Kay17:


No, it is detected but the assumptions become patently inadequate to properly explain the phenomena. So [size=18pt]it[/size] is not clearly predictable, reproducible etc or not at all.

McSterling:
How deluded can you be, sir? Do you really believe this piffle you typed?

sinequanon:


You are confusing the property used to identify the object with some other property which may be suspected to be "misbehaving".

In science, if the property used to identify the object is not predictable, reproducible etc. then the thing [b]is deemed not proven to exist[b]. (read carefully, it doesn't say proven not to exist, so don't try wasting time going down that blind alley

Before you can start examining the behaviour of the object, you have to identify it by a predictable, reproducible, repeatable measurement.

THEN you can talk about a model for the behaviour of the object. That model can be adequate or inadequate. Having an [size=14pt]INADEQUATE MODEL[/size] does not mean that ANY of the fundamental ASSUMPTIONS of predictability, reproducibility, repeatability and cause and effect [size=14pt]IN SCIENCE[/size] are deemed to have been breached. It only means that you do not have an adequate scientific model for the identified object.

Kay17:


Not necessarily. Especially when the interpretation of the raw data becomes untenable and renders the assumptions themselves untenable.

But provided this dispute is out of the way...

sinequanon:


The dispute is not out of the way. You can't simply gloss over the glitch in your argument. I am ok with a WHAT IF scenario, but I am not going to entertain your fallacious premise. It would be pointless, as it would lead to a suspect answer.

I think that there is a way to construct the argument that I think you are trying to express, but you are focusing instead on a lost argument, imo.

All we can do is agree to disagree.

Kay17:


I was only trying to see how far the supernatural goes. But the main question I was trying to put forward is bugged down by your persistent objections. "If science finds matter to be anti - repeatable, reproducible, etc; would it be supernatural" That question you didn't answer, rather you went down the road of scientific interpretations and its nuances. Which can take the effort of a hundred thread pages.

sinequanon:


What is bogging the debate down is your persistent attempt to ignore the CRITICAL glitch in your question.

Your WHAT IF makes no sense because, by definition of science, it can NEVER happen.

You would have been much better off admitting the glitch and cooperating to find a way to make whatever point you are trying to make. I'd cooperate with that, but I won't cooperate with spin and glossing over critical and fatal flaws just to entertain your conclusion. I think you should adopt a more honest mode of debate.

Kay17:


That's why it is a WHAT IF scenario. If the power of our imagination can allow it, what then is the conclusion. Of course it is ridiculous for matter which is the basis for materialism to become supernatural. Nonetheless I will open a full fledged thread on science and etc.

sinequanon:


That is not the point.

The FATAL FLAW in your argument is not that the scenario is ridiculous. It is because it is a contradiction in TERMS. SCIENCE, BY FUNDAMENTAL CONSTRUCTION, can never IDENTIFY something supernatural. So it can't get to the point where it needs to change its fundamental construction. IT IS KNOWN AS A CATCH 22.


Then I would have given the following thought experiment:

WHAT IF somebody found a FAIRY in their garden. Scientists came, photographed it to prove that it looked like a fairy, recorded it speaking like a human and using its wand to make things appear and disappear. WOULD SCIENCE DECLARE THE FAIRY SUPERNATURAL?


.

sinequanon:


That is not the point.

The FATAL FLAW in your argument is not that the scenario is ridiculous. It is because it is a contradiction in TERMS. SCIENCE, [b]BY FUNDAMENTAL CONSTRUCTION, can never IDENTIFY something supernatural. So it can't get to the point where it needs to change its fundamental construction. IT IS KNOWN AS A CATCH 22.[/b]

Let me tell you how I would have conducted what I think YOUR "what if" is.

First, I would have admitted HONESTLY that your initial "what if" is fatally flawed as it is a contradiction in terms.

Then I would have given the following thought experiment:

WHAT IF somebody found a [non repeatable, non reproductible etc] FAIRY in their garden. Scientists came, photographed it to prove that it looked like a fairy, recorded it speaking like a human and using its wand to make things appear and disappear. WOULD SCIENCE DECLARE THE FAIRY SUPERNATURAL?

You see the difference?

This is not a FATALLY FLAWED scenario in science, it is only deemed to be EXTREMELY IMPROBABLE.

And my answer to this WHAT IF is "NO science would not deem the fairy to be supernatural". It would simply be an amazing new discovery, and science would attempt to find "predictable, repeatable, reproducible cause and effects to explain the fairy's behaviours". Those ASSUMPTIONS of science would remain.

Kay17:


Nice example you have given here.

By your definition of supernatural, the fairy would not be supernatural if science shifts some of its assumptions to suit the circumstance, because the fairy comes under the lens of science. You said everything outside the ambit of science is supernatural without considering shifting assumptions.

Kay17:
Again your untenable definitions bring us to these conclusions. Except you want to argue it is impossible for science or anyone to shift assumptions.

Kay17:
I hope you wouldn't mind this final question from me:

What if in the Matter in an ultimate reality is not what science says it is, would it be supernatural too?!

sinequanon:


You are lumping FUNDAMENTAL ASSUMPTIONS (predictability, reproducibility, repeatability, effect has a cause) with normal assumptions made in modeling a phenomenon (e.g a type of particle expected to have spin or charge).



The FUNDAMENTAL ASSUMPTIONS OF SCIENCE are FIXED. Conflating them with ordinary assumptions in modeling doesn't alter the fact. It just obscures it.



Matter isn't what science says it is, right now. Scientists admit this. They have a working hypothesis, but incorrect model of matter which they hope to improve.

And, no, science doesn't and cannot say it has found something supernatural. It would be a contradiction in terms.

Kay17:


It is then your opinion that fundamental assumptions of science are invariably fixed, not mine. Earlier in previous threads, you have admitted that the practitioners of science can if they see it fit, to develop and alter science in whatever manner they wish. I disagreed with you in that respect, yet right now, you are taking a different position from the one you took previously.

Kay17:
Sinequanon

Since we have exhausted that line

sinequanon:


Meaning that you could not back up your last post with quotes of what I actually said.

I don't like your evasion, dishonesty and mode of debate.

To me, it smacks of agenda, rather than genuine inquiry. So why bother?

Kay17:


That's hardwork, except you deny making such statements, I'd be compelled to provide your posts that said so.

sinequanon:


I never said such statements.

So, go and provide the posts.

Don't confuse it with scientists retrospectively calling things science.

sinequanon: Both are about control. It is a fundamental principle in science that you only investigate what you can potentially predict, nail down and control. Science also deems anything that cannot potentially be controlled as non-existent. Of what use, scientists ask rhetorically, would such knowledge be?

sinequanon:

Authorities in science define what science is. Even if the authority becomes corrupt, it still defines what science is. Corruption is implicitly acknowledged in the methodology. So when top scientists defend science from its outcomes, that is the voice of science. Scientists developed science, and it is "validly" theirs to define and speak for.

Kay17:
What if these bureaucratic scientists turn their focus and search for metaphysical entities, would that still be science?

sinequanon:
That is not possible. A metaphysical entity is one that scientists have deemed inscrutable by science.

Kay17:
The ultimate question: who are scientists?

sinequanon: They are a group of people who have established themselves under a mission statement ( currently one of materialism) and have sold it to layfolk as the holy grail of civilization.

sinequanon: Both are about control. It is a fundamental principle in science that you only investigate what you can potentially predict, nail down and control. Science also deems anything that cannot potentially be controlled as non-existent. Of what use, scientists ask rhetorically, would such knowledge be?

PastorAIO:


This would make Darwin's theory of Evolution non-science. It is impossible for the theory to verified, or for any scientist to make predictions on the basis of the theory.

sinequanon:


Scientific verification is not as stringent as requiring first hand observation in all cases, particularly in fields like biology and cosmology, where you are dealing with past events. You are allowed to make inferences. I still think the "theory" is only an hypothesis, however.

I don't see any problem with predictions. Parts of the theory could already be considered to have some predictive content, especially in the fields of archaeology and genealogy -- predicting existence and distribution of intermediate forms. I also don't see why the theory should not be held to test in the laboratory to demonstrate how "fitness" is not a retrospective catchall.

demonstrate how "fitness" is not a retrospective catchall.

PastorAIO:
The issue would require not just the prediction of intermediate forms but a more accurate prediction based on the environment of the time and a demonstration of how adaptation to the environment would bring about certain features in the species.

PastorAIO:
The main bone of contention for me lies in the matter of whether or not there is intention in the evolutionary process.

sinequanon:


Scientists are defining what their scientific standards are in the field of evolution. It will undoubtedly continue to involve a lot of (an humongous amount of) speculation, extrapolation and interpolation. I can't see those standards convincing me, but they are not my standards. That is why I stressed "scientific verification" and not simply "verification".

So, what scientists are currently calling "overwhelming evidence" for ToE is overwhelming for them and their believers and followers. For me, they have barely scratched the surface.




I even go further and say that, at some level, intention is evident, otherwise the burden of reducibility of complexity is substantially increased.

In the absence of intention, in parallel with every chance advantageous mutation, there would have to be other mutations that support the original one. For example, a very rudimentary eye (capable say of beginning to distinguish light from shade) could not partake in "survival of the fittest" without a host of concomitant mutations that support a motor response to the light sensitivity. The probability of all such mutations concurring ups the improbability of events by enormous orders of magnitude.

Dapo777:


Do you know the problem of irreducible complexity has been dealt with in So many books. Man I would advice you to read the GOD delusion by Dawkins, what you think is a new groundbreaking argument has been death with,

Weah96:
Atheism has zilch and squat to do with the theory of evolution.

An atheist is someone who realizes that personal Gods, as taught by religious organizations of all kinds, do not exist. Finding an alternative to creationism is an arbitrary choice.

The majority of atheists who don't study science may choose to believe that evolution explains it better than ANY existing theory. I agree.

It's even possible to believe in intelligent design, without ascribing that process to a personal God.
So I don't understand why evolution always comes up in threads about atheism. They are not mutually inclusive arguments

A person who thinks that personal Gods don't exist, and evolution doesn't make sense, has to find his own paradigm that works for him. I see absolutely nothing wrong with that. But such a person shouldn't go around trying to argue things about evolution only to "leave it at that" later.

An atheist is someone who realizes that personal Gods, as taught by religious organizations of all kinds, do not exist. Finding an alternative to creationism is an arbitrary choice.

sinequanon:
[b]
The current trick scientists [/b]are using to try to dismiss 2. is to lump it with 3. --- Show us the intelligent designer --> dismiss 3 --> dismiss 2 which we have lumped with 3. When you see scientists conspiring to pull stunts like that, their entire field comes under question, and those who believe them are doing so as a religion.

PastorAIO:
I agree with you in most part. Atheism is so broad and many fellow atheists are not fellows at all when you consider the basis of their atheism.

PastorAIO:


Are you being fair when you say 'the current trick scientists ...'? I think you are referring to Atheists, and if scientists then Atheist Scientists. There are many scientists that are in fact religious.