Daylight
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2004
- Messages
- 499
RussDill
Philosopher
He never really makes a point. Just a bunch of unconnected ramblings.
Meadmaker
Unregistered
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2004
- Messages
- 29,033
Daylight,
I'll give a brief answer, but I want to ask a question. Are you, in general,
a. A skeptic, who doesn't accept what the author wrote, but who wants to find better counterarguments than you can think of, or
b. Someone who generally agrees with the author, and wants to see how the skeptics respond. or
c. Something else.
First, an opinion:
The "Clarence" letter is silly, and can be discarded. It says nothing useful, and does it in an offensive manner. It also is not a very good description of a scientific viewpoint. It is almost a straw man, created so that it can be easily dismissed.
Now, about Gough's editorial comments. It's all very well as far as it goes, but it, too, doesn't say much. The philosophy is all well and good. There is nothing to strenuously object to there. However, there are a couple of places where he strays beyond pure philosophy, and I would ask a couple of questions about it. Specifically,
"Although I discovered extensive research data on phenomena outside of the current scientific models, ..."
Where is this "extensive research data"? I try to convince my wife, a non-skeptic, of an important difference between what you find in scientific journals and skeptics' magazines versus what you find in Oprah-like magazines, or in pseudoscientific journals.
In a scientific journal, if someone reports "studies have shown", then there is always a footnote that points you to the studies. In pseudoscience, you won't find that footnote.
"However, all measurements are tentative since they always have a degree of error in them -- a plus or minus. This is due to the inherent limitations of all scientific instruments. "
So?
" Non-locality shows that it is not closed!"
Non-locality shows nothing of the sort, although it does throw up a lot of questions.
" This is why science uses statistical distributions as a way to approximate reproducibility."
This has nothing to do with wh science uses statistical distributions to "approximate reproducibility". Those statistical distributions are extremely reproducible.
"Not because it is needed, but because there exists considerable experiential evidence to support models/theories that encompass the concept of the soul. "
Again, you won't find "there exists considereable experiential evidence" in a scientific journal, unless there is a footnote to point to where you can read about that evidence.
(Edited for spelling)
I'll give a brief answer, but I want to ask a question. Are you, in general,
a. A skeptic, who doesn't accept what the author wrote, but who wants to find better counterarguments than you can think of, or
b. Someone who generally agrees with the author, and wants to see how the skeptics respond. or
c. Something else.
First, an opinion:
The "Clarence" letter is silly, and can be discarded. It says nothing useful, and does it in an offensive manner. It also is not a very good description of a scientific viewpoint. It is almost a straw man, created so that it can be easily dismissed.
Now, about Gough's editorial comments. It's all very well as far as it goes, but it, too, doesn't say much. The philosophy is all well and good. There is nothing to strenuously object to there. However, there are a couple of places where he strays beyond pure philosophy, and I would ask a couple of questions about it. Specifically,
"Although I discovered extensive research data on phenomena outside of the current scientific models, ..."
Where is this "extensive research data"? I try to convince my wife, a non-skeptic, of an important difference between what you find in scientific journals and skeptics' magazines versus what you find in Oprah-like magazines, or in pseudoscientific journals.
In a scientific journal, if someone reports "studies have shown", then there is always a footnote that points you to the studies. In pseudoscience, you won't find that footnote.
"However, all measurements are tentative since they always have a degree of error in them -- a plus or minus. This is due to the inherent limitations of all scientific instruments. "
So?
" Non-locality shows that it is not closed!"
Non-locality shows nothing of the sort, although it does throw up a lot of questions.
" This is why science uses statistical distributions as a way to approximate reproducibility."
This has nothing to do with wh science uses statistical distributions to "approximate reproducibility". Those statistical distributions are extremely reproducible.
"Not because it is needed, but because there exists considerable experiential evidence to support models/theories that encompass the concept of the soul. "
Again, you won't find "there exists considereable experiential evidence" in a scientific journal, unless there is a footnote to point to where you can read about that evidence.
(Edited for spelling)
Daylight
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2004
- Messages
- 499
Meadmaker
a)
I've not been gifted with golden prose. I'm learning though.
I'm in battle with a askinggenisis type on a board I frequent. The usual Evo vs ID thread. In a previous thread I started here I was in total shock at the blatant lies they use.
a)
I've not been gifted with golden prose. I'm learning though.
I'm in battle with a askinggenisis type on a board I frequent. The usual Evo vs ID thread. In a previous thread I started here I was in total shock at the blatant lies they use.
Skeptical Greg
Agave Wine Connoisseur
Doh!!!!
I'm glad that was in the first paragraph. No reason to read further...
Kopji said:
Well, I'd say that after you have painted your first crow white there exists at least one crow that is white. That is, unless you make a silly mistake and paint it pink.
Of course, this metaphor doesn't tell anything about the science and the soul or anything else.
Meadmaker
Unregistered
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2004
- Messages
- 29,033
Daylight,
All right, then. Let's examine the editorial in that light.
First, what is the author trying to say? If you simply read the literal words, it's difficult to tell what he is trying to say. There isn't really a coherent point to be made. However, looking only slightly behind the text, he seems to be saying a few things about science and religion.
If you just look at the literal meaning of the text, I can't find any one thing horribly wrong with it. However, he seems to want to make a case that science and religion are really identical. If that's what he wants to do, he's wrong. In other words, the words might be right, or only slightly flawed, but I suspect he wants to draw some conclusion far beyond the text. For example, you said that somehow this came up in a discussion of ID. How could that be? Is someone arguing that because measuring devices have a margin of error, that evolution is impossible? I'm afraid I don't follow.
To dissect the whole piece would be too lengthy. I'm going to pick a paragraph, and discuss the problems with that paragraph. (Die roll please. 3.)
"Experience, I believe, represents the foundation for everything we know. Clarence says that "science is based on experimentation." This statement is true. Experiments are the "experiences" of scientists. The root of the words experience and experiment are identical. However, turning experiments into science is an inherently imprecise process. All of scientific experiments depend upon measurements. Measurements provide the data that creates the bedrock that science rests upon. However, all measurements are tentative since they always have a degree of error in them -- a plus or minus. This is due to the inherent limitations of all scientific instruments. "
The words are true. So, there is no controversy, correct? Well, no. This is a common line of argument. It suggests that we shouldn't really care so much about scientific experiments because we can't be perfect. But is that legitimate? Can we discard the theory of relativity because we can only measure the speed of light to 10 or so decimal places? We do an extremely good job of measuring the speed of falling bodies, and those measurements are completely consistent with the theory. Does it matter if our value of the Gravitational constant might be off by as much as .000000001%? Do our scientific gods have feet of clay because we cannot precisely measure the hardness of the bedrock?
The author is trying to somehow use this as a way of undermining belief in scientific measurements. A reader can use this line of "reasoning" to dismiss anything that doesn't fit his world view. Dinosaurs died 65 million years ago? How can you be sure? Your measurements of radioactive isotopes have errors in them. Maybe the Earth was made in 4000 B.C after all.
There is also a second problem with the paragraph. Gough says, "Experiments are the 'experiences' of scientists." This is undoubtedly true, but what is he saying, beyond the literal text? I think he is asserting that the experimental results of a scientist are pretty much the same as the experience of a non-scientist. If you "have experiences" that suggest you have a soul, such as one time hearing your dead grandfather visit you in a dream, that must be the same as the "experience" of a scientist who measures the velocity of a falling body. Of course, this is not the case. One is repeatable and predictable. The other is not.
In other words, I think Gough is trying to tell people, "Your experiences can tell you what is true. You know that you have a soul. You have felt the experience of a loved one's passing. It is just like measuring with a scientific instrument." Well, no. It isn't.
And that's the problem with the whole piece. Considered one sentence at a time, there are only minor quibbles one can make with it. However, I think he wants to go way beyond that, and I don't think he is justified in doing so.
All right, then. Let's examine the editorial in that light.
First, what is the author trying to say? If you simply read the literal words, it's difficult to tell what he is trying to say. There isn't really a coherent point to be made. However, looking only slightly behind the text, he seems to be saying a few things about science and religion.
If you just look at the literal meaning of the text, I can't find any one thing horribly wrong with it. However, he seems to want to make a case that science and religion are really identical. If that's what he wants to do, he's wrong. In other words, the words might be right, or only slightly flawed, but I suspect he wants to draw some conclusion far beyond the text. For example, you said that somehow this came up in a discussion of ID. How could that be? Is someone arguing that because measuring devices have a margin of error, that evolution is impossible? I'm afraid I don't follow.
To dissect the whole piece would be too lengthy. I'm going to pick a paragraph, and discuss the problems with that paragraph. (Die roll please. 3.)
"Experience, I believe, represents the foundation for everything we know. Clarence says that "science is based on experimentation." This statement is true. Experiments are the "experiences" of scientists. The root of the words experience and experiment are identical. However, turning experiments into science is an inherently imprecise process. All of scientific experiments depend upon measurements. Measurements provide the data that creates the bedrock that science rests upon. However, all measurements are tentative since they always have a degree of error in them -- a plus or minus. This is due to the inherent limitations of all scientific instruments. "
The words are true. So, there is no controversy, correct? Well, no. This is a common line of argument. It suggests that we shouldn't really care so much about scientific experiments because we can't be perfect. But is that legitimate? Can we discard the theory of relativity because we can only measure the speed of light to 10 or so decimal places? We do an extremely good job of measuring the speed of falling bodies, and those measurements are completely consistent with the theory. Does it matter if our value of the Gravitational constant might be off by as much as .000000001%? Do our scientific gods have feet of clay because we cannot precisely measure the hardness of the bedrock?
The author is trying to somehow use this as a way of undermining belief in scientific measurements. A reader can use this line of "reasoning" to dismiss anything that doesn't fit his world view. Dinosaurs died 65 million years ago? How can you be sure? Your measurements of radioactive isotopes have errors in them. Maybe the Earth was made in 4000 B.C after all.
There is also a second problem with the paragraph. Gough says, "Experiments are the 'experiences' of scientists." This is undoubtedly true, but what is he saying, beyond the literal text? I think he is asserting that the experimental results of a scientist are pretty much the same as the experience of a non-scientist. If you "have experiences" that suggest you have a soul, such as one time hearing your dead grandfather visit you in a dream, that must be the same as the "experience" of a scientist who measures the velocity of a falling body. Of course, this is not the case. One is repeatable and predictable. The other is not.
In other words, I think Gough is trying to tell people, "Your experiences can tell you what is true. You know that you have a soul. You have felt the experience of a loved one's passing. It is just like measuring with a scientific instrument." Well, no. It isn't.
And that's the problem with the whole piece. Considered one sentence at a time, there are only minor quibbles one can make with it. However, I think he wants to go way beyond that, and I don't think he is justified in doing so.
Thanks Mead. You clarified the motivation of the OP and then logically responded without rhetoric or fallacy. Great post.Meadmaker
Unregistered
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2004
- Messages
- 29,033
Daylight said:
It would have been very similar, but with more questions instead of statements. I probably would have left out some of the more derogatory comments, like the one that said it was incoherent. I probably would have agreed with the text of the article, biut then asked you to explain what the implications were, so that the implications could then be addressed directly instead of having to be inferred.