I have to admit, even now I a really good magic trick triggers that tiny bit in my mind say "He's a wizard! He's a wizard!!" Chris Angel has done that once or twice, lol. Still, even when I was a theist, I didn't really buy into stage magic. I had a magic kit growing up, so I knew that things could fool you.
I'm assuming they don't believe UFOs are real? Have they done the research in order to apply their critical thinking skills? I understand needs must to be a critical thinker but you can't discount everything. If you get caught up being skeptical of everything you doctrine yourself to find reasons to discredit things.
@monsieurkarl Okay, well there's a difference between skeptical and being blindly disbelieving. Skeptical means you're not going to you're not going to believe something without a reason to do so. If you can demonstrate to a skeptic that something is true, then by golly, you'll make a believer out of them.
@courtlandmcdaniel Yeah, I got caught up in the common saying "make a believer out of me" and didn't stop to think that it's acceptance when something is proven to be true.
i think at the end there where they talk about lucky charms, kind of shines a light on what religious people really go for. the placebo effect of focusing one's attention on the fact that they have something that will make 'everything ok' or provide some sort of assistance.
i mean seroiusly, pilots, who like the guy said, can face missiles up their ass and require great deals of concentration are under a lot of stress. let them have their fuckin lucky charms. if it calms them down so be it.
The difference is that when you know you can be fooled you can discipline yourself to prevent it. If you don't know that you can be fooled, well then you get fooled.
@ricardas83 I've always thought of "ignorance is bliss" as a statement of how people get screwed and don't know it, not so much as a motto to live by.
You're right, thought. Either way, self destructive.
tbh declaring that one side is wrong because humans are easily fooled actually declares both or all parties out of the debate... poor argument for anything
Humans are easily fooled when they are predisposed for it. Skeptical thinking is precisely a tool to reduce the chances you get fooled. If you put an apple on the corner of a table, its very likely to fall if the table suffers some sudden movement. However, if you put the apple away from the corner, the chances it will fall from sudden movements on the table decrease. I hope i'm making my point clear with that example.
yes i totally agree... what i was trying to say was Person A cant say all humans are easily fooled therefore Person B is wrong.. by declaring all Humans are easily fooled it also includes person A (who is stating it) hence it doesnt really argue a point for either side.. its detrimental to both Person As and Bs arguement...
However you are correct "Humans are easily fooled when they are predisposed for it." but that depends entirely in emotional intelligence. Trust is an important factor in getting fooled. Too much is detrimental (only when another person takes advantage of the trust) but not enough trust is detrimental (because others wont trust you)
High emotional intelligence can reduce being fooled dramatically (ie knowing who to trust)
a girl i know actually believes chris angel has real supernatural magical powers. she stubbornly believs it and will take no evidence into consiederation that says otherwise. my hardcore christian buddy thinks she is a complete fool saying,"how could anybody believe something when there is no evidence to support it and there's even evidence against it?" kind of ironic, don't ya think?
I do have to comment on your title Being a skeptic mean that you are not really sure about a subject but logic by Ayn Rand def is the uncontridictary law of indentfication.
When I had a dream a week before one of the worst plane crashes in history, of the crash, saw a headline in my dream that mentioned the crash and two people from my hometown dying in the crash, then a week later, it happens, just as in my dream, what do you call it?
I'd say prove it. If you can't, your statement remains uncompelling. Human memory, especially regarding dreams is not a reliable source. If what you say is true, it will profoundly effect our understanding of the universe.
"When I had a dream a week before one of the worst plane crashes in history, of the crash, saw a headline in my dream that mentioned the crash and two people from my hometown dying in the crash, then a week later, it happens, just as in my dream, what do you call it?"
I HAD proof. It happened in high school. I was keeping a dream diary. Six days after I dreamed and logged the crash, i was sitting at a table with the newspaper and my diary side by side. Along with most of my chilhood posessions, I don't have that diary anymore. I know, I know. No proof, then we're back to square one. And yes, you're right. At least my entire life has been profoundly effected by what happened. I know, sometimes, somehow, future events can be detected before they happen.
Some questions: Is this the only prophetic dream you've had? Did the newspaper publish a story about you? Would that story be available somewhere? If you really had solid evidence for a prophetic dream did you think of pursuing the matter further? Such as approaching people other then journalists?
Why were you keeping a dream log before you knew of your power of prophetic dreams?
What happened to the Diary? If it profoundly effected your life you'd take good care of it right? ;)
If you knew you couldn't back up your claim why make the original post? Did you expect people to just accept your a prophetic on your word alone? :P Sorry about being such a skeptic, don't take it personally. :)
walter:no i had another...I didn't tell anybody....yes 'ive pursued it further.....no i don't talk about it much....i was keeping a dream log as an "experiment", suggested in a book about dreams.....i don't know what happened to it...it's affected my life more as an adult, than when it happened.....
Being able to see the future is big claim and I'm willing to look at this with an open mind. But for that too happen your going to have to provide more detail, and be willing to have a more rigorous and serious conversation about it.
I am available through the PM system here at Youtube. (the character limit on video comments can be really constraining)
But see, as much as I'm convinced that magic done without the aid of technology of science--indeed, feats which BREAK the rules of science--are impossible...there is always that chance that I may be shown wrong.
See, being a skeptic is NOT the same as being a nay-sayer. Being a skeptic means that you demand evidence BEFORE believing.
So I cannot in good conscience explicitly state that there IS NO MAGIC...only that it seems deeply unlikely given the evidnece
I have to say...Matt's rejection of the concept of 'real magic' bothers me a little.
I've never seen evidence to suggest that there is such a thing...but that doesn't deter me from discussing it as a hypothetical.
Granted, the definition of 'real magic' is a sticky one since many people like to dredge out the "sufficiently advanced technology" argument to claim that all magic is just science which hasn't been understood.
But, it's just as knee-jerk to REFUSE TO CONSIDER the supernatural.
"knee-jerk to REFUSE TO CONSIDER the supernatural"
I can refuse to consider the invisible sky pink unicorn or leprechauns the same way I can refuse to consider the supernatural. They all have one thing in common: they have never been proven to exist.
The skeptic would say, "I consider the supernatural a non-issue PENDING EVIDENCE of its existence."
See the difference? "No, that doesn't exist; it's not proved," versus, "That probably doesn't exist; opinion to be amended pending new evidence." The latter is how a true skeptic thinks.
I can say that an invisible pink unicorn doesn't exist in all practical sense, but in no way I have to say that I consider its existence because there is a possibility that it exists in some shape or form at some point and time in the universe. This is not how we normally shape our belief.
The problem with supernatural claims is the fact that they have never been substantiated, and to consider all billions of claims out there is simply ridiculous. Skeptic is a practical nay-sayer.
But a good skeptic cannot make assumptions about existence; the true skeptic demands evidence of claims. Even a ridiculous claim may turn out to be true if the claimant has evidence for it; demand proof. It may not be forthcoming, but you can't assume it won't be.
-regardless of whether or not it's been proven to exist, the null hypothesis goes that it does not exist until it is proven to exist.
-In fact, I can make claims about anything including supernatural. However, simply making a claim doesn't amount to being substantiated sufficiently enough to consider it's existence
-Our belief is shaped by what we learn and what we experience. In practical sense, no way we consider anything's existence until (Cont)
has been substantiated in our minds. If I claim that a giant space duck is hiding behind Jupiter from our view, no way you start out by considering its existence and demanding more evidence for it. It's innocent until proven guilty. Our default position goes that it doesn't exist until proven.
It's the most unbiased approach to forming our belief. What you just suggested was to presume (or consider) it's existence first. It's highly impractical and biased at best.
I suggest you to study the philosophy of ontology. What you just suggested is not how we form our belief. For example, I'm going to claim that there is a giant space duck hiding behind Jupiter. Your first response would be to ask what evidence I can present to support my claim.
We say that it doesn't exist until proven because it's impossible to disprove a supernatural claim. So the default has to be nonexistence. The burden of proof is on those making those claims.
Perhaps you are not familiar with scientific method.
Any inquiry starts out with a null hypothesis that it doesn't exist. Study requires direction or goal. Saying that it requires further study is a directionless and thus unproductive method of study.
A hypothesis is when one makes a theoretical/ educated guess at what the answer/ outcome to their inquiry would be and then produces and conducts an experiment to prove or disprove their hypothesis. The results are the new theory/ conclusion
First of all, scientists never design their experiments in order to prove their hypothesis. You have to set up an experiment to pick up any flaws in your hypothesis, and continue/repeat the process until you find the most sound hypothesis that explains the observed phenomenon.
Second of all, null hypothesis is what you start out with during the process of inquiry.
I said prove OR disprove their hypothesis, which means to find supporting evidence OR flaws. And yes, the process is then repeated to find better and better evidence, answers and theories/ perspectives that explain reality/ truth. These experiments and refining process may also generate better inquiries.
I think I see your point about starting with a null hypothesis. Basically, all starting theories are neutral and it's only the supporting evidence or lack thereof that gives a theory credence
I said NEVER prove your hypothesis. If you are a scientist and try to design an experiment trying to prove your hypothesis, then your method is flawed. Anyone can argue and cave around whatever evidence you gathered to support just about every hypothesis. The trick is to repeat scientific procedure until you find a hypothesis that doesn't seem to have any contradictory evidence. I suggest you watch potholer54 "scientific method made easy series"
YES, the burden of proof is on those making the claims.
HOWEVER, this does not justify taking a negative position against their case. As a skeptic, the proper course is to take a NULL position until evidence points one way or the other.
THAT'S the point I've been trying to make all along.
I disagree. When you're dealing with the probability of something being true, like God, as he's defined by Christians, you can safely say it's not true.
A God that can do anything/everything can't exist because he couldn't make a rock that he can't lift. And if he could then he can't lift the rock, so he can't be all powerful.
They have to change the definition of God first, but until they do, I can freely say "No. Your God doesn't exist."
That's just it, though: probability is a good decision-making tool when trying to pick between two options; it's a mind-clouder when trying to decide on the truth of something.
A good skeptic will rely on the evidence, however improbable, to make their determination of the validity of a claim.
"it's a mind-clouder when trying to decide on the truth of something."
As I just explained about an "all powerful" God... the probability of an all powerful god existing that can make a stone that it can't lift is by definition a paradox and therefore impossible. Probability 0%. It's not a "mind-clouder."
I don't consider things that have 0% chance of happening... for example, there is 0% chance that a person will control the weather with their mind and it's evolutionarily impossible.
Look, I'm convinced that science is all that there is, TOO, and by that measure, people controlling weather with their minds is poppycock.
BUT, if magic IS real, then it just might be possible. And though I consider the possibility of magic's existence to be next to nil, if someone has a claim of it and they can prove it, I'll listen and critique their claim with an open-but-skeptical mind.
YOU sound as if your mind is closed to the possibility, even with evidence, and THAT'S the problem.
Look, "real" magic is impossible. Even the most powerful "tantric" from India could use the "ultimate destructive magic" to kill an atheist and he had HOURS to do so.
If you ever see a human make fire with their hands it will come from an evolutionary process where selective pressure leads humans to be able to do that. The X-men don't do magic... There's a (fictional) scientific explaination for it. If in the future it ends up to be possible via evolution, then it's not really magic, is it?
No, real magic is NOT impossible. Real magic is only impossible if science is all there is and all of existence is rational. Magic may exist in an irrational universe.
Now, I not only say but actually assert that a rational unverise seems to be the case beyond reasonable doubt...HOWEVER, I'm willing to entertain the claims of those who say otherwise, if only to dismiss them with evidence.
THAT'S BEING A TRUE SKEPTIC. Simply nay-saying improbable things is not.
"No, that doesn't exist; it's not proved," versus, "That probably doesn't exist; opinion to be amended pending new evidence."
The two statements are the same. Only the degree of arrogence and voracity against it is different. When the chance that "real" magic exists or a god exists are as small as they are, I feel completely justified saying "No, it doesn't exist. Prove it exists scientifically or shut up."
Things exist which have not been proved, proof if not a necessary condition for existence; bacteria existed long before anybody even thought of them, let alone proved they exist...yet exist they did.
Refusing to BELIEVE without proof is quite distinct from refusing to CONSIDER without proof.
skepticism doesnt mean u have to investigate every rediculous claim that comes across your desk, magic is one of those things now well understood, and everyone claiming real magic EVER has been a LIAR or a FOOL
its bs just like crystals and dowsing homeopathy and will remain as such until reliable scientific testing has confirmed it
Dismissal of a claim without contradictory evidence is indeed foolish. It may be a REASONABLE course of action given just how ridiculous the claim is, but it's still foolish to dismiss something without investigation.
I point to the concept of single-celled organisms again; we take those for granted NOW, but it would have sounded ridiculous a few hundred years ago. Imagine if no one had investigated this ridiculous claim. Imagine that.
"I point to the concept of single-celled organisms again..."
It's not a rediculous claim though. People saw that if you hung around someone else that was sick you got sick too.
If you eat bad food or the like you get sick. They didn't know why, but they knew it had something to do with the food or the person... something they couldn't see.
There's other things they can observe that lead to credibility... "real" magic and deities do not.
That's hindsight talking; going from "I got sick, then you got sick," to "There are animals which you and I cannot see because they're so small which are MAKING us sick," sounds like poppycock to anyone who hasn't grown up with microscopes.
...or like magic.
Imagine if people had heard that and went, "No, it's the magic making us sick, now leave it alone!" Where would we be?
INVESTIGATION of claims is the only way to go, even if the claims sound loopy, if only to shut up those making them.
hes not refusing to consider it. being a magician himself and investigating it he knows every bit of "magic" hes seen isnt supernatural, there are many organizations that exist to test the claims of the supernatural, so far... all have failed, if there really was anything supernatural we would have confirmed it by now it wouldnt be hard at all to do,
hes not refusing to accept it outright, he doesnt beleive it, and that will change when presented with proof, and a cool magic show doesnt qualify
I think that the rational position in the face of something appearing to be "real magic" is to assume some lack of understanding, issue of perception, advanced technology...or some other natural, and unknown explanation....and then seek to understand...rather than give any credence to a supernatural possibility which is so unlikely as to be not worth considering.
Actually, no. If it's a natural phenomenon and we have evidence to show that it is such, then it's not supernatural.
But if we cannot explain something as a natural phenomenon, you're being unfair to yourself AND your investigation if you don't at least entertain the possibility that it might be supernatural without doing the necessary investigation to rule that out.
And yet we also have to take into accounrt that the possibility of the supernatural explaination would contradict the previous (lack of)observations of the supernatural.
So it should only be used as an absolute last resort.
But most people who mention it does oddly enough seem to be looking for it.
Yes, that's true; people looking for the supernatural do seem to be the people who find it the most.
But my whole point is that this works in reverse, too; people who REFUSE to consider the supernatural will NEVER find it.
I'm trying to advocate a more neutral stance; don't look for or deny either the natural or the supernatural. Just look for an explanation at all and see where the data take you.
There are no scientific studies of the supernatural because no cases have ever been found on which to do studies.
Yes, I agree, the supernatural appears to not exist and wildly improbable. But most of you are making the leap from improbable to impossible, and THAT'S where I think you've gone wrong.
The only leap I'm willing to make is from improbably to as yet unencountered, PROBABLY non-existent. More than that is unfounded assumption.
I'm always more reasonable than people think...peoples' first reactions tend to assume my thinking is going in a direction that it is not. ;)
The proponents of ANYTHING have the burden of proof, and as skeptics it's our job to demand that proof. But saying, "No, that doesn't exist," is just as bad as saying, "Why, yes! Absolutely!" before seeing the evidence because BOTH are biased points of view.
Yes, but the original statement which I was decrying was not "IF I can't find enough evidence..." it was simply a denial of something's existence without trial. It was, "That doesn't exist UNTIL YOU PROVE IT."
I advocate a wait-and-see position, not a nay-sayer position. That was my point from the very beginning.
You say no, and then your next sentence agrees with my question almost verbatim.
There is no rationale for considering the supernatural at all....it is beyond investigation, by definition.
If we entertain the possibility of the supernatural in some philosophical sense...OK...but that is not anything which can be tested, so it gets us nowhere to do so.
The best that you can ever say is that we have an unexplained, natural event.
No, I'm not talking in circles, I'm being specific; you cannot mean what you say if you don't say what you mean.
And, no: the supernatural is ONLY beyond investigation if it never interacts with the natural world. Finding a VIOLATION of natural law--something irrational--for which no natural explanation can be found is a damn good case for the phenomenon being supernatural and worth investigating.
Of course this assumes we can find and measure EVERYTHING to know the event isn't natural...
No, sorry...that only proves your case in an absolutist, 100% certainty sense; there's no 100% certainty about ANYTHING. None. No, not even that. We can have 99.9% certainty, with an infinite number of 9s in that decimal place, but never 100%. Ever.
If we discover something which is both irrational AND violates known natural law, we have a pretty good case for it being at least POTENTIALLY supernatural. No such thing has ever been found, but you can't 100% rule it out, either.
I agree with you that we can never know anything 100%, and that is exactly what is required before we could say that we have eliminated any potential natural explanation.
If we discover something that is both irrational and violates known natural law, then we have a very good case that our understanding of the universe is flawed and incomplete.
This does not suggest a supernatural explanation even in the slightest. I don't have to rule it out any more than I need to rule out pixies.
See, I'm sorry, but NO...your position is still biased: "After we've eliminated all natural explanations, only THEN can we start looking at supernatural possibilities...I guess..."
You are starting from a default position which is biased in favor of a specific kind of conclusion, and that is EXACTLY what I'm finding fault with.
All positions are biased. I try to keep my biases grounded in evidence where possible.
My position would be more accurately decsribed as....since we cannot possibly eliminate all potential natural explanations, and since our understanding of the universe is at best, approximate....there is no use even considering the supernatural as an explanation. Nature is big enough to work with.
Pleading for the supernatural stops investigation dead in its tracks.
But nobody IS pleading for the supernatural nor does it stop investigation unless it is declared by fiat to BE the supernatural.
Even if all positions are biased, it's best to try to eliminate your biases as best you can, rather than give in to them as, I'm sorry, you have.
An unbiased position would be, "I don't know what this is; let's see where investigation leads us." That's as close to having no preconceived notions as possible.
I agree with the last paragraph. However, how does one distinguish between an unexplained, even unexplainable natural phenomenon, and a supernatural one?
I'm not sure I can answer that in 500 characters or less, especially not with the amount of rum I've got in me from clubbing tonight...
But basically, one gathers evidence. If the evidence seems to indicate a process, but the process seems wildly improbable or even in violation of known physics, chances are you've got something supernatural on your hands.
Things is, everything ever considered supernatural has since been explained by science; the supernatural is probably nonexistent.
So far, all things considered supernatural have been found to have natural causes, this is true.
HOWEVER, that does not mean that "supernatural" is simply another word for "unknown".
Supernatural, as a concept, still means "outside of nature". That we have never FOUND anything which is outside of nature suggests very strongly, BUT DOES NOT PROVE, that there is nothing supernatural.
But the supernatural is NOT a perspective issue as you're trying to suggest.
So far? In what possible circumstance could you consider something to be supernatural, unkown, and knowable at the same time?
The concept of supernatural fits well with typical religious rhetoric, it can be equivocated with lots of other meanings when it suits.
The supernatural is either an unkown or an unfalsifiable concept/action that is not reproducible. There's a reason any supernatural explanation is rejected, it furthers no understanding or knowledge whatsoever.
Suffice to say that if something violated the natural order in such a way that, though it may be consistent, were completely irrational, it's likely to be supernatural, magic.
Something that defies scientific explanation, like combining two non-reactive things and producing an unrelated effect, which reaction science simply cannot account for.
ARE there such things? I highly, highly doubt it. But I can't 100% say no, and I try to stay open-minded.
Well of course you have to be open minded. No intellectually honest scientist would ignore such an event.
I'm not saying such things are impossible, on the contrary, if they occur, they HAVE to be accounted for, not simply ignored. It's amazing how any supernatural event dissipates under controlled conditions though, instead of the typical urban legends that would have you believe otherwise.
Oh, yes, absolutely; I don't think there's been a single case of controlled conditions NOT revealing a previously-suspected supernatural process to be entirely natural or the result of trickery.
But I'm just advocating not allowing the sheer volume of debunked claims to bias one's assumptions. That's as bad as having religious faith, only in the other direction; both are biases best avoided.
I don't think that's necessarily the case. Remember the day and age we live in and that extraordanary claims require extraordanary evidence to back them up.
Today I see something in the news every day that would have been considered magic centuries/decades ago. Researches discover new materials with interesting qualities every day; if they had to strictly follow grounded chemical theories, they would never have bothered combining them in the first place.
You were talking about debunking effecting people's biases and I was just trying to say that I don't really believe it does in a large part of the human endeavour to research and develop new technologies. It would be counterproductive to be so biased.
No...I didn't say it was DEBUNKING that affects peoples' biases, I said that automatic nay-saying of supernatural claims does.
Granted, most debunking is done to disprove; a more neutral term would be "investigate" or "quantify". Neither of those things produces a bias.
I'm just against automatically saying, "No, it can't be thing, and we'll only check to see if it is when all else is exhausted", as opposed to investigating with an OPEN mind.
Given your last sentence, it seems to me that the chances of finding a process driven by supernatural entities is really, really small.
It seems far more likely, given the history of human investigation of the universe; that what we would have is an indication that our understanding is flawed or limited in some fundamental way.
This is precisely why it is rational and reasonable to assume a naturalistic explanation, and conduct investigations on that basis.
That's funny....your previous posts indicated that you would think it likely that the supernatural would exist under certain circumstances.
Let's see....we have literally millions, and millions of scientific experiments which confirm that everything that we know is explanable by natural processes....we have no verifiable occurances of even a single supernatural event....none at all.
It is irrational to even consider the possibility of a supernatural event.
Yes, there are certain circumstances under which I'd consider the existence of the supernatural likely; those circumstances have NEVER come up.
But, no, it is STILL not irrational to consider the possibility of a supernatural event.
It is irrational to consider a supernatural event to be LIKELY. But it is also irrational to bias and close off parts of one's mind and not considering a possibility when investigating a claim. THAT is as dogmatic as clinging to faith in the face of counter-fact.
It still seems like you're trying to draw a line where there is none. Under your own definition you defined the supernatural system as having rules. Those rules, under a scientific perspective, could simply be looked at as natural to that system, and the way in which the supernatural system and our system interact as a higher level of rules governing there interaction. I see no reason to close our minds to any possibility but I find it horrid to dismiss something as completely unexplainable.
If there are two different systems, is that not a distinction by the very definition of the word?
Yes, I'm saying that supernatural/nature would be a matter of perspective--which system do you belong to, which to you is natural?--if this hypothetical were the case.
I don't think that's unreasonable, in theory; don't for a moment think that I'm proposing this as a view of what really exists!
While in some philosophical sense, the supernatural may exist; it is not something that we need to worry about, or even consider when conducting scientific investigation.
It is not possible to distinguish between an event of unexplained natural causation and one of [also unexplained] supernatuiral causation.
We have no examples of a supernatural causation, and literally millions upon millions of explained events of natural causation.
I still say that to bias one's thinking when collating data and considering evidence is a mistake, regardless of which direction one's bias points. Doing so is the first step to drawing an incorrect conclusion.
When collating and considering evidence of processes in the natural universe, it is no bias at all to consider only natural explanations for said processes.
To consider anything else is to give up on actually looking for any explanation at all.
Of course it's a bias; the instant you tell yourself that you're ONLY going to consider possibilities from any one particular position, you're introducing a bias. There's no getting around that.
And IF the supernatural exists and IF whatever you're investigating has been affected by it, you'll never know it to be able to investigate it if you're only willing to consider natural explanations. The same goes in reverse for solely considering supernatural possibilities. Either one is limiting.
I guess that you are correct, however...since we are natural creatures, living in the natural universe, and we have no access to any aspect of any possible supernatural at all.
That's by definition by the way. If we can detect it, it's no longer supernatural.
The best that we can do is look for natural explanations. Any causality outside of our universe is beyond our investigation and would remain unexplained or speculative.
I have to disagree; simply detecting something doesn't make it natural.
If it violates--perhaps even contradicts--the natural processes of out universe, then it is, by definition supernatural. Chances are that we could detect it, even if only my inference from how it affects our universe. It would have to intrude upon us from outside our universe; your definition excludes the possibility of something coming here from outside.
This is all speculation; I've never heard of a real event like this.
Well, then no...we agree on the definition of the supernatural. The thing is, if the supernatural cannot intrude upon our world--or us upon its world--its existence is a completely moot point, and any discussion of it is similarly pointless, so we really have to proceed on that basis.
Of course, the supernatural may not exist at all; in fact, don't think it does. But I'm willing to consider it when investigating the truth of a new discovery or event, even if only to discard it.
Of COURSE it's worth considering, even if only to reject it.
IF the supernatural exists and IF it intrudes upon our world and IF we happen to witness it, we have to be open-minded enough--self honest enough--to admit that our previously-held worldview may need to be questioned, lest we delude ourselves to inconvenient fact.
We demand no less of religious people when debunking their mystical claims; it's hardly fair to claim that we ourselves are entirely immune to having our worldviews shaken.
I am all for having my worldview shaken on the basis of evidence and experiment. If there is ever evidence that something has intruded into our universe, that will be a very interesting day.
Oh...and your comment to another poster about the natural universe acting rational at its most basic levels is completely and utterly false.
If someone can demonstrate through evidence and experiment that the event in question is a supernatural one....I'd accept that. Problem is, I have no idea how one would ever conduct such a test to distinguish between supernatural, and just plain unexplained.
And if by "rational" you mean predictable or consistent....then I'd agree....rational is not a description that I think can be applied to the universe at all.
And that's exactly how you'd determine that something is supernatural rather than natural: it behaves in irrational ways, where cause may still produce an effect...but an effect that shouldn't BE produced by that particular cause.
Granted, that standard has failed before--look up "spontaneous generation" for a damn good example--but that's WHY we do experiments...
So...we are back to saying that conducting an experiment and getting unexpected results may be reason to consider the supernatural.
Experiments yield unexpected results all the time. This is how science advances.
The history of science has shown in every case so far.....millions of times....that it is our understanding of nature which needs to be modified....the consideration of supernatural causes has yielded no results ever....ever.
Millions...to zero...it's not rational to consider.
Not merely unexpected results...patently ABSURD results. But, frankly, at this point I think your object is disingenuous; I think you know perfectly well what I'm getting at, you're just being obstinate, deliberately obtuse.
And, yes...it IS rational to consider; it's just not rational to EXPECT.
Well, that'll do...but I was thinking of something more traditionally magical/fantastical. Something involving eye of newt, if only in spirit. THAT kinna magic.
I'll take gravity shutting off, tho, assuming every scientific principle says there SHOULD be gravity in that spot, or acting upon that object.
Of course you would...because your thinking is biased.
I, on the other hand, would be looking for the person who did it--if, indeed, a person did it at all--and would critically examine their methods to determine the cause with absolutely NO bias whatsoever.
See the difference there? You're already presupposing your data, and that's bad scientific investigation.
There's a difference between USING previously-held knowledge during your investigation and pre-supposing the nature of your conclusion. You've been doing the latter, which is what I'm arguing against.
An hypothesis is a guess, educated no doubt, but a pre-supposed guess about the nature of the explanation which is based on previously tested knowledge.
The hypothesis then gets put to the test. It survives the test, or it does not.
There has never been any evidence at all to support the existence of the supernatural. I do not know if human knowledge is yet complete enough to be able to make the distinction between "I don't know what that is" and "It's likely to be supernatural"
See, the problem is that YOU are leaping from "I don't know what that is," immediately to "There's no way it's supernatural," even before you do ANY investigation or testing.
I don't CARE how much previous evidence there is or isn't regarding the supernatural; if you're not going in with an open mind that gets narrowed ONLY as facts come in through your investigation, YOU'RE DOING IT WRONG.
How many times are you going to make me say the same exact thing in different ways till it sinks in?
I have been saying that I do not know, in principle, how one would determine the difference between a natural event that we do not understand; perhaps are incapable of understanding...and a supernatural event.
And, if it is not possible to make the distinction, it is more productive to continue to investigate on the basis of the former and not the latter.
How many times do I have to keep saying that before it sinks in.
But see, that's EXACTLY where the leap is: deciding one is more productive than the other. That can ONLY be determined by first investigating and finding out what you're dealing with FIRST.
Just because you can't make a distinction between a natural event we do not understand and the supernatural does not mean discarding one in favor of that other. That's EXTREMELY BAD SCIENCE.
When the answer is, "I don't know," the proper position to take is, "...so let's find out," NOT making an assumption.
That's not the point. The point is that you are rejecting--even BEFORE you start gathering data and assembling it into a model--that the supernatural WILL NOT BE--even CAN NOT BE--a part of it.
That's presupposing your data, that's biased thinking. You're putting the cart before the horse, you're making assumptions about what the results of investigation will show.
And THAT'S bad science, and that's what I'm objecting to. This conversation began because I objected to a biased starting point.
If it cannot be modeled and tested in experiment, then you have nothing. If the supernatural can be modeled and tested, then it's part of science. If not, then it's not part of science.
I pre-suppose no data...data is data. It's the gathered facts. There is nothing to pre-suppose there. Models explain the data, the best models explain it best.
I am perfectly willing to accept an hypothesis of the supernatural so long as it's testable by experiment.
Look, if you're willing to accept a hypothesis of the supernatural, then we have nothing more to discuss. My point this entire time was to debate the notion of automatically rejecting the supernatural as a possible explanation for an observed phenomenon even before data was collected and studied.
"It's not practical to consider," you said; I reject that notion. It's only not practical if the data cannot support that conclusion, previous lack of supernatural data be damned; that's not relevant.
I am willing, and have always been, to accept an hypothesis so long as it is testable by experiment; at least in principle.
My problem is that I simply don't know if the supernatural can be tested.
Devout muslims do not believe that laws of nature exist. They believe that Allah guides the motion of every electron, every particle, every wave. Allah is not limited by laws of nature.
Perhaps they are correct, but how to test it? If it can't be tested, then it's not science.
Perhaps the future will yield results...so far though...the claims of supernatural intervention have come in two flavours:
1. The untestable claims, untestable by design in fact.
2. The testable claims which have failed to stand up to the test.
It seems to me that we might be in agreement more than we think. If someone wants to make a claim about the supernatural, I will listen until we come to a point where the claim cannot be tested...we always seem to reach that point.
Then I think we DO agree; I was taking a position against simply dismissing the possibility of the supernatural OUT OF HAND, without ever considering it as a possibility to TRY to test it and reach the truth.
But if you'll listen right up to the point where one essentially has to have FAITH, rather than engaging in empirical testing, then yes, we agree on a methodology here, we agree on the point at which considering the possibility of the supernatural should stop.
Well, if I had to guess; it's likely my belief that pursuing a supernatural explanation is almost certain to be a monumental waste of time, even in bizarre circumstances where it seems plausible at first.
Your point about the universe acting rational led me off as well. Rationality refers to a thought process...the universe has none. It just is as it is. To describe the universe as operating in under what we describe as rules is fine....to describe it as rational is not.
Well, by rational, I meant that cause and effect will always be the same given the exact same conditions. But more than that, the cause will be related to the effect; there will not be any wave-your-fingers-get-a-lightning-bolt kind of effects coming from causes that shouldn't produce them.
If there is magic, it will be irrational in that way, generating effects from causes that shouldn't produce them. I think that's the very definition of magic.
Yes...I see how you are using the word now...but would it not be more accurate to describe magic as breaking the rules of the universe...so to speak?
People behave rationaly when they have good reasons for their behaviour. We see them as acting irrationaly when they do not, or at least, do not appear to.
"indication that our understanding is flawed or limited in some fundamental way."
I'd agree to the limited part, there are many concepts which are literally impossible for a mind to grasp, like what it is to be dead.
I look at naturalistic explanations as a process that swallows up and incorporates "supernatural" ones into it. Anything, including the beginning of the universe, will one day be unraveled eventually, assuming we survive that long.
I think you need to define what magic is before saying it might exist. You will find its very simple to dismiss a claim about magical powers when it is specific like telekinesis or something. The amazing Randy is still out there u know.
Yes, but consider Randi's methods. He doesn't say, "That can't exists because it sounds ludicrously improbable," he says, "Show me the evidence; if you can prove your claims, that's actually REALLY COOL because it opens up new avenues of study!"
I think he nailed it with the singlecell organism example.
"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."
Carl Sagan is rolling in his grave. Assuming something doesn't exist because it can't be proven is bad reasoning, plain and simple. The endless list of historical examples should show you that.
I think your putting your atheism and materialist philosophy ahead of your skepticism. His examples are arbitrary, concentrate on his reasoning. This coming from an materialist atheist!
Things THOUGHT to be supernatural, but which are later found to have natural causes which were previously undetected are RE-CLASSIFIED as natural.
But the supernatural, if such a thing existed, would be distinct from the natural due specifically to its irrational nature/behavior, violation of natural law.
I'm not saying that knowing the difference between natural and supernatural would be EASY, necessarily, but there IS a distinction.
But if, somehow, influence were to come from outside the system, into the natural world, and have some sort of effect, but the source of that effect come from a supernatural source OUTSIDE the natural world, you can measure ONLY the real world influence the supernatural has, not its supernatural source.
Read "Flatland" and how 2D creatures experienced the intrusion of a 3D object into the world. It'd be like THAT, only natural vs supernatural.
You must clarify because that statement makes no sense.
The movie from which that flatland clip was taken from was pretty biased. If by outside the system you mean extra dimensions, your argument is still nonsensical, anything that interacts with another is intrinsically a part of it in some way. The concept of "outside" in this context is flawed.
If there is going to be anything supernatural, its behavior has to violate nature's laws, correct? Otherwise it would just be natural.
So to violate nature's laws, it would have to come from outside the system in which natural laws exist. Thus, anything supernatural has to come from outside the system or nature, intruding upon the natural world.
It's not a hard concept to grasp as theory; proving it's real...well, hell, it probably ISN'T real, given the available evidence. But even so...
Not imo. Laws are an older language of science used to label what happens under usual circumstances (ie theory etc...). Exceptions are found to theories every day, they have to be accounted for. Violating a natural "law" would simply add more information to the "law", making it more accurate and dependable at making predictions since that's what they're used for.
That's true of an entirely natural, rational world. But if it turns out that there IS the supernatural out there, you'll find completely irrational things happening, and THAT'S the supernatural.
Suppose combining peanut butter and a balloon during the full moon in March produced a chicken; disparate, irrational, completely wack-o jack-o producing an effect that beggars logic. Assume there's no trickery involved and that it really happened; wouldn't you consider that magic?
Just for the record I want you to realize that you're making every statement with an "if".
Such ifs will simply be ignored untill they happen, that's the nature of science for the most part. It's just not worth the energy to contemplate every infinitude of possibilities. Much more efficient to react to the event once it actually happens.
Yes, of course I am. This entire idea is a hypothetical; I'm not advocating the EXISTENCE of the supernatural, I'm defining what it means to BE supernatural, and how not to bias one's thinking for or against it.
If I didn't start these statements with 'if', you might think I was advocating the existence of the supernatural; I have no evidence for it and don't believe it DOES it exist. But I'll examine any claims with an OPEN mind, thankyouverymuchindeed.
I have to admit, even now I a really good magic trick triggers that tiny bit in my mind say "He's a wizard! He's a wizard!!" Chris Angel has done that once or twice, lol. Still, even when I was a theist, I didn't really buy into stage magic. I had a magic kit growing up, so I knew that things could fool you.
skywize 3 months ago
Stop judging Matt people Matt...Have you not read that in your bible?
flatop59 4 months ago
heat seeking missles dont care if your religious or have a lucky items, there going strait up your ass without fail
DragonsREpic 6 months ago
I'm assuming they don't believe UFOs are real? Have they done the research in order to apply their critical thinking skills? I understand needs must to be a critical thinker but you can't discount everything. If you get caught up being skeptical of everything you doctrine yourself to find reasons to discredit things.
monsieurkarl 8 months ago
@monsieurkarl Okay, well there's a difference between skeptical and being blindly disbelieving. Skeptical means you're not going to you're not going to believe something without a reason to do so. If you can demonstrate to a skeptic that something is true, then by golly, you'll make a believer out of them.
FrostdPoptart 7 months ago
@FrostdPoptart Except they aren't believing it...they're accepting it.
courtlandmcdaniel 5 months ago
@courtlandmcdaniel Woops. Thanks for correcting me there. Poor word choice on my part :)
FrostdPoptart 5 months ago
@FrostdPoptart You're welcome! Glad you didn't get I R ANGRY lol /hugs.
courtlandmcdaniel 5 months ago
@courtlandmcdaniel Yeah, I got caught up in the common saying "make a believer out of me" and didn't stop to think that it's acceptance when something is proven to be true.
FrostdPoptart 5 months ago
An airplane pilot that wont fly without their lucky bracelet is fine with me. It might be silly, but doesnt do any harm.
Serostern 8 months ago
Who is the bot that voted this video down 80 times?
EthanNin0 9 months ago
They wont let me have my trix!
ShinobiBoiX 1 year ago
TAM 4 shirt! Yea! Been there, done it, got the shirt! My only TAM. I can't wait to go to another one!
dangerics 1 year ago
I just realized why Matt looks familiar: He resembles an early photo I once saw of Anton LaVey!
Xenophile665 1 year ago
i think at the end there where they talk about lucky charms, kind of shines a light on what religious people really go for. the placebo effect of focusing one's attention on the fact that they have something that will make 'everything ok' or provide some sort of assistance.
i mean seroiusly, pilots, who like the guy said, can face missiles up their ass and require great deals of concentration are under a lot of stress. let them have their fuckin lucky charms. if it calms them down so be it.
Thrashaero 1 year ago
The difference is that when you know you can be fooled you can discipline yourself to prevent it. If you don't know that you can be fooled, well then you get fooled.
XaosSong 3 years ago 28
This is one of the things I saying, when try to prove, that living with moto "ignorance is bliss" is selfe destructive.
Good point, man.
ricardas83 2 years ago
@ricardas83 I've always thought of "ignorance is bliss" as a statement of how people get screwed and don't know it, not so much as a motto to live by.
You're right, thought. Either way, self destructive.
dangerics 1 year ago
tbh declaring that one side is wrong because humans are easily fooled actually declares both or all parties out of the debate... poor argument for anything
jakry321 3 years ago
Humans are easily fooled when they are predisposed for it. Skeptical thinking is precisely a tool to reduce the chances you get fooled. If you put an apple on the corner of a table, its very likely to fall if the table suffers some sudden movement. However, if you put the apple away from the corner, the chances it will fall from sudden movements on the table decrease. I hope i'm making my point clear with that example.
hellhammerz666 2 years ago 7
yes i totally agree... what i was trying to say was Person A cant say all humans are easily fooled therefore Person B is wrong.. by declaring all Humans are easily fooled it also includes person A (who is stating it) hence it doesnt really argue a point for either side.. its detrimental to both Person As and Bs arguement...
jakry321 2 years ago
Its a bit like saying "All generalizations are false"
or "All youtube comments are false"
jakry321 2 years ago
However you are correct "Humans are easily fooled when they are predisposed for it." but that depends entirely in emotional intelligence. Trust is an important factor in getting fooled. Too much is detrimental (only when another person takes advantage of the trust) but not enough trust is detrimental (because others wont trust you)
High emotional intelligence can reduce being fooled dramatically (ie knowing who to trust)
jakry321 2 years ago
a girl i know actually believes chris angel has real supernatural magical powers. she stubbornly believs it and will take no evidence into consiederation that says otherwise. my hardcore christian buddy thinks she is a complete fool saying,"how could anybody believe something when there is no evidence to support it and there's even evidence against it?" kind of ironic, don't ya think?
slaytak 3 years ago
Athiests are better people!
Tradd9 3 years ago 4
I do have to comment on your title Being a skeptic mean that you are not really sure about a subject but logic by Ayn Rand def is the uncontridictary law of indentfication.
cochisestronghold 3 years ago
When I had a dream a week before one of the worst plane crashes in history, of the crash, saw a headline in my dream that mentioned the crash and two people from my hometown dying in the crash, then a week later, it happens, just as in my dream, what do you call it?
johnnyk2112 3 years ago
I'd say prove it. If you can't, your statement remains uncompelling. Human memory, especially regarding dreams is not a reliable source. If what you say is true, it will profoundly effect our understanding of the universe.
waltsimons 3 years ago
I cant find my original post. Prove what?
johnnyk2112 3 years ago
"When I had a dream a week before one of the worst plane crashes in history, of the crash, saw a headline in my dream that mentioned the crash and two people from my hometown dying in the crash, then a week later, it happens, just as in my dream, what do you call it?"
waltsimons 3 years ago
I HAD proof. It happened in high school. I was keeping a dream diary. Six days after I dreamed and logged the crash, i was sitting at a table with the newspaper and my diary side by side. Along with most of my chilhood posessions, I don't have that diary anymore. I know, I know. No proof, then we're back to square one. And yes, you're right. At least my entire life has been profoundly effected by what happened. I know, sometimes, somehow, future events can be detected before they happen.
johnnyk2112 3 years ago
Some questions: Is this the only prophetic dream you've had? Did the newspaper publish a story about you? Would that story be available somewhere? If you really had solid evidence for a prophetic dream did you think of pursuing the matter further? Such as approaching people other then journalists?
Why were you keeping a dream log before you knew of your power of prophetic dreams?
What happened to the Diary? If it profoundly effected your life you'd take good care of it right? ;)
waltsimons 3 years ago
If you knew you couldn't back up your claim why make the original post? Did you expect people to just accept your a prophetic on your word alone? :P Sorry about being such a skeptic, don't take it personally. :)
waltsimons 3 years ago
If sharing what happened makes others go hmm, what if, then that accomplishes something.
johnnyk2112 3 years ago
walter:no i had another...I didn't tell anybody....yes 'ive pursued it further.....no i don't talk about it much....i was keeping a dream log as an "experiment", suggested in a book about dreams.....i don't know what happened to it...it's affected my life more as an adult, than when it happened.....
johnnyk2112 3 years ago
Being able to see the future is big claim and I'm willing to look at this with an open mind. But for that too happen your going to have to provide more detail, and be willing to have a more rigorous and serious conversation about it.
I am available through the PM system here at Youtube. (the character limit on video comments can be really constraining)
waltsimons 3 years ago
Gotta love thoose guys.
Humans are social creatures and thus we normally think in scoial patterns and have to be tought to think logically and skepticly.
But sadly we have a long way to go.
qanazir 3 years ago
The 5 UFO fotograf question, a fake one would to me be a intentionally doctored image/movie, UFO does not (only) equal alien space craft.
So i would answer that question as which one i think was faked on purpose not which one i think could not be a alien space craft.
dlld77 3 years ago
So would I...that would be AWESOME!
But see, as much as I'm convinced that magic done without the aid of technology of science--indeed, feats which BREAK the rules of science--are impossible...there is always that chance that I may be shown wrong.
See, being a skeptic is NOT the same as being a nay-sayer. Being a skeptic means that you demand evidence BEFORE believing.
So I cannot in good conscience explicitly state that there IS NO MAGIC...only that it seems deeply unlikely given the evidnece
BionicDance 3 years ago
I have to say...Matt's rejection of the concept of 'real magic' bothers me a little.
I've never seen evidence to suggest that there is such a thing...but that doesn't deter me from discussing it as a hypothetical.
Granted, the definition of 'real magic' is a sticky one since many people like to dredge out the "sufficiently advanced technology" argument to claim that all magic is just science which hasn't been understood.
But, it's just as knee-jerk to REFUSE TO CONSIDER the supernatural.
BionicDance 3 years ago
"knee-jerk to REFUSE TO CONSIDER the supernatural"
I can refuse to consider the invisible sky pink unicorn or leprechauns the same way I can refuse to consider the supernatural. They all have one thing in common: they have never been proven to exist.
JaMoond 3 years ago
That's being a nay-sayer, not a skeptic.
The skeptic would say, "I consider the supernatural a non-issue PENDING EVIDENCE of its existence."
See the difference? "No, that doesn't exist; it's not proved," versus, "That probably doesn't exist; opinion to be amended pending new evidence." The latter is how a true skeptic thinks.
BionicDance 3 years ago
I can say that an invisible pink unicorn doesn't exist in all practical sense, but in no way I have to say that I consider its existence because there is a possibility that it exists in some shape or form at some point and time in the universe. This is not how we normally shape our belief.
The problem with supernatural claims is the fact that they have never been substantiated, and to consider all billions of claims out there is simply ridiculous. Skeptic is a practical nay-sayer.
JaMoond 3 years ago
But a good skeptic cannot make assumptions about existence; the true skeptic demands evidence of claims. Even a ridiculous claim may turn out to be true if the claimant has evidence for it; demand proof. It may not be forthcoming, but you can't assume it won't be.
BionicDance 3 years ago
"cannot make assumptions about existence"
-regardless of whether or not it's been proven to exist, the null hypothesis goes that it does not exist until it is proven to exist.
-In fact, I can make claims about anything including supernatural. However, simply making a claim doesn't amount to being substantiated sufficiently enough to consider it's existence
-Our belief is shaped by what we learn and what we experience. In practical sense, no way we consider anything's existence until (Cont)
JaMoond 3 years ago
(Cont)
has been substantiated in our minds. If I claim that a giant space duck is hiding behind Jupiter from our view, no way you start out by considering its existence and demanding more evidence for it. It's innocent until proven guilty. Our default position goes that it doesn't exist until proven.
It's the most unbiased approach to forming our belief. What you just suggested was to presume (or consider) it's existence first. It's highly impractical and biased at best.
JaMoond 3 years ago
It's not unbiased AT ALL. "Doesn't exist until proven" is NOT an unbiased opinion. That's my point.
The only unbiased opinion is, "Unknown until proved or disproved".
BionicDance 3 years ago
I suggest you to study the philosophy of ontology. What you just suggested is not how we form our belief. For example, I'm going to claim that there is a giant space duck hiding behind Jupiter. Your first response would be to ask what evidence I can present to support my claim.
We say that it doesn't exist until proven because it's impossible to disprove a supernatural claim. So the default has to be nonexistence. The burden of proof is on those making those claims.
JaMoond 3 years ago
BTW, null hypothesis is not "unknown"
Perhaps you are not familiar with scientific method.
Any inquiry starts out with a null hypothesis that it doesn't exist. Study requires direction or goal. Saying that it requires further study is a directionless and thus unproductive method of study.
JaMoond 3 years ago
A hypothesis is when one makes a theoretical/ educated guess at what the answer/ outcome to their inquiry would be and then produces and conducts an experiment to prove or disprove their hypothesis. The results are the new theory/ conclusion
JNdigital 3 years ago
First of all, scientists never design their experiments in order to prove their hypothesis. You have to set up an experiment to pick up any flaws in your hypothesis, and continue/repeat the process until you find the most sound hypothesis that explains the observed phenomenon.
Second of all, null hypothesis is what you start out with during the process of inquiry.
JaMoond 3 years ago
I said prove OR disprove their hypothesis, which means to find supporting evidence OR flaws. And yes, the process is then repeated to find better and better evidence, answers and theories/ perspectives that explain reality/ truth. These experiments and refining process may also generate better inquiries.
I think I see your point about starting with a null hypothesis. Basically, all starting theories are neutral and it's only the supporting evidence or lack thereof that gives a theory credence
JNdigital 3 years ago
I said NEVER prove your hypothesis. If you are a scientist and try to design an experiment trying to prove your hypothesis, then your method is flawed. Anyone can argue and cave around whatever evidence you gathered to support just about every hypothesis. The trick is to repeat scientific procedure until you find a hypothesis that doesn't seem to have any contradictory evidence. I suggest you watch potholer54 "scientific method made easy series"
JaMoond 3 years ago
YES, the burden of proof is on those making the claims.
HOWEVER, this does not justify taking a negative position against their case. As a skeptic, the proper course is to take a NULL position until evidence points one way or the other.
THAT'S the point I've been trying to make all along.
BionicDance 3 years ago
"Does not exist" is not a null hypothesis; "Unknown, requires further study" is a null hypothesis.
BionicDance 3 years ago
"a ridiculous claim may turn out to be true..."
I disagree. When you're dealing with the probability of something being true, like God, as he's defined by Christians, you can safely say it's not true.
A God that can do anything/everything can't exist because he couldn't make a rock that he can't lift. And if he could then he can't lift the rock, so he can't be all powerful.
They have to change the definition of God first, but until they do, I can freely say "No. Your God doesn't exist."
KemaTheAtheist 3 years ago
That's just it, though: probability is a good decision-making tool when trying to pick between two options; it's a mind-clouder when trying to decide on the truth of something.
A good skeptic will rely on the evidence, however improbable, to make their determination of the validity of a claim.
BionicDance 3 years ago
"it's a mind-clouder when trying to decide on the truth of something."
As I just explained about an "all powerful" God... the probability of an all powerful god existing that can make a stone that it can't lift is by definition a paradox and therefore impossible. Probability 0%. It's not a "mind-clouder."
I don't consider things that have 0% chance of happening... for example, there is 0% chance that a person will control the weather with their mind and it's evolutionarily impossible.
KemaTheAtheist 3 years ago
Look, I'm convinced that science is all that there is, TOO, and by that measure, people controlling weather with their minds is poppycock.
BUT, if magic IS real, then it just might be possible. And though I consider the possibility of magic's existence to be next to nil, if someone has a claim of it and they can prove it, I'll listen and critique their claim with an open-but-skeptical mind.
YOU sound as if your mind is closed to the possibility, even with evidence, and THAT'S the problem.
BionicDance 3 years ago
Look, "real" magic is impossible. Even the most powerful "tantric" from India could use the "ultimate destructive magic" to kill an atheist and he had HOURS to do so.
If you ever see a human make fire with their hands it will come from an evolutionary process where selective pressure leads humans to be able to do that. The X-men don't do magic... There's a (fictional) scientific explaination for it. If in the future it ends up to be possible via evolution, then it's not really magic, is it?
KemaTheAtheist 3 years ago
No, real magic is NOT impossible. Real magic is only impossible if science is all there is and all of existence is rational. Magic may exist in an irrational universe.
Now, I not only say but actually assert that a rational unverise seems to be the case beyond reasonable doubt...HOWEVER, I'm willing to entertain the claims of those who say otherwise, if only to dismiss them with evidence.
THAT'S BEING A TRUE SKEPTIC. Simply nay-saying improbable things is not.
BionicDance 3 years ago
"No, that doesn't exist; it's not proved," versus, "That probably doesn't exist; opinion to be amended pending new evidence."
The two statements are the same. Only the degree of arrogence and voracity against it is different. When the chance that "real" magic exists or a god exists are as small as they are, I feel completely justified saying "No, it doesn't exist. Prove it exists scientifically or shut up."
KemaTheAtheist 3 years ago
The two statements are NOT the same.
Things exist which have not been proved, proof if not a necessary condition for existence; bacteria existed long before anybody even thought of them, let alone proved they exist...yet exist they did.
Refusing to BELIEVE without proof is quite distinct from refusing to CONSIDER without proof.
BionicDance 3 years ago
skepticism doesnt mean u have to investigate every rediculous claim that comes across your desk, magic is one of those things now well understood, and everyone claiming real magic EVER has been a LIAR or a FOOL
its bs just like crystals and dowsing homeopathy and will remain as such until reliable scientific testing has confirmed it
FireStorm821 3 years ago
Dismissal of a claim without contradictory evidence is indeed foolish. It may be a REASONABLE course of action given just how ridiculous the claim is, but it's still foolish to dismiss something without investigation.
I point to the concept of single-celled organisms again; we take those for granted NOW, but it would have sounded ridiculous a few hundred years ago. Imagine if no one had investigated this ridiculous claim. Imagine that.
BionicDance 3 years ago
"I point to the concept of single-celled organisms again..."
It's not a rediculous claim though. People saw that if you hung around someone else that was sick you got sick too.
If you eat bad food or the like you get sick. They didn't know why, but they knew it had something to do with the food or the person... something they couldn't see.
There's other things they can observe that lead to credibility... "real" magic and deities do not.
KemaTheAtheist 3 years ago
That's hindsight talking; going from "I got sick, then you got sick," to "There are animals which you and I cannot see because they're so small which are MAKING us sick," sounds like poppycock to anyone who hasn't grown up with microscopes.
...or like magic.
Imagine if people had heard that and went, "No, it's the magic making us sick, now leave it alone!" Where would we be?
INVESTIGATION of claims is the only way to go, even if the claims sound loopy, if only to shut up those making them.
BionicDance 3 years ago
hes not refusing to consider it. being a magician himself and investigating it he knows every bit of "magic" hes seen isnt supernatural, there are many organizations that exist to test the claims of the supernatural, so far... all have failed, if there really was anything supernatural we would have confirmed it by now it wouldnt be hard at all to do,
hes not refusing to accept it outright, he doesnt beleive it, and that will change when presented with proof, and a cool magic show doesnt qualify
FireStorm821 3 years ago
I think that the rational position in the face of something appearing to be "real magic" is to assume some lack of understanding, issue of perception, advanced technology...or some other natural, and unknown explanation....and then seek to understand...rather than give any credence to a supernatural possibility which is so unlikely as to be not worth considering.
kshackleton 3 years ago
No. The rational position in the face of something appearing to be "real magic" is investigation and inquiry, and not to assume ANYTHING.
BionicDance 3 years ago
Since the supernatural cannot be investigated, by definition, it is rational to assume a natural explanation...and investigate it.
kshackleton 3 years ago
Of COURSE the supernatural can be investigated. If it manifests in the natural world, it can be investigated.
If it is found to have causes which cannot be explained rationally, yet still it exists, there's a very good chance that it is supernatural.
BionicDance 3 years ago
So, what you are saying is that a natural phenomenon which cannot today be explained rationally has a very good chance of being supernatural.
kshackleton 3 years ago
Actually, no. If it's a natural phenomenon and we have evidence to show that it is such, then it's not supernatural.
But if we cannot explain something as a natural phenomenon, you're being unfair to yourself AND your investigation if you don't at least entertain the possibility that it might be supernatural without doing the necessary investigation to rule that out.
BionicDance 3 years ago
And yet we also have to take into accounrt that the possibility of the supernatural explaination would contradict the previous (lack of)observations of the supernatural.
So it should only be used as an absolute last resort.
But most people who mention it does oddly enough seem to be looking for it.
qanazir 3 years ago
Yes, that's true; people looking for the supernatural do seem to be the people who find it the most.
But my whole point is that this works in reverse, too; people who REFUSE to consider the supernatural will NEVER find it.
I'm trying to advocate a more neutral stance; don't look for or deny either the natural or the supernatural. Just look for an explanation at all and see where the data take you.
BionicDance 3 years ago
The prolblem with the supernatural itself is that it isn't an explaination.
Supernatural means without natural procceses which is about the only thing ever observed.
Besides there are no sceintific theories which can account for the supernatural.
So are you going to reject science as a whole?
qanazir 3 years ago
It isn't a RATIONAL explanation.
There are no scientific studies of the supernatural because no cases have ever been found on which to do studies.
Yes, I agree, the supernatural appears to not exist and wildly improbable. But most of you are making the leap from improbable to impossible, and THAT'S where I think you've gone wrong.
The only leap I'm willing to make is from improbably to as yet unencountered, PROBABLY non-existent. More than that is unfounded assumption.
BionicDance 3 years ago
Oh you are more reasonable than I thought.
I'm am only certain of one thing in this world(I think therefore I am.)
Just remember that the proponents of the supernatural have the burden of proof(and they are carrying it very poorly.)
qanazir 3 years ago
I'm always more reasonable than people think...peoples' first reactions tend to assume my thinking is going in a direction that it is not. ;)
The proponents of ANYTHING have the burden of proof, and as skeptics it's our job to demand that proof. But saying, "No, that doesn't exist," is just as bad as saying, "Why, yes! Absolutely!" before seeing the evidence because BOTH are biased points of view.
That's really all I'm saying.
BionicDance 3 years ago
I use the rationale for everything; IF i can't find enough evidence to prove it's existence I don't think it exists.
Remember the more greater the claim the greater the pile of evidence.
And all supernatural claims are quite great.
qanazir 3 years ago
Yes, but the original statement which I was decrying was not "IF I can't find enough evidence..." it was simply a denial of something's existence without trial. It was, "That doesn't exist UNTIL YOU PROVE IT."
I advocate a wait-and-see position, not a nay-sayer position. That was my point from the very beginning.
BionicDance 3 years ago
You are talking in circles.
You say no, and then your next sentence agrees with my question almost verbatim.
There is no rationale for considering the supernatural at all....it is beyond investigation, by definition.
If we entertain the possibility of the supernatural in some philosophical sense...OK...but that is not anything which can be tested, so it gets us nowhere to do so.
The best that you can ever say is that we have an unexplained, natural event.
kshackleton 3 years ago
No, I'm not talking in circles, I'm being specific; you cannot mean what you say if you don't say what you mean.
And, no: the supernatural is ONLY beyond investigation if it never interacts with the natural world. Finding a VIOLATION of natural law--something irrational--for which no natural explanation can be found is a damn good case for the phenomenon being supernatural and worth investigating.
Of course this assumes we can find and measure EVERYTHING to know the event isn't natural...
BionicDance 3 years ago
You last sentence just made my case. We would have to possess the total knowledge of the universe to say that something is not natural.
The best that we can do is to investigate on the premise that all that we observe is natural. So far, it's worked pretty well.
kshackleton 3 years ago
No, sorry...that only proves your case in an absolutist, 100% certainty sense; there's no 100% certainty about ANYTHING. None. No, not even that. We can have 99.9% certainty, with an infinite number of 9s in that decimal place, but never 100%. Ever.
If we discover something which is both irrational AND violates known natural law, we have a pretty good case for it being at least POTENTIALLY supernatural. No such thing has ever been found, but you can't 100% rule it out, either.
BionicDance 3 years ago
I agree with you that we can never know anything 100%, and that is exactly what is required before we could say that we have eliminated any potential natural explanation.
If we discover something that is both irrational and violates known natural law, then we have a very good case that our understanding of the universe is flawed and incomplete.
This does not suggest a supernatural explanation even in the slightest. I don't have to rule it out any more than I need to rule out pixies.
kshackleton 3 years ago
See, I'm sorry, but NO...your position is still biased: "After we've eliminated all natural explanations, only THEN can we start looking at supernatural possibilities...I guess..."
You are starting from a default position which is biased in favor of a specific kind of conclusion, and that is EXACTLY what I'm finding fault with.
BionicDance 3 years ago
All positions are biased. I try to keep my biases grounded in evidence where possible.
My position would be more accurately decsribed as....since we cannot possibly eliminate all potential natural explanations, and since our understanding of the universe is at best, approximate....there is no use even considering the supernatural as an explanation. Nature is big enough to work with.
Pleading for the supernatural stops investigation dead in its tracks.
kshackleton 3 years ago
But nobody IS pleading for the supernatural nor does it stop investigation unless it is declared by fiat to BE the supernatural.
Even if all positions are biased, it's best to try to eliminate your biases as best you can, rather than give in to them as, I'm sorry, you have.
An unbiased position would be, "I don't know what this is; let's see where investigation leads us." That's as close to having no preconceived notions as possible.
BionicDance 3 years ago
I agree with the last paragraph. However, how does one distinguish between an unexplained, even unexplainable natural phenomenon, and a supernatural one?
kshackleton 3 years ago
I know how lol because supernatural ones dont exist
Supremedeity 3 years ago
I'm not sure I can answer that in 500 characters or less, especially not with the amount of rum I've got in me from clubbing tonight...
But basically, one gathers evidence. If the evidence seems to indicate a process, but the process seems wildly improbable or even in violation of known physics, chances are you've got something supernatural on your hands.
Things is, everything ever considered supernatural has since been explained by science; the supernatural is probably nonexistent.
So far.
BionicDance 3 years ago
Things considered "supernatural" become natural. Supernatural is simply another word for unknown in this context.
Di66en6ion 3 years ago
So far, all things considered supernatural have been found to have natural causes, this is true.
HOWEVER, that does not mean that "supernatural" is simply another word for "unknown".
Supernatural, as a concept, still means "outside of nature". That we have never FOUND anything which is outside of nature suggests very strongly, BUT DOES NOT PROVE, that there is nothing supernatural.
But the supernatural is NOT a perspective issue as you're trying to suggest.
BionicDance 3 years ago
So far? In what possible circumstance could you consider something to be supernatural, unkown, and knowable at the same time?
The concept of supernatural fits well with typical religious rhetoric, it can be equivocated with lots of other meanings when it suits.
The supernatural is either an unkown or an unfalsifiable concept/action that is not reproducible. There's a reason any supernatural explanation is rejected, it furthers no understanding or knowledge whatsoever.
Di66en6ion 3 years ago
500 characters is NOT enough to explain it.
Suffice to say that if something violated the natural order in such a way that, though it may be consistent, were completely irrational, it's likely to be supernatural, magic.
Something that defies scientific explanation, like combining two non-reactive things and producing an unrelated effect, which reaction science simply cannot account for.
ARE there such things? I highly, highly doubt it. But I can't 100% say no, and I try to stay open-minded.
BionicDance 3 years ago
Well of course you have to be open minded. No intellectually honest scientist would ignore such an event.
I'm not saying such things are impossible, on the contrary, if they occur, they HAVE to be accounted for, not simply ignored. It's amazing how any supernatural event dissipates under controlled conditions though, instead of the typical urban legends that would have you believe otherwise.
Di66en6ion 3 years ago
Oh, yes, absolutely; I don't think there's been a single case of controlled conditions NOT revealing a previously-suspected supernatural process to be entirely natural or the result of trickery.
But I'm just advocating not allowing the sheer volume of debunked claims to bias one's assumptions. That's as bad as having religious faith, only in the other direction; both are biases best avoided.
BionicDance 3 years ago
I don't think that's necessarily the case. Remember the day and age we live in and that extraordanary claims require extraordanary evidence to back them up.
Today I see something in the news every day that would have been considered magic centuries/decades ago. Researches discover new materials with interesting qualities every day; if they had to strictly follow grounded chemical theories, they would never have bothered combining them in the first place.
Di66en6ion 3 years ago
I'll be honest, I have no idea what the thrust of you argument is, here. I understand what you're saying, I just don't see the relevance.
Then again, it might just be a problem with YouTube's threading system; which post are you responding to, here?
BionicDance 3 years ago
You were talking about debunking effecting people's biases and I was just trying to say that I don't really believe it does in a large part of the human endeavour to research and develop new technologies. It would be counterproductive to be so biased.
Di66en6ion 3 years ago
No...I didn't say it was DEBUNKING that affects peoples' biases, I said that automatic nay-saying of supernatural claims does.
Granted, most debunking is done to disprove; a more neutral term would be "investigate" or "quantify". Neither of those things produces a bias.
I'm just against automatically saying, "No, it can't be thing, and we'll only check to see if it is when all else is exhausted", as opposed to investigating with an OPEN mind.
BionicDance 3 years ago
Given your last sentence, it seems to me that the chances of finding a process driven by supernatural entities is really, really small.
It seems far more likely, given the history of human investigation of the universe; that what we would have is an indication that our understanding is flawed or limited in some fundamental way.
This is precisely why it is rational and reasonable to assume a naturalistic explanation, and conduct investigations on that basis.
kshackleton 3 years ago
Yes, of COURSE the chances of finding a supernatural process is very small.
But it is NEVER rational or reasonable to bias your thinking while conducting an investigation, to presuppose your data. EVER.
BionicDance 3 years ago
That's funny....your previous posts indicated that you would think it likely that the supernatural would exist under certain circumstances.
Let's see....we have literally millions, and millions of scientific experiments which confirm that everything that we know is explanable by natural processes....we have no verifiable occurances of even a single supernatural event....none at all.
It is irrational to even consider the possibility of a supernatural event.
kshackleton 3 years ago
Yes, there are certain circumstances under which I'd consider the existence of the supernatural likely; those circumstances have NEVER come up.
But, no, it is STILL not irrational to consider the possibility of a supernatural event.
It is irrational to consider a supernatural event to be LIKELY. But it is also irrational to bias and close off parts of one's mind and not considering a possibility when investigating a claim. THAT is as dogmatic as clinging to faith in the face of counter-fact.
BionicDance 3 years ago
It still seems like you're trying to draw a line where there is none. Under your own definition you defined the supernatural system as having rules. Those rules, under a scientific perspective, could simply be looked at as natural to that system, and the way in which the supernatural system and our system interact as a higher level of rules governing there interaction. I see no reason to close our minds to any possibility but I find it horrid to dismiss something as completely unexplainable.
Di66en6ion 3 years ago
If there are two different systems, is that not a distinction by the very definition of the word?
Yes, I'm saying that supernatural/nature would be a matter of perspective--which system do you belong to, which to you is natural?--if this hypothetical were the case.
I don't think that's unreasonable, in theory; don't for a moment think that I'm proposing this as a view of what really exists!
BionicDance 3 years ago
While in some philosophical sense, the supernatural may exist; it is not something that we need to worry about, or even consider when conducting scientific investigation.
It is not possible to distinguish between an event of unexplained natural causation and one of [also unexplained] supernatuiral causation.
We have no examples of a supernatural causation, and literally millions upon millions of explained events of natural causation.
It is not counter-fact at all.
kshackleton 3 years ago
I still say that to bias one's thinking when collating data and considering evidence is a mistake, regardless of which direction one's bias points. Doing so is the first step to drawing an incorrect conclusion.
BionicDance 3 years ago
When collating and considering evidence of processes in the natural universe, it is no bias at all to consider only natural explanations for said processes.
To consider anything else is to give up on actually looking for any explanation at all.
kshackleton 3 years ago
Of course it's a bias; the instant you tell yourself that you're ONLY going to consider possibilities from any one particular position, you're introducing a bias. There's no getting around that.
And IF the supernatural exists and IF whatever you're investigating has been affected by it, you'll never know it to be able to investigate it if you're only willing to consider natural explanations. The same goes in reverse for solely considering supernatural possibilities. Either one is limiting.
BionicDance 3 years ago
I guess that you are correct, however...since we are natural creatures, living in the natural universe, and we have no access to any aspect of any possible supernatural at all.
That's by definition by the way. If we can detect it, it's no longer supernatural.
The best that we can do is look for natural explanations. Any causality outside of our universe is beyond our investigation and would remain unexplained or speculative.
kshackleton 3 years ago
I have to disagree; simply detecting something doesn't make it natural.
If it violates--perhaps even contradicts--the natural processes of out universe, then it is, by definition supernatural. Chances are that we could detect it, even if only my inference from how it affects our universe. It would have to intrude upon us from outside our universe; your definition excludes the possibility of something coming here from outside.
This is all speculation; I've never heard of a real event like this.
BionicDance 3 years ago
We may be arguing about the definition of supernatural.
When I speak of supernatural, I am talking about something that is separate from, or outside our natural universe.
The more common definition would include anything that we simply do not understand using our existing model of the universe.
kshackleton 3 years ago
Well, then no...we agree on the definition of the supernatural. The thing is, if the supernatural cannot intrude upon our world--or us upon its world--its existence is a completely moot point, and any discussion of it is similarly pointless, so we really have to proceed on that basis.
Of course, the supernatural may not exist at all; in fact, don't think it does. But I'm willing to consider it when investigating the truth of a new discovery or event, even if only to discard it.
BionicDance 3 years ago
Which would be about as helpful as considering the weather in Australia when attempting to investigate why my car won't start here in Canada.
I know that weather does exist in Australia; however, it's a moot point when investigating the failure in my car.
The supernatural is kinda like that with respect to science...except that we don't even know if it exists in the first place.
It's not worth considering at all.
kshackleton 3 years ago
Of COURSE it's worth considering, even if only to reject it.
IF the supernatural exists and IF it intrudes upon our world and IF we happen to witness it, we have to be open-minded enough--self honest enough--to admit that our previously-held worldview may need to be questioned, lest we delude ourselves to inconvenient fact.
We demand no less of religious people when debunking their mystical claims; it's hardly fair to claim that we ourselves are entirely immune to having our worldviews shaken.
BionicDance 3 years ago
I am all for having my worldview shaken on the basis of evidence and experiment. If there is ever evidence that something has intruded into our universe, that will be a very interesting day.
Oh...and your comment to another poster about the natural universe acting rational at its most basic levels is completely and utterly false.
kshackleton 3 years ago
But if you're not willing to even CONSIDER the supernatural, you have put an artificial limit on your worldview being shaken; that's my point.
And, okay, if you want to get down to the quantum level, the universe isn't all that rational, but above that...
BionicDance 3 years ago
If someone can demonstrate through evidence and experiment that the event in question is a supernatural one....I'd accept that. Problem is, I have no idea how one would ever conduct such a test to distinguish between supernatural, and just plain unexplained.
And if by "rational" you mean predictable or consistent....then I'd agree....rational is not a description that I think can be applied to the universe at all.
kshackleton 3 years ago
That IS what I mean by rational.
And that's exactly how you'd determine that something is supernatural rather than natural: it behaves in irrational ways, where cause may still produce an effect...but an effect that shouldn't BE produced by that particular cause.
Granted, that standard has failed before--look up "spontaneous generation" for a damn good example--but that's WHY we do experiments...
BionicDance 3 years ago
So...we are back to saying that conducting an experiment and getting unexpected results may be reason to consider the supernatural.
Experiments yield unexpected results all the time. This is how science advances.
The history of science has shown in every case so far.....millions of times....that it is our understanding of nature which needs to be modified....the consideration of supernatural causes has yielded no results ever....ever.
Millions...to zero...it's not rational to consider.
kshackleton 3 years ago
Not merely unexpected results...patently ABSURD results. But, frankly, at this point I think your object is disingenuous; I think you know perfectly well what I'm getting at, you're just being obstinate, deliberately obtuse.
And, yes...it IS rational to consider; it's just not rational to EXPECT.
BionicDance 3 years ago
Patently absurd...like gravity shuts off?
It would take something of that scale for me to consider it.
kshackleton 3 years ago
Well, that'll do...but I was thinking of something more traditionally magical/fantastical. Something involving eye of newt, if only in spirit. THAT kinna magic.
I'll take gravity shutting off, tho, assuming every scientific principle says there SHOULD be gravity in that spot, or acting upon that object.
BionicDance 3 years ago
So...if toads began to appear out of thin air all over the world?
I'd be looking for the guy that figured out matter/energy conversion.
kshackleton 3 years ago
Of course you would...because your thinking is biased.
I, on the other hand, would be looking for the person who did it--if, indeed, a person did it at all--and would critically examine their methods to determine the cause with absolutely NO bias whatsoever.
See the difference there? You're already presupposing your data, and that's bad scientific investigation.
BionicDance 3 years ago
Everyone's thinking is biased. What you already know to be true will always bias your thinking under new circumstances.
I'd start by examining the toads, look for patterns in their appearances, etc. Gather as much data on the phenomenon as possible first.
Then take a stab at a hypothesis...and then test it...
rinse...repeat.
kshackleton 3 years ago
There's a difference between USING previously-held knowledge during your investigation and pre-supposing the nature of your conclusion. You've been doing the latter, which is what I'm arguing against.
BionicDance 3 years ago
An hypothesis is a guess, educated no doubt, but a pre-supposed guess about the nature of the explanation which is based on previously tested knowledge.
The hypothesis then gets put to the test. It survives the test, or it does not.
There has never been any evidence at all to support the existence of the supernatural. I do not know if human knowledge is yet complete enough to be able to make the distinction between "I don't know what that is" and "It's likely to be supernatural"
kshackleton 3 years ago
See, the problem is that YOU are leaping from "I don't know what that is," immediately to "There's no way it's supernatural," even before you do ANY investigation or testing.
I don't CARE how much previous evidence there is or isn't regarding the supernatural; if you're not going in with an open mind that gets narrowed ONLY as facts come in through your investigation, YOU'RE DOING IT WRONG.
How many times are you going to make me say the same exact thing in different ways till it sinks in?
BionicDance 3 years ago
I have never made any such leap at all.
I have been saying that I do not know, in principle, how one would determine the difference between a natural event that we do not understand; perhaps are incapable of understanding...and a supernatural event.
And, if it is not possible to make the distinction, it is more productive to continue to investigate on the basis of the former and not the latter.
How many times do I have to keep saying that before it sinks in.
kshackleton 3 years ago
But see, that's EXACTLY where the leap is: deciding one is more productive than the other. That can ONLY be determined by first investigating and finding out what you're dealing with FIRST.
Just because you can't make a distinction between a natural event we do not understand and the supernatural does not mean discarding one in favor of that other. That's EXTREMELY BAD SCIENCE.
When the answer is, "I don't know," the proper position to take is, "...so let's find out," NOT making an assumption.
BionicDance 3 years ago
No, it's not bad science.
Science is where you create a model which you think explains the data and then you test the model.
Explain to me how an hypothesis of the supernatural could ever be modeled and tested.
kshackleton 3 years ago
That's not the point. The point is that you are rejecting--even BEFORE you start gathering data and assembling it into a model--that the supernatural WILL NOT BE--even CAN NOT BE--a part of it.
That's presupposing your data, that's biased thinking. You're putting the cart before the horse, you're making assumptions about what the results of investigation will show.
And THAT'S bad science, and that's what I'm objecting to. This conversation began because I objected to a biased starting point.
BionicDance 3 years ago
It's precisely the point.
If it cannot be modeled and tested in experiment, then you have nothing. If the supernatural can be modeled and tested, then it's part of science. If not, then it's not part of science.
I pre-suppose no data...data is data. It's the gathered facts. There is nothing to pre-suppose there. Models explain the data, the best models explain it best.
I am perfectly willing to accept an hypothesis of the supernatural so long as it's testable by experiment.
Simple.
kshackleton 3 years ago
Look, if you're willing to accept a hypothesis of the supernatural, then we have nothing more to discuss. My point this entire time was to debate the notion of automatically rejecting the supernatural as a possible explanation for an observed phenomenon even before data was collected and studied.
"It's not practical to consider," you said; I reject that notion. It's only not practical if the data cannot support that conclusion, previous lack of supernatural data be damned; that's not relevant.
BionicDance 3 years ago
I am willing, and have always been, to accept an hypothesis so long as it is testable by experiment; at least in principle.
My problem is that I simply don't know if the supernatural can be tested.
Devout muslims do not believe that laws of nature exist. They believe that Allah guides the motion of every electron, every particle, every wave. Allah is not limited by laws of nature.
Perhaps they are correct, but how to test it? If it can't be tested, then it's not science.
kshackleton 3 years ago
Maybe the supernatural can be tested, maybe it can't. I don't know; I've never knowingly encountered it.
But just because I haven't devised a method of testing it doesn't mean that I won't consider it as a possibility when I encounter a new phenomenon.
I don't see how the testing would be different from scientific testing; it's the RESULTS that would determine the nature of something.
How to distinguish the supernatural from the natural will suggest itself from the test results, most likely.
BionicDance 3 years ago
Perhaps the future will yield results...so far though...the claims of supernatural intervention have come in two flavours:
1. The untestable claims, untestable by design in fact.
2. The testable claims which have failed to stand up to the test.
It seems to me that we might be in agreement more than we think. If someone wants to make a claim about the supernatural, I will listen until we come to a point where the claim cannot be tested...we always seem to reach that point.
kshackleton 3 years ago
Then I think we DO agree; I was taking a position against simply dismissing the possibility of the supernatural OUT OF HAND, without ever considering it as a possibility to TRY to test it and reach the truth.
But if you'll listen right up to the point where one essentially has to have FAITH, rather than engaging in empirical testing, then yes, we agree on a methodology here, we agree on the point at which considering the possibility of the supernatural should stop.
BionicDance 3 years ago
It's been an interesting discussion.
kshackleton 3 years ago
True...though since we agree, I can't help but wonder whereinhell the disconnect was, here. Heh.
BionicDance 3 years ago
Well, if I had to guess; it's likely my belief that pursuing a supernatural explanation is almost certain to be a monumental waste of time, even in bizarre circumstances where it seems plausible at first.
Your point about the universe acting rational led me off as well. Rationality refers to a thought process...the universe has none. It just is as it is. To describe the universe as operating in under what we describe as rules is fine....to describe it as rational is not.
kshackleton 3 years ago
Well, by rational, I meant that cause and effect will always be the same given the exact same conditions. But more than that, the cause will be related to the effect; there will not be any wave-your-fingers-get-a-lightning-bolt kind of effects coming from causes that shouldn't produce them.
If there is magic, it will be irrational in that way, generating effects from causes that shouldn't produce them. I think that's the very definition of magic.
BionicDance 3 years ago
Yes...I see how you are using the word now...but would it not be more accurate to describe magic as breaking the rules of the universe...so to speak?
People behave rationaly when they have good reasons for their behaviour. We see them as acting irrationaly when they do not, or at least, do not appear to.
kshackleton 3 years ago
Yes, well, if you apply the word rational to conscious behavior, you're absolutely correct...but that not the only way the word can be used.
Frankly, I think your definition of magic as breaking the rules of the universe is pretty synonymous with describing magic as irrational.
BionicDance 3 years ago
I agree kshackleton. And as Bionic put it I think it's also a matter of perspective.
Di66en6ion 3 years ago
"indication that our understanding is flawed or limited in some fundamental way."
I'd agree to the limited part, there are many concepts which are literally impossible for a mind to grasp, like what it is to be dead.
I look at naturalistic explanations as a process that swallows up and incorporates "supernatural" ones into it. Anything, including the beginning of the universe, will one day be unraveled eventually, assuming we survive that long.
Di66en6ion 3 years ago
Violations have been found plenty of times.
It just means expanding and redifining the laws.
qanazir 3 years ago
I think you need to define what magic is before saying it might exist. You will find its very simple to dismiss a claim about magical powers when it is specific like telekinesis or something. The amazing Randy is still out there u know.
qpwnsall 3 years ago
Yes, but consider Randi's methods. He doesn't say, "That can't exists because it sounds ludicrously improbable," he says, "Show me the evidence; if you can prove your claims, that's actually REALLY COOL because it opens up new avenues of study!"
BionicDance 3 years ago
I think he nailed it with the singlecell organism example.
"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."
Carl Sagan is rolling in his grave. Assuming something doesn't exist because it can't be proven is bad reasoning, plain and simple. The endless list of historical examples should show you that.
I think your putting your atheism and materialist philosophy ahead of your skepticism. His examples are arbitrary, concentrate on his reasoning. This coming from an materialist atheist!
waltsimons 3 years ago
If by "he" you mean me, change it to "she". :)
BionicDance 3 years ago
My apologies, I don't seem to be able to edit it. :O
waltsimons 3 years ago
That's okay, and there's no reason you should have known unless you'd surfed to my page and seen my name...so I'm not blaming you at all. No worries.
But for clarity's sake, it's easier if you use the correct pronoun in the future, just so I can at least guess when you mean me. :)
BionicDance 3 years ago
"Show me the evidence; if you can prove your claims, that's actually REALLY COOL because it opens up new avenues of study!"
Exactly, it would be great! Supernatural becoming natural!
Di66en6ion 3 years ago
No, the supernatural would NOT become natural.
Things THOUGHT to be supernatural, but which are later found to have natural causes which were previously undetected are RE-CLASSIFIED as natural.
But the supernatural, if such a thing existed, would be distinct from the natural due specifically to its irrational nature/behavior, violation of natural law.
I'm not saying that knowing the difference between natural and supernatural would be EASY, necessarily, but there IS a distinction.
BionicDance 3 years ago
If there is a distinction, then there is something to measure, it's inescapable.
Di66en6ion 3 years ago
Yes, of course there's something to measure.
But if, somehow, influence were to come from outside the system, into the natural world, and have some sort of effect, but the source of that effect come from a supernatural source OUTSIDE the natural world, you can measure ONLY the real world influence the supernatural has, not its supernatural source.
Read "Flatland" and how 2D creatures experienced the intrusion of a 3D object into the world. It'd be like THAT, only natural vs supernatural.
BionicDance 3 years ago
"Outside the system"?
You must clarify because that statement makes no sense.
The movie from which that flatland clip was taken from was pretty biased. If by outside the system you mean extra dimensions, your argument is still nonsensical, anything that interacts with another is intrinsically a part of it in some way. The concept of "outside" in this context is flawed.
Di66en6ion 3 years ago
If there is going to be anything supernatural, its behavior has to violate nature's laws, correct? Otherwise it would just be natural.
So to violate nature's laws, it would have to come from outside the system in which natural laws exist. Thus, anything supernatural has to come from outside the system or nature, intruding upon the natural world.
It's not a hard concept to grasp as theory; proving it's real...well, hell, it probably ISN'T real, given the available evidence. But even so...
BionicDance 3 years ago
Not imo. Laws are an older language of science used to label what happens under usual circumstances (ie theory etc...). Exceptions are found to theories every day, they have to be accounted for. Violating a natural "law" would simply add more information to the "law", making it more accurate and dependable at making predictions since that's what they're used for.
Di66en6ion 3 years ago
That's true of an entirely natural, rational world. But if it turns out that there IS the supernatural out there, you'll find completely irrational things happening, and THAT'S the supernatural.
Suppose combining peanut butter and a balloon during the full moon in March produced a chicken; disparate, irrational, completely wack-o jack-o producing an effect that beggars logic. Assume there's no trickery involved and that it really happened; wouldn't you consider that magic?
BionicDance 3 years ago
Just for the record I want you to realize that you're making every statement with an "if".
Such ifs will simply be ignored untill they happen, that's the nature of science for the most part. It's just not worth the energy to contemplate every infinitude of possibilities. Much more efficient to react to the event once it actually happens.
Di66en6ion 3 years ago
Yes, of course I am. This entire idea is a hypothetical; I'm not advocating the EXISTENCE of the supernatural, I'm defining what it means to BE supernatural, and how not to bias one's thinking for or against it.
If I didn't start these statements with 'if', you might think I was advocating the existence of the supernatural; I have no evidence for it and don't believe it DOES it exist. But I'll examine any claims with an OPEN mind, thankyouverymuchindeed.
BionicDance 3 years ago
The accountancy of if Supernatual is:
Faith: a belief in a thing, no evidence
Supernatural: an unknown
Isnt religious beliefs maceration?
That is to say, a grinding down of reason
Therefore a respectful response
from a non-believer is a blast
of intellect-icide?
Spiritualism = a Shrewdness of Apes ability to Toy with Intellectualism.
Nothing to fear there.
humanman65 3 years ago