Ah, I just thought of an example.
Is it reasonable to say that Einstein discovered dark energy when he introduced a cosmological constant into his formula?
Linda
CONNIE SONNE, Dowser
- Thread starter chran
- Start date
Ah, I just thought of an example.
Is it reasonable to say that Einstein discovered dark energy when he introduced a cosmological constant into his formula?
Linda
You are confusing the Creator with His creations.
Thanks.
Like what?
That's the point. Did we think that such things could actually exist before we knew of quantum fluctuations, what observations did we make of these quantum fluctuations before we knew they existed, and what cause did we attribute to those observations?
Linda
I think it is humility. I think the point of differentiating the two is that it is the difference between religion and science. Science is humility in the face of the unknown. Who knows what discoveries await us tomorrow to turn upside down what we "know" today.
The point would be pedantry. For practical reasons, there is no need to differentiate. For theoretical reasons, there is.
Unfortunately, you do not seem to understand what fls and I are saying. What we are saying is that "does not exist" means and can only mean "does not have evidence and is not plausible." If you differentiate the two, you force "does not exist" to mean something absolute like "is not plausible, has no evidence, will never be plausible, and will never have evidence." You force an unreasonable position to exist along with a reasonable one. Then you proceed to argue that such an unreasonable position should never be taken.
That makes no sense unless you are obsessed with pedantry or straw men.
Whether you realize it or not, when science says something does not exist, they are only saying that it lacks evidence and a plausible explanation for its existence. From a practical rather than pedantic perspective, there comes a point when you form a conclusion and move on to something else. Every human does this. It starts when we're babies and learn that every time we drop the baby bottle, it falls. We say, "baby bottles don't float in the air." And we stop dropping bottles and move on to rolling balls uphill and downhill.
There's no need to qualify every statement by adding but we don't know that with 100% certainty. Besides making life exceedingly tedious, it would imply that whenever we don't say that, it means that we do know with 100% certainty. And this is why I say there's no need to differentiate.
But "this does not exist" IS an absolute statement.
That is exactly my objection.
(Also I think Linda is saying something more than what you're saying)
Well, I don't know who is being unreasonable here.
"There is no X" is an unqualified statement and, therefore, an absolute statement.
I would challenge that.
Science says something does not exist if, and only if, there is evidence that it does not exist.
I am not arguing against that.
In fact, I have agreed with it at least a couple of times already.
I agree. But, when challenged about the truth or precision of that statement, why is that everyone gets annoyed with having to admit that they don't actually mean that they are 100% certain that "there is no X", and that what they really mean is that "there is no evidence and no plausibility for X".
regards,
BillyJoe
Last edited:
There's an outstanding claim that the phrase form "X does not exist" has no useful meaning other than "there is no evidence for X and X is not plausible", and here you've rejected that claim and appear to mean that science does indeed provide evidence beyond "lack of evidence or plausibility" to demonstrate non-existance of something (in at least one case), thus making the phrase "X does not exist" useful in the specific context of being taken literally.
I think if you can give an example of something science provides evidence of non-existance for beyond "lack of evidence of existance and lack of plausibility", you have a real argument winner. I think if you could give an example of evidence that could be discovered (but hasn't yet) which would support a theory of non-existance I believe that would even suffice.
Can you describe a context where you feel the statement "X does not exist" would be useful and accurate in the way you intimate in the quoted statement?
No I wouldn't.
As you have already pointed out, to take a scientific approach isn't to go around making absolutist statements about the characteristics of stuff we know nothing about. It's about responding to specific ideas and claims. A statement like that above would be made in response to someone claiming that they could make a rabbit appear out of a hat, not about the consequences of a theory of matter which hasn't been proposed and for which no observations have been made. I couldn't have been referring to quantum fluctuations when I made that statement, so why on earth would you think that that statement could apply to the existence of quantum fluctuations?
I've asked you several times, and now others have asked you...give an example of someone saying "X does not exist" from a scientific perspective where it means something other than "there is no evidence or plausibility for X". You seem to have a familiarity with an absolutist, non-evidentiary stance as a part of science that I have not yet had the benefit of encountering.
Linda
I'm more interested in whether it is ever used in a way that is meant to be absolutist.
It occurs to me that maybe what is really at issue is what is meant by "X". In the case of "paranormal abilities", I mean "the claim that Connie can receive information while fully removed from all the normal means of receiving information". You seem to be taking "X" to be "any future discovery that vaguely fits that description". Because if that's the case, then for sure Connie has paranormal abilities. We've already discovered entanglement, and "spooky action at a distance" certainly counts as something that most people wouldn't consider a normal means of receiving information. As a being composed of matter, Connie certainly contains this property, therefore we should all be comfortable agreeing that she has paranormal abilities.
Linda
Are you a computer programmer by chance? It sounds like it. Language among humans is vastly different than that of computers. Humans do not normally qualify their statements because the qualifications are implied. When they want to make something absolute, then they add qualifiers to make it absolute.
I can show you countless examples of statements which could be taken as absolute but actually have implied qualifiers. If my son asks for Graham crackers, I might say, "we don't have any." What I am really saying is, "To the best of my knowledge we finished the last of the Graham crackers. I believe that my memory is sound when I say that I do not recall buying any more since then. I am not aware of your mother buying any without my knowledge. I do not believe someone broke into our house and planted some in the pantry. While I have not actually searched the house, I do not believe there are any unfinished packs laying around. And since you are a toddler, I would not be surprised to find half a Graham cracker behind the couch or on the floor of the car, but I don't consider that as having Graham crackers."
Humans don't talk like that. If I wanted to be "absolute" in my statement, I would say, "We don't have any Graham crackers. Nada. Zilch. None. I looked everywhere and checked with your mom."
The burden of proof is on you to show that "there is no X" is used in an absolute sense that is different than saying, "there is no evidence of its existence and there is no plausible explanation for it to exist." You must also establish that this usage is common and adversely affects the advancement of science.
Otherwise, it's just you telling everyone else, myself included, what they mean when they say it.
That's woefully incorrect. Science says something doesn't exist when there is no plausible explanation for it to exist and when research with a strong likelihood of finding evidence is conducted yet has come up dry. That pretty much describes everything paranormal.
They get annoyed for the reasons I just gave you: the qualifiers are implied. If we want to make an absolute statement, we make it very clear. Take the statement, "If you drop an apple, it will hit ground." Is that an absolute statement? It had better not be. I didn't specify that I was on Earth. I didn't specify that there was nothing between the apple and the ground like a net or a fan blowing air up. You can use your imagination to think of another dozen implied qualifiers required to make that statement be absolute.
The other reason we get annoyed with people being pedantic about adding qualifiers is that the qualifiers you want us to use carry their own set of implications. If I say "there is no evidence" that can mean several things. It might mean that we lack the means to collect the evidence. It might mean that we tried to find evidence but failed to do so. It also might mean that we've never bothered to look for evidence in the first place.
We have the same issue with saying, "there is no plausible explanation." Does that mean that there are observations we cannot explain? Does it mean that the idea is so advanced we cannot study it? Or does it mean that the whole idea is nonsense?
If we state things your way, then it invites further discussion about a topic which, quite frankly, rarely deserves any further discussion. We say "there is no X" to be dismissive about paranormal claims. And there's nothing wrong with that. To state it any other way implies that that topic is worthy of further research.
If you want to carry this into the scientific world, then show some concrete examples.
It is my impression that this is the reasoning behind NOMA (an idea which I find irritating and without merit), which is why I tend to jump on it. However, I don't think either approach 'works'. If we try to dismiss it, then we have long, pointless discussions about how we can't prove a negative, as though that is ever relevant. And if we don't dismiss it, then we are seen to endorse the idea that these things are safe from rational inquiry.
ETA: Just look at what happened in this thread. Nobody thinks that Connie actually has paranormal abilities, yet for some reason we have to argue about whether or not we can say that.
Linda
Last edited:
When I wrote dismissive, I noted that I meant dismissive about doing further research. There's nothing you can do to avoid a discussion except choose not to engage.
I'll say this, though. Connie doesn't have any paranormal abilities. She has no basis for anybody to waste any further time on investigating her claims. If anybody believes I shouldn't say this, then let them spend their own time chasing the dragon.
Maybe there's nothing to be gained by continuing this but...
Maybe it's still having an influence.
In other words, if "no evidence" can variously mean "we lack the means to collect the evidence", or "we tried to find evidence but failed to do so", or "we've never bothered to look for evidence in the first place", we can still legitimately conclude "there is no evidence for X", but we cannot legitimately conclude "there is no X".
regards,
BillyJoe
Prove it.
And fair enough.
No, but I did teach myself how to program from a book called "C++ how to program", but that was over 12 years ago.
Maybe it's still having an influence.
If that is the case then how can saying "there is no X" be equivalent to saying "there is no evidence and no plausibility for X"?
In other words, if "no evidence" can variously mean "we lack the means to collect the evidence", or "we tried to find evidence but failed to do so", or "we've never bothered to look for evidence in the first place", we can still legitimately conclude "there is no evidence for X", but we cannot legitimately conclude "there is no X".
And I'm wondering why you use an absolute statement when you don't intend it to be one.
You might have concluded that "things do not appear out of nowhere and then disappear without trace" on the basis that no examples of such a phenomenon had yet been observed and that it was implausible. Unfortunately, the later proof of the existence of quantum fluctuations would have made your conclusion retrospectively wrong. Similarly if you conclude now that "there are no paranormal phenomena" on the basis that no examples have yet been observed and that it is implausible, you could be proven wrong in the long run.
You mean you've been proven wrong already?
You didn't like my first example without explaining why, so why should I offer up a second example just to get the same treatment.
The Michelson-Morley experiment proved that the aether - in the sense of "an absolute reference frame" - does not exist.
regards,
BillyJoe