of messages from her from different mediums over the years I attended spiritualist churches. She knew what was going on in my life and gave me good advice. In the case of a message from my brother that died as a baby the medium did give me his name which was Lawrence. My mother, who had never told me about him and had never been to the church, confirmed this when I asked her.

science accepts phenomena such as neutrinos, which were postulated without direct evidence for a long time, until they were indirectly detected

 

[Calderaro]

The medium just said it was my grandmother without her name. But I had a number of messages from her from different mediums over the years I attended spiritualist churches. She knew what was going on in my life and gave me good advice. In the case of a message from my brother that died as a baby the medium did give me his name which was Lawrence. My mother, who had never told me about him and had never been to the church, confirmed this when I asked her.

Science does not have all the answers and is often based on theories that evolve with new discoveries. Arguing that science should be open to new possibilities can help open up a more constructive dialogue on the topic of spirits.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

Not going to answer my question then?

 

[Carrot Flower King]

Accounts of personal experiences, such as the psychographies attributed to mediums like Chico Xavier, can serve as evidence for those who believe in mediumship. Although these accounts may not be enough to convince radical skeptics, they are valid within the context of human experience.

OK, anyone who doesn't believe what I believe is a "radical".

And your "evidence" only works if you already believe what you believe.

Totally convincing...

 

[Carrot Flower King]

Ask skeptics whether they apply the same rigorous standards to all areas of knowledge, or whether there is a tendency to dismiss only evidence that challenges their beliefs. This can help expose potential biases in their approach

Go have a long, very hard look in the mirror.

 

[Chanakya]

science accepts phenomena such as neutrinos, which were postulated without direct evidence for a long time, until they were indirectly detected

Science does not have all the answers and is often based on theories that evolve with new discoveries. Arguing that science should be open to new possibilities can help open up a more constructive dialogue on the topic of spirits.

*keeps palm well away from face, and head well away from desk, to prevent possible injury*

 

[P.J. Denyer]

*keeps palm well away from face, and head well away from desk, to prevent possible injury*

Deleted with apologies to Chanakya

 

[Chanakya]

Maybe stay away from sharp object too...

Anyway, that very basic question about the hypothesis YOU introduced?

Sorry, what hypothesis?

eta: Wait, you haven't confused me with OP, have you? That's okay if you have. I mean, both our handles start with a C. And I don't mind, all cool: If that's the case, then the matter's easily resolved by my pointing out that I'm not.

 

[sackett]

Aw. That's so sweet. Once again, two like minds have found each other on the forum.

We, the unwanted crowd, should decently retire, and leave them here in -- let's call it a secluded bower! -- to do whatever consenting adults like to get up to at such times.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

Sorry, what hypothesis?

Sorry. I'm posting on my phone while walking & misread!