tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-417475152705096483.post4594836006890618647..comments2023-06-04T03:08:10.609-04:00Comments on Salty Current: No, there can't be evidence for a god.SChttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01328512370690763252noreply@blogger.comBlogger50125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-417475152705096483.post-28982692880872284022010-11-11T03:21:33.503-05:002010-11-11T03:21:33.503-05:00The nail, it has been hit on the head.
It used to...The nail, it has been hit on the head.<br /><br />It used to be people were clear about their gods. There's one that makes the river flood, there's one that makes the sun come up, there's one that gives horrible diseases to children, but supposedly loves us anyway.<br /><br />But now only the ignorant or insane invole gods to explain that kind of thing because we know how it works, and people persist in claiming that there are gods, despite the fact that the gaps the accursed things are retreating in to are too small to park a hydrocarbon molecule in.<br /><br /><br />I think the best part is when these fictional characters' fan clubs change their position. The slightest adjustment in their stance undermines their claims. Society changes, and no matter how the old bastards drag their heels, they eventually have to change to fit it, and when you've built your organization on claims of having Ultimate Truth, changing your mind reveals the lies.<br /><br /><br />Oh, hey, there's a Scientology ad at the bottom of the page. Burn the heretic! Er, you know what I mean.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-417475152705096483.post-1146008193131309132010-11-09T19:47:42.326-05:002010-11-09T19:47:42.326-05:00Supernaturalists have to overcome the ignostic cha...Supernaturalists have to overcome the ignostic challenge that He has no referents and has contradictory,incoherent attributes. Then, per provisional methodological naturalism [ Maarten Boudry, science itself could admit Him as a possible entity to investigate.<br />They'd have to overcome the presumption of naturalism that not only are natural causes and explanations efficient and necessary but also primary and sufficient as the sufficient reason. This neither begs the question nor sandbags them but is simply the demand for evidence.<br /> Google the ignostic-Ockham, ignosticism and the presumption of naturalism.<br /> Ignostic Morgan's Blog.wordpress.com<br /> <br /> They'd have to overcome the Ockham.Ignostic Morganhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00840974074283188834noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-417475152705096483.post-86577032745509227902010-11-09T11:54:02.752-05:002010-11-09T11:54:02.752-05:00who has no idea what "entities" may be i...<i>who has no idea what "entities" may be involved or what a valid hypothesis or mechanism could possibly be.</i><br /><br />This post is about testing for the existence of gods. That is the topic. You want to talk about testing other claims, but that is irrelevant. <br /><br /><i>That we don't have a mechanism for a deity is precisely the point.</i> <br /><br />A mechanism for a deity? I suggest you step away for a bit and then go back and read my post, because you are seriously confused.<br /><br /><i>We don't have a mechanism for any phenomenon we've yet to understand. We only get those through rigorous testing and reformulating (and a mechanism may never emerge, as in the case of EM radiation).</i> <br /><br />Healing and radiation are phenomena. Deities are not.<br /><br /><i>That's why your reasoning is circular.</i> <br /><br />Your thoughts are so jumbled it's making my head hurt to read them.<br /><br /><i>You are assuming we have to understand it in order to understand it.</i> <br /><br />OK, I'm tired of these completely vague general statements. If we're testing for whether something like healing happens, we don't have to understand why it might happen, because it's defined and we can observe it. If we're testing for the existence of an entity, it has to be defined. <i>Stop conflating the two</i>: studies of healing are not testing for gods, and can't. <br /><br /><i>I have now explained this as patiently and fully as I think is necessary for an intelligent person to grasp, even catering to your mischaracterizing tangents. If you have an argument to make about this:</i><br /><br />"Can there be evidence for a god? I've argued that there can't because the notion is not defined in a way that would render it amenable to evidence, and this is required for testing for it. You can either claim absurdly that we don't need a definition of something to test for its existence. Or you can provide a definition of god that meets this requirement." <br /><br />then bring it. If not, I won't be entertaining your comments further. That goes for Mia as well. And now I have work to do.SChttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01328512370690763252noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-417475152705096483.post-86438682189745491972010-11-09T11:51:33.639-05:002010-11-09T11:51:33.639-05:00SC, that you conceded the Amazonian tribe example ...<i>SC, that you conceded the Amazonian tribe example summarizes the entire issue.</i><br /><br />What? No.<br /><br /><i>You would not object to investigating the claims</i> <br /><br />Which claims?<br /><br /><i>because no matter how incoherent or ill-defined their explanation is, an empirical experiment is always well-defined and independent of the presumed explanation.</i> <br /><br />Their explanation is irrelevant to testing whether and under what circumstances healing occurs. (At some point in time, this was unknown and investigating it was scientific.) That's what's being tested. As you keep noting, testing whether something happens or not can be done in the absence of explanations. I'm amazed that you don't see that you're arguing with yourself here. Testing for entities proposed as explanations requires that those entities be defined. Gods are not, and can't be. <br /><br /><i>This is how James Randi is able to offer his million dollar prize.</i><br /><br />What? Wierd non sequitur. First, Randi's prize actually undercuts Mia's argument with my characterization of what Randi does as demonstrationn rather than scientific research: he wouldn't offer this sum if there was a chance of having to award it. But this is another matter. That earlier research on healing and Randi's "debunkings" are research/demonstrations of claims for which empirical evidence can be adduced ("Do we observe phenomenon X?"). They are not tests of god claims, and can't be.<br /><br /><i>What you still haven't grasped is that this is how science works.</i> <br /><br />What you haven't grasped is that you don't comprehend what I'm arguing (or seemingly what you are).<br /><br /><i>It is not required that coherent "entities" are defined, only that there is something empirical to investigate.</i><br /><br />I will try one more time: Empirical investigations require defined entities for which evidence can be adduced. Empirical investigations (or demonstrations, depending) can be performed on claims about what happens to defined, observable entities. (Therefore, it wouldn't be possible to test claims of healing the spirits of dead people.) These are not investigations of the existence of gods.<br /><br /><i>The "entities" emerge later,</i> <br /><br />If we are researching claims of the existence of an entity, that entity has to be defined. A substance/chemical in tree bark is a defined entity. Gods are not. <br /><br /><i>after having been sussed out by the iterative process of reformulating and testing hypotheses.</i><br /><br />Hypotheses require defined entities. Humans acting, substances, people healing from a disease fit the bill. Gods do not. <br /><br /><i>That's why you have it backwards. You are assuming that some hypothesis has to be in place.</i> <br /><br />Beyond exploratory research, in order to test claims, yes. <br /><br /><i>There does not have to be.</i> <br /><br />Tests cannot be performed for the existence of undefined entities. It's that simple. I don't know how you can be this dense.<br /><br /><i>Hypotheses spring from less coherent conjectures, and those in turn spring from a curious investigator saying "WTF is going on?",</i><br /><br />Well, this isn't precisely correct. But this discussion isn't about the precise understanding of hypotheses or curiosity. If someone is positing the existence of an entity - as an explanation for observed phenomena or just in general - <i>that entity has to be defined so as to be amenable to evidence</i> in order for evidence to be adduced for it.SChttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01328512370690763252noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-417475152705096483.post-63099819904352777512010-11-09T11:00:32.822-05:002010-11-09T11:00:32.822-05:00I wanted to actually understand the argument being...<i>I wanted to actually understand the argument being made, but it's clear you're not interested in helping.</i> <br /><br />If you haven't understood it at this point, the odds are vanishingly small that you ever would. <br /><br /><i>Thanks for nothing.</i> <br /><br />Thanks for trolling.SChttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01328512370690763252noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-417475152705096483.post-76777904050231947152010-11-09T10:43:06.295-05:002010-11-09T10:43:06.295-05:00SC, that you conceded the Amazonian tribe example ...SC, that you conceded the Amazonian tribe example summarizes the entire issue. You would not object to investigating the claims because no matter how incoherent or ill-defined <em>their</em> explanation is, an empirical experiment is <em>always</em> well-defined and independent of the presumed explanation. This is how James Randi is able to offer his million dollar prize.<br /><br />What you still haven't grasped is that this is how science works. It is not required that coherent "entities" are defined, only that there is something empirical to investigate. The "entities" emerge later, <em>after</em> having been sussed out by the iterative process of reformulating and testing hypotheses.<br /><br />That's why you have it backwards. You are assuming that some hypothesis has to be in place. There does not have to be. Hypotheses spring from less coherent conjectures, and those in turn spring from a curious investigator saying "WTF is going on?", who has no idea what "entities" may be involved or what a valid hypothesis or mechanism could possibly be.<br /><br />That we don't have a mechanism for a deity is precisely the point. We don't have a mechanism for any phenomenon we've yet to understand. We only get those through rigorous testing and reformulating (and a mechanism may never emerge, as in the case of EM radiation). That's why your reasoning is circular. You are assuming we have to understand it in order to understand it. We don't. Every new theory in science begins with someone saying, "WTF is this?"--someone who doesn't understand it.George Khttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10612100259150592077noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-417475152705096483.post-48832189402287065972010-11-09T10:20:57.245-05:002010-11-09T10:20:57.245-05:00I wanted to actually understand the argument being...I wanted to actually understand the argument being made, but it's clear you're not interested in helping. Thanks for nothing.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-417475152705096483.post-43074142686940767432010-11-09T09:41:17.138-05:002010-11-09T09:41:17.138-05:00Rick,
I'm saying precisely what I've said...Rick,<br /><br />I'm saying precisely what I've said. If you have a point, make it.SChttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01328512370690763252noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-417475152705096483.post-72084908058239219512010-11-09T05:45:05.599-05:002010-11-09T05:45:05.599-05:00You are saying the object being described must be ...You are saying the object being described must be measurable through physical observation. Do I understand you correctly?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-417475152705096483.post-12003389676803045122010-11-09T05:16:22.336-05:002010-11-09T05:16:22.336-05:00All this handwaving is just annoying when nobody w...All this handwaving is just annoying when nobody wants to come out and define a god in any testable way. If you want to make the case that something might prove that any gods exist, the first thing we need is a hypothesis which is clearly within our ability to test.<br /><br />You can talk about probabilities and alternate realities and extra dimensions forever.<br /><br />Define it. How will we know a true god? What will it look like, with what would we perceive it, and how do we disambiguate from non-gods?<br /><br />Why can people write so much, without writing this part?<br /><br />There's not much point in discussing it, if I don't know what it is. Kudos to SC for having the patience in absence of substance.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09912937290079819598noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-417475152705096483.post-36775129869438331462010-11-09T05:08:08.077-05:002010-11-09T05:08:08.077-05:00What does "scientifically meaningful" me...<i>What does "scientifically meaningful" mean?</i> <br /><br />Defined and amenable to empirical evidence. What I said in my post, what I set out here<br /><br />http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/11/but_some_are_arguing_with_me.php#comment-2913015<br /><br />and what I described in many of the dozens of posts preceding that.SChttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01328512370690763252noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-417475152705096483.post-22298742976968773712010-11-09T04:20:26.326-05:002010-11-09T04:20:26.326-05:00What does "scientifically meaningful" me...What does "scientifically meaningful" mean?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-417475152705096483.post-83226700364547599942010-11-09T03:50:04.904-05:002010-11-09T03:50:04.904-05:00SC, I've already given examples which you have...<i>SC, I've already given examples which you haven't understood, but for good measure I'll give one more (which you probably won't understand).</i><br /><br />I've understood them perfectly, and understood that they were addressing a strawman version of my argument. <br /><br /><i>Tribes in the Amazon rainforest had complex rituals involving dance, potions, spells, etc. for healing members afflicted with malaria. They explain how it works in terms of gods and magic and such. According to you, since the entities are not well-defined, we should not investigate. Too bad, since that would have lead to the discovery of quinine.</i> <br /><br />If you would actually read my comments in the threads I linked to in my post and referred to several times in this thread, you would know that my thoughts about what is properly science are nuanced and tied to the state of scientific knowledge at the time. But that's a separate issue from that of whether evidence can be adduced for undefined notions like gods. And I've never said anything shouldn't be investigated (especially not rituals - I'm a social scientist; and it's important to understand what groups mean by "gods" and whether this is simply a name for natural phenomena). <br /><br />That rituals or claims about healing "involved" gods to their participants doesn't disqualify them from investigation. But we need to be clear when we're talking about investigating specific claims, which goes beyond exploratory research. Which claims are being investigated, what hypotheses are being tested, and what is the evidence through which we can test them? <br /><br /><i>It's patently obvious that tests can be made even when the "entities" are ill-defined or even non-existent.</i> <br /><br />You're being unclear. "Tests can be made" is far too general of a statement. Tests can't be made of the existence of gods (for any value I've seen) in this context or any other. The entities involved in these tests would be people, actions, and substances - definable and observable. Proposed explanations would have to be entities and processes defined in some way as to be amenable to evidence. Gods are not.<br /><br /><i>We aren't talking about testing for a deity, of course;</i> <br /><br />Of course?! That's what my post and this whole discussion are about! Yes, of course - we aren't and we can't be - and you appear not to disagree with me, so I don't know what challenge you think you're posing to my argument here.<br /><br /><i>we are talking about testing for the claimed physical effects of a deity.</i> <br /><br />We're talking about testing for healing, proposing explanations for our observations, and then testing those explanations. If you think a deity can serve as a testable explanation for observed healing, then explain how. Define it.<br /><br />Listen, you're arguing several points about research that I and others have discussed in some depth, but which don't really pertain to the matter at hand: Can there be evidence for a god? I've argued that there can't because the notion is not defined in a way that would render it amenable to evidence, and this is required for testing for it. You can either claim absurdly that we don't need a definition of something to test for its existence. Or you can provide a definition of god that meets this requirement. Otherwise you're blowing misaimed smoke.SChttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01328512370690763252noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-417475152705096483.post-50596909730489357812010-11-09T00:27:55.462-05:002010-11-09T00:27:55.462-05:00SC, I've already given examples which you have...SC, I've already given examples which you haven't understood, but for good measure I'll give one more (which you probably won't understand).<br /><br />Tribes in the Amazon rainforest had complex rituals involving dance, potions, spells, etc. for healing members afflicted with malaria. They explain how it works in terms of gods and magic and such. According to you, since the entities are not well-defined, we should not investigate. Too bad, since that would have lead to the discovery of quinine.<br /><br />It's patently obvious that tests can be made even when the "entities" are ill-defined or even non-existent. We aren't talking about testing for a deity, of course; we are talking about testing for the claimed physical effects of a deity.George Khttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10612100259150592077noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-417475152705096483.post-44091492683183547782010-11-09T00:12:01.804-05:002010-11-09T00:12:01.804-05:00I can imagine evidence for a god, even an intangib...<i>I can imagine evidence for a god, even an intangible god: say if you always got what you prayed for--or if people got what the majority prayed for.</i><br /><br />No, that wouldn't be evidence for any gods, because gods aren't defined. They're scientifically meaningless. All you would have would be observed phenomena to be explained, and the entities and processes proposed to explain them would have to be defined or they wouldn't be subject to evidence.<br /><br />OK, I have to eat and sleep. Will return tomorrow. Good night.SChttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01328512370690763252noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-417475152705096483.post-18344761752428306652010-11-08T23:55:41.105-05:002010-11-08T23:55:41.105-05:00I can imagine evidence for a god, even an intangib...I can imagine evidence for a god, even an intangible god: say if you always got what you prayed for--or if people got what the majority prayed for. <br /><br />But if I understand what you're saying, it's that any god that is invisible, intangible, omnipresent, and all-powerful, yet never answers prayers, is not something for which any evidence makes sense.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-417475152705096483.post-74277320809759818152010-11-08T23:30:42.643-05:002010-11-08T23:30:42.643-05:00SC, you are micro-parsing and quote-mining.
I am ...<i>SC, you are micro-parsing and quote-mining.</i><br /><br />I am not, as anyone can see.<br /><br /><i>What I said was,...makes no difference as long as the last one is fulfilled, "How does it operate?", if by that you mean there are testable hypotheses which can be made.</i><br /><br />I meant "How does it [the alleged entity] operate?" On this and the other questions depends whether hypotheses (which are by dfinition testable) can be made.<br /><br /><i>You did not use my meaning of "operate", so to keep things rolling I just went with what you said.</i> <br /><br />My meaning of "operate" was clear from the questions. You're simply confused.<br /><br /><i>Obviously neither of our points hinge on the word "operate".</i> <br /><br />Yes, they do.<br /><br /><i>Whatever you call it, I only care about testable hypotheses, and these do not require a "mechanism".</i><br /><br />They require defined entities, based on the questions I asked. <br /><br /><i>Just think about how science is actually done.</i><br /><br />Oh, good grief.<br /><br /><i>We discover some phenomenon, and it passes our preliminary hypotheses,</i> <br /><br />What do you mean by this?<br /><br /><i>but we're still not sure what is happening. Discovering an underlying mechanism comes later, or it may never come at all.</i><br /><br />Discovering a mechanism is discovering what is happening. Proposed mechanisms have to be defined or hypotheses can't be developed around them. Deities aren't. There's nothing there.<br /><br /><i>Your point of view is exactly the reverse of how science operates.</i> <br /><br />Wrong.<br /><br /><i>With 20/20 hindsight, you declare that all scientific theories must come to us fully-formed with well-defined entities and mechanisms.</i> <br /><br />I declare no such thing. <br /><br /><i>No, it doesn't work that way. We fumble, we bumble, we test ideas without quite understanding what is going on.</i> <br /><br />There are criteria for ideas that are testable. The ideas need to be defined. Otherwise, there's nothing to test.<br /><br /><i>But with enough work, we finally understand to a useful degree.</i><br /><br />You misunderstand. We can only test empirically whether concepts that are defined exist.<br /><br /><i>According to your reasoning, had Maxwell shown you his new equations describing EM waves, you would have dismissed his proposal because it doesn't have a "mechanism"....See the problem?</i><br /><br />No. I don't know what you're on about or how it's supposed to bear upon my argument about possible evidence for gods.<br /><br /><i>(You don't need to understand EM waves here; all you need to know is that the aether explanation was unnecessary.)</i> <br /><br />It has nothing to do with understanding EM waves. Again, I don't know of what the aether explanation consisted, so I don't know if it was a scientific explanation ever. It doesn't bear upon my argument, but is simply a matter of categorization.SChttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01328512370690763252noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-417475152705096483.post-71149303961320555502010-11-08T23:30:03.812-05:002010-11-08T23:30:03.812-05:00Oh, I missed this:
Indeed, James Randi has been p...Oh, I missed this:<br /><br /><i>Indeed, James Randi has been performing just such scientific tests on supernatural claims for decades. When confronted with this information</i><br /><br />Were you under the impression that I was unaware of Randi's activities?<br /><br /><i>over on Pharyngula, the evidence-doesn't-matter crowd</i> <br /><br />Will you at least try to understand the position with which you're attempting feebly to contend?<br /><br /><i>were forced</i> <br /><br />You're a nut. What people <i>do</i> can be unscientific and mistaken. You can't argue from what people do to a scientific position.<br /> <br /><i>to make absurd declarations like that what Randi does isn't science but merely "demonstrations."</i> <br /><br />That was my argument, and I explained why. You haven't responded with any substance or even indication that you understand.<br /><br /><i>So intent are they to hold onto the bald assertion that supernatural entities</i> <br /><br />Name the specific entity-notions you're referring to. <br /><br /><i>are undefinable</i> <br /><br />Gods are undefined.<br /><br /><i>and untestable</i> <br /><br />Because undefined.<br /><br /><i>that they are forced to ignore actual instances of such tests.</i> <br /><br />There can't be tests of gods, and you're blending distinct arguments here. (And it's ridiculous to claim something as a test merely on the basis of someone calling it one.)SChttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01328512370690763252noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-417475152705096483.post-81973670797789477132010-11-08T22:57:48.159-05:002010-11-08T22:57:48.159-05:00"NOTHING in any of those five steps excludes ...<i>"NOTHING in any of those five steps excludes on principle, a priori, any "supernatural cause".</i><br /><br />For the nth time, "gods" are not a hypothesis or scientific cause. Undefined invented notions can't be. Nor can they be tested. Of course they're excluded. ("Supernatural" is a red herring.)<br /><br /><i>Using this method, one is entirely free to invoke as many non-material pixies, ghosts, goddesses, demons, devils, djinis, and/or the Great Pumpkin, as many times as you like, in any or all of your hypotheses.</i> <br /><br />No one isn't, because hypothesis require defined concepts. Science does not invoke, but defines clearly and explicitly. <br /><br /><i>And science won't (and doesn't) object to that in the slightest.</i> <br /><br />As I've said, to the extent that it doesn't, it should, and must. That's the whole argument people have been having on some of those threads you've not read. <br /><br /><i>Indeed, scientific experiments have been proposed (and carried out and published) on such "supernatural causes" as the effects of prayer on healing, as well as such "non-materialistic" or "non-natural" causes as ESP, telekinesis, precognition and "remote viewing."</i><br /><br />Experiments (in some circumstances) and demonstrations called experiments (in others) have been carried out on observable phenomena. None of them were experiments on undefined notions like gods. If you weren't such a dolt, you would read the arguments on the threads I linked to and engage with them.SChttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01328512370690763252noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-417475152705096483.post-72710137346933390102010-11-08T22:33:51.686-05:002010-11-08T22:33:51.686-05:00Time to invoke Lenny Flank (sadly his website no l...Time to invoke Lenny Flank (sadly his website no longer appears available so excuse the cut-n-paste:)<br /><br />"The scientific method is very simple, and consists of five basic steps. They are:<br /><br />"1. Observe some aspect of the universe<br /><br />"2. Form a hypothesis that potentially explains what you have observed<br /><br />"3. Make testible predictions from that hypothesis<br /><br />"4. Make observations or experiments that can test those predictions<br /><br />"5. Modify your hypothesis until it is in accord with all observations and predictions<br /><br />"NOTHING in any of those five steps excludes on principle, a priori, any "supernatural cause". Using this method, one is entirely free to invoke as many non-material pixies, ghosts, goddesses, demons, devils, djinis, and/or the Great Pumpkin, as many times as you like, in any or all of your hypotheses. And science won't (and doesn't) object to that in the slightest. Indeed, scientific experiments have been proposed (and carried out and published) on such "supernatural causes" as the effects of prayer on healing, as well as such "non-materialistic" or "non-natural" causes as ESP, telekinesis, precognition and "remote viewing."<br /><br /><br /><br />Indeed, James Randi has been performing just such scientific tests on supernatural claims for decades. When confronted with this information over on Pharyngula, the evidence-doesn't-matter crowd were forced to make absurd declarations like that what Randi does isn't science but merely "demonstrations." So intent are they to hold onto the bald assertion that supernatural entities are undefinable and untestable that they are forced to ignore actual instances of such tests. <br /><br />George K., good luck getting through to SC, but I suspect it's a fruitless cause. I've certainly wasted too much time here. You can only warn someone they're about to walk over a cliff so many times before you have to shrug you're shoulders and let them.Mia Boondyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16670093005696694252noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-417475152705096483.post-46064365239101911692010-11-08T22:20:05.456-05:002010-11-08T22:20:05.456-05:00SC, you are micro-parsing and quote-mining. What I...SC, you are micro-parsing and quote-mining. What I said was,<br /><br /><i>...makes no difference as long as the last one is fulfilled, "How does it operate?", <b>if by that you mean there are testable hypotheses which can be made.</b></i><br /><br />You did not use my meaning of "operate", so to keep things rolling I just went with what you said. Obviously neither of our points hinge on the word "operate". Whatever you call it, I only care about <em>testable hypotheses</em>, and these do not require a "mechanism".<br /><br />Just think about how science is actually done. We discover some phenomenon, and it passes our preliminary hypotheses, but we're still not sure what is happening. Discovering an underlying mechanism comes <em>later</em>, or it may never come at all.<br /><br />Your point of view is exactly the reverse of how science operates. With 20/20 hindsight, you declare that all scientific theories must come to us fully-formed with well-defined entities and mechanisms. No, it doesn't work that way. We fumble, we bumble, we test ideas without quite understanding what is going on. But with enough work, we finally understand to a useful degree.<br /><br />According to your reasoning, had Maxwell shown you his new equations describing EM waves, you would have dismissed his proposal because it doesn't have a "mechanism". This is actually understandable if you try to imagine how "magic" these new invisible waves must have seemed.<br /><br />Fortunately, Maxwell already thought of your objection. He shows you his voluminous work with diagrams of vortices of circulating thingamabobs. "Great!" you respond, "Let's test tests these equations, then!"<br /><br />See the problem?<br /><br />(You don't need to understand EM waves here; all you need to know is that the aether explanation was unnecessary.)George Khttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10612100259150592077noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-417475152705096483.post-55974144253790500072010-11-08T21:25:49.800-05:002010-11-08T21:25:49.800-05:00Did you read my post? The whole point was that it ...<i>Did you read my post? The whole point was that it doesn't matter how the deity operates.</i> <br /><br />Did you? You said: "Your criteria, "What is it? Of what does it consist?" makes no difference as long as the last one is fulfilled, "How does it operate?" This was confused, but it was what you said.<br /><br /><i>The only thing that matters is a testable hypothesis.</i> <br /><br />And deities are not this and lack this. A hupothesis requires defined entities/processes.<br /><br /><i>As in my example of the aether, it doesn't matter how electromagnetic waves work (as in the aether explanation) as long as we have something to test (Maxwell's equations).</i> <br /><br />Look, I don't know enough about the history of the notion of the aether to discuss it competently. But it couldn't be tested for unless it was defined. Like dark matter, it was either a fictional notion or it wasn't. Has no bearing on my arguments about the possibility of evidence for fictional entities - it's a matter of categorization.<br /><br /><i>It doesn't matter how prayer works (deities, voodoo, invisible clowns), as long as we have something to test (double-blind controlled experiments with hospital patients).</i> <br /><br />As I said, I have discussed this at great length. We can observe correlations between phenomena (actions and thought patterns, theoretically, and healing). We wouldn't know the mechanism, and would have to investigate, but a deity, as an undefined notion, isn't a meaningful explanation or mechanism. "Tests" of such relationships are not tests of any deity. They can't be, because deities are not defined. (In the contemporary context, as I've argued, "prayer works" is not a hypothesis by any stretch of the imagination, but that's a side issue in this context.)<br /><br />Do you realize that you're arguing against yourself here?SChttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01328512370690763252noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-417475152705096483.post-46967128975573096432010-11-08T20:17:03.037-05:002010-11-08T20:17:03.037-05:00But go ahead: define how a deity operates.
Did yo...<i>But go ahead: define how a deity operates.</i><br /><br />Did you read my post? The whole point was that it doesn't matter how the deity operates. The <em>only</em> thing that matters is a testable hypothesis. As in my example of the aether, it doesn't matter how electromagnetic waves work (as in the aether explanation) as long as we have something to test (Maxwell's equations). It doesn't matter how prayer works (deities, voodoo, invisible clowns), as long as we have something to test (double-blind controlled experiments with hospital patients).George Khttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10612100259150592077noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-417475152705096483.post-90336404230239096642010-11-08T20:06:29.439-05:002010-11-08T20:06:29.439-05:00What kind of blog are you running here? We have to...<i>What kind of blog are you running here? We have to go read your comments on Pharyngula to get your point?</i> <br /><br />I guess so. Honestly, I didn't think it was as difficult of a point to get as it's turning out to be. But when I note that I've been debating the topic for several days and link to the threads where that happened <i>in the original post</i>, it's rather bad form to comment with the same arguments that have been discussed at length on those threads. I'm not interested in repeating the same discussions over and over or in having them simultaneously.<br /><br /><i>I think I'll pass.</i> <br /><br />Happy trails.SChttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01328512370690763252noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-417475152705096483.post-52260602994329530292010-11-08T20:01:00.537-05:002010-11-08T20:01:00.537-05:00Your criteria, "What is it? Of what does it c...<i>Your criteria, "What is it? Of what does it consist?" makes no difference as long as the last one is fulfilled, "How does it operate?", if by that you mean there are testable hypotheses which can be made.</i><br /><br />Yes, they do make a difference, because the questions are inextricably linked. But go ahead: define how a deity operates. <br /><br />By the way, I've commented (#54) at Sean Carrolls' blog re dark matter:<br /><br />http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2010/11/01/is-dark-matter-supernatural/<br /><br /><i>Every single physical law we have was once "merely a product of the human imagination".</i> <br /><br />No. Not "merely." That's the difference between fictional and non-.<br /><br /><i>As it stands, your argument is circular because it presupposes that certain notions are necessarily fictional and without evidence. But you don't know that; nobody knows that.</i><br /><br />Another person misunderstanding what I mean by fictional.<br /><br /><i>Consider the experiments in prayer....</i> <br /><br />I have considered the "experiments in prayer." At great length over several comments in the <i>Pharyngula</i> threads at the links I gave.SChttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01328512370690763252noreply@blogger.com