Forums > Social Discussion > Spirituality, sceptiscism and imposing your world on others
Login/Join to Participateenthusiast
301 posts
301 posts
Posted:
I've been following the Who believes in Aura's thread quite keenly.
To summarise that thread briefly a lot of people believe in auras. A lot of other people think they're deluded and/or insane. The sceptics (myself included)
managed to roundly insult the believers and scare them off for the most part.
I don't want a repeat of that here so here there will be NO ARGUING ABOUT WHO IS RIGHT.
if people want to argue they can start another thread.
All i want to know is who here believes in what, and to what extent is it justifiable to push your world view?
I've been following the Who believes in Aura's thread quite keenly.
To summarise that thread briefly a lot of people believe in auras. A lot of other people think they're deluded and/or insane. The sceptics (myself included)
managed to roundly insult the believers and scare them off for the most part.I don't want a repeat of that here so here there will be NO ARGUING ABOUT WHO IS RIGHT.
if people want to argue they can start another thread.
All i want to know is who here believes in what, and to what extent is it justifiable to push your world view?
Walls may have ears but they don't have eyes
enthusiast
301 posts
301 posts
Posted:
The expression "there's more to life than meets the eye" wasn't meant to be taken entirely literally. Furthermore I am well aware that some fields of scientific enquirey cannot employ repeatable experimentation, astrophysics being a clear case in point. In astrophysics you cannot set up experiments but you can monitor the "expirements" that are happening around you.
The questions are meant to capture the spirit, not the letter, of your beliefs. And yes you can vote for many things.
Written by: Sym
I think that every person who thinks atoms exist should click on "That there must be more to life than meets the eye". We know very well that there are things we can't see, but that doesn't stop us exploring them.
The expression "there's more to life than meets the eye" wasn't meant to be taken entirely literally. Furthermore I am well aware that some fields of scientific enquirey cannot employ repeatable experimentation, astrophysics being a clear case in point. In astrophysics you cannot set up experiments but you can monitor the "expirements" that are happening around you.
The questions are meant to capture the spirit, not the letter, of your beliefs. And yes you can vote for many things.
Walls may have ears but they don't have eyes
BRONZE Member
Geek-enviro-hippy priest
1,858 posts
Location: Diss, Norfolk, United Kingdom
Geek-enviro-hippy priest
1,858 posts
Location: Diss, Norfolk, United Kingdom
Posted:
No I actually can't vote - I just get shown the result as if I had voted.
My point about the 'more than meets the eye' option was one I have about more or less any poll - I would click it because we 'know' where is more than meets the eye, but I do not think there is anything super-natural about it. Because everyone should like it no matter what they think (unless they think atoms aren't real), the question is redundant.
I wouldn't want my vote to aid an argument along the lines of 'most people here think there is more that meets the eye, and I am going to assume that they were all talking about supernatural things'.
It doesn't matter, because I can't vote
Written by: the boy g
And yes you can vote for many things.
No I actually can't vote - I just get shown the result as if I had voted.
My point about the 'more than meets the eye' option was one I have about more or less any poll - I would click it because we 'know' where is more than meets the eye, but I do not think there is anything super-natural about it. Because everyone should like it no matter what they think (unless they think atoms aren't real), the question is redundant.
I wouldn't want my vote to aid an argument along the lines of 'most people here think there is more that meets the eye, and I am going to assume that they were all talking about supernatural things'.
It doesn't matter, because I can't vote
There's too many home fires burning and not enough trees
BRONZE Member
enthusiast
363 posts
Location: manchester uk
enthusiast
363 posts
Location: manchester uk
Posted:
Furthermore I am well aware that some fields of scientific enquirey cannot employ repeatable experimentation, astrophysics being a clear case in point. In astrophysics you cannot set up experiments but you can monitor the "expirements" that are happening around you.
actual this does meet the repeatable experimentation requirment. the thing about repeatable experiments isn't that they can be repeated on demand. but that if you do the experiment again you get the same results.
for example if you need a supernova to occure as part of your experiment then odviouly you can't set one off at your conveniance you need to wait for one to happen. but it is still a repeatable experiment because if someone else wanted to do the same experiment they could wait for annother super nover to occure and if the results are valid they should get the same results as you.
repeatable doesn't meen repeatable on demand just that it can be done again. if this wern't true then astrophysics would be refered to as a phlosify not a science again this is true of the other fields you refrences as well all of them are baised on repeatable experiment other wise they wouldn't be called sciences
EDITED_BY: robnunchucks (1166445186)
Furthermore I am well aware that some fields of scientific enquirey cannot employ repeatable experimentation, astrophysics being a clear case in point. In astrophysics you cannot set up experiments but you can monitor the "expirements" that are happening around you.
actual this does meet the repeatable experimentation requirment. the thing about repeatable experiments isn't that they can be repeated on demand. but that if you do the experiment again you get the same results.
for example if you need a supernova to occure as part of your experiment then odviouly you can't set one off at your conveniance you need to wait for one to happen. but it is still a repeatable experiment because if someone else wanted to do the same experiment they could wait for annother super nover to occure and if the results are valid they should get the same results as you.
repeatable doesn't meen repeatable on demand just that it can be done again. if this wern't true then astrophysics would be refered to as a phlosify not a science again this is true of the other fields you refrences as well all of them are baised on repeatable experiment other wise they wouldn't be called sciences
EDITED_BY: robnunchucks (1166445186)
My nunchucks vital statictics 
weight: 500g
handle lenght: 16 inches
chain length: 2 inches
enthusiast
301 posts
301 posts
Posted:
"More than meets the eye" is a common colloquialism. It was intended to be interpreted as more than we can deduce through measurement and reasoning..."more than it appears" might have been better.
"More than meets the eye" is an expression and not meant to be taken literaly like "he's the black sheep of the family" wouldn't usualy be taken to mean that the family in question had a rather unusual pet.
"More than meets the eye" is a common colloquialism. It was intended to be interpreted as more than we can deduce through measurement and reasoning..."more than it appears" might have been better.
"More than meets the eye" is an expression and not meant to be taken literaly like "he's the black sheep of the family" wouldn't usualy be taken to mean that the family in question had a rather unusual pet.
Walls may have ears but they don't have eyes
SILVER Member
currently mending
493 posts
Location: Bristol, New Zealand
currently mending
493 posts
Location: Bristol, New Zealand
Posted:
Unfortunately both these statements still fall short of understanding certain aspects of contemporary scientific knowledge. 100 years ago they would have been an accurate portrayal of scientific methodology, but occidental scientific epistemologies have advanced since then.
For example dynamical systems theory works with qualitative analysis - that is understanding probabilities of non-linear and chaotic systems based on mapping the microstructure of a system's phase portrait. Working with probability indicates the application of a methodology within scientific study within which a repeated experiment is expected to give (often wildly) different results.
The argument that scientific knowledge ought to be purely inductive and logical was made by philosopher of science Karl Popper last century... It has largely been torn to pieces by both philosophers and scientists since.
Part of the reason for this is the advances in technology in the last quarter of the 20th century, whereby computer simulations became a resource increasingly employed as a tool for the generation of scientific knowledge.
For example, climate sensitivity models enable climatologists to make predictions as to the continued effects of Anthropogenic Climate Change based on simulations. While the changes seen in the world thus far can be recorded, measured and analysed, predictions for the future cannot - so simulations, which incorporate nonlinearities (feedback loops) are deployed under the banner of scientific knowledge.
Presenting outdated mechanistic and linear models of causality - whereby scientific knowledge equates certainty and repeatability - does a fine job of presenting 'mysticism' with a conclusively winning argument in this debate - ironically by referring to the decidedly un-mystical practices of contemporary scientific study.
Written by: The Boy G
"More than meets the eye" is a common colloquialism. It was intended to be interpreted as more than we can deduce through measurement and reasoning..."
Written by: robnunchucks
the thing about repeatable experiments isn't that they can be repeated on demand. but that if you do the experiment again you get the same results.
Unfortunately both these statements still fall short of understanding certain aspects of contemporary scientific knowledge. 100 years ago they would have been an accurate portrayal of scientific methodology, but occidental scientific epistemologies have advanced since then.
For example dynamical systems theory works with qualitative analysis - that is understanding probabilities of non-linear and chaotic systems based on mapping the microstructure of a system's phase portrait. Working with probability indicates the application of a methodology within scientific study within which a repeated experiment is expected to give (often wildly) different results.
The argument that scientific knowledge ought to be purely inductive and logical was made by philosopher of science Karl Popper last century... It has largely been torn to pieces by both philosophers and scientists since.
Part of the reason for this is the advances in technology in the last quarter of the 20th century, whereby computer simulations became a resource increasingly employed as a tool for the generation of scientific knowledge.
For example, climate sensitivity models enable climatologists to make predictions as to the continued effects of Anthropogenic Climate Change based on simulations. While the changes seen in the world thus far can be recorded, measured and analysed, predictions for the future cannot - so simulations, which incorporate nonlinearities (feedback loops) are deployed under the banner of scientific knowledge.
Presenting outdated mechanistic and linear models of causality - whereby scientific knowledge equates certainty and repeatability - does a fine job of presenting 'mysticism' with a conclusively winning argument in this debate - ironically by referring to the decidedly un-mystical practices of contemporary scientific study.
He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze long into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you.
Nietzsche
BRONZE Member
veteran
1,247 posts
Location: lost, Canada
veteran
1,247 posts
Location: lost, Canada
Posted:
damn, can we have that again , in small words, over in the aura thread?
:0
Seriously, very nicely put Sy. I love it when you so articulately support my muddled thoughts with facts and polysyllabic vocabulary and everything . Sweet!
lol
a
damn, can we have that again , in small words, over in the aura thread?
:0
Seriously, very nicely put Sy. I love it when you so articulately support my muddled thoughts with facts and polysyllabic vocabulary and everything . Sweet!
lol
a
"God *was* my co-pilot, but then we crashed, and I had to eat him..."
SILVER Member
Mumma Hen
6,391 posts
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Mumma Hen
6,391 posts
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posted:
Ummm.... YEAH!! WHAT DREAM SAID!
Written by: dreamWritten by: The Boy G
"More than meets the eye" is a common colloquialism. It was intended to be interpreted as more than we can deduce through measurement and reasoning..."Written by: robnunchucks
the thing about repeatable experiments isn't that they can be repeated on demand. but that if you do the experiment again you get the same results.
Unfortunately both these statements still fall short of understanding certain aspects of contemporary scientific knowledge. 100 years ago they would have been an accurate portrayal of scientific methodology, but occidental scientific epistemologies have advanced since then.
For example dynamical systems theory works with qualitative analysis - that is understanding probabilities of non-linear and chaotic systems based on mapping the microstructure of a system's phase portrait. Working with probability indicates the application of a methodology within scientific study within which a repeated experiment is expected to give (often wildly) different results.
The argument that scientific knowledge ought to be purely inductive and logical was made by philosopher of science Karl Popper last century... It has largely been torn to pieces by both philosophers and scientists since.
Part of the reason for this is the advances in technology in the last quarter of the 20th century, whereby computer simulations became a resource increasingly employed as a tool for the generation of scientific knowledge.
For example, climate sensitivity models enable climatologists to make predictions as to the continued effects of Anthropogenic Climate Change based on simulations. While the changes seen in the world thus far can be recorded, measured and analysed, predictions for the future cannot - so simulations, which incorporate nonlinearities (feedback loops) are deployed under the banner of scientific knowledge.
Presenting outdated mechanistic and linear models of causality - whereby scientific knowledge equates certainty and repeatability - does a fine job of presenting 'mysticism' with a conclusively winning argument in this debate - ironically by referring to the decidedly un-mystical practices of contemporary scientific study.
Ummm.... YEAH!! WHAT DREAM SAID!
TAJ "boat mummy." VALURA "yes sweetie you went on a boat, was daddy there with you?" TAJ "no, but monkey on boat" VALURA "well then sweetie, Daddy WAS there with you"
BRONZE Member
Geek-enviro-hippy priest
1,858 posts
Location: Diss, Norfolk, United Kingdom
Geek-enviro-hippy priest
1,858 posts
Location: Diss, Norfolk, United Kingdom
Posted:
But every small part of the theory has to follow the laws that we know about in a logical way. For example, a scientist wouldn't use the idea of entropy to explain ghosts, because the logic isn't there. At it's heart, science is logic and what Popper said is still true, it's just that we are looking at much bigger things that are much more complex and we are measuring them in much more detail.
It gets to the point where you can't account for every variable so we have to include some random outcomes, if we look at each small event (in a weather system for example) then each will follow logic as you would expect.
Written by: dream
The argument that scientific knowledge ought to be purely inductive and logical was made by philosopher of science Karl Popper last century... It has largely been torn to pieces by both philosophers and scientists since.
But every small part of the theory has to follow the laws that we know about in a logical way. For example, a scientist wouldn't use the idea of entropy to explain ghosts, because the logic isn't there. At it's heart, science is logic and what Popper said is still true, it's just that we are looking at much bigger things that are much more complex and we are measuring them in much more detail.
It gets to the point where you can't account for every variable so we have to include some random outcomes, if we look at each small event (in a weather system for example) then each will follow logic as you would expect.
There's too many home fires burning and not enough trees
enthusiast
301 posts
301 posts
Posted:
I disagree. The existance of probabilities within a system does not mean that repeatability is any less important. It just means that the results you get won't be the same every time but should have the same distribution. We can still draw conclusions about the average and the variance. This distribution might even be an even distribution, so the result could be anywhere from positive to negative infinity. This would still be a result and we would have to come up with a model that could explain why the results had an even distribution.
How So? Popper is still the most influential philosopher of science and the influence of him and his disciples towers over the field. What is the alternative to using logic in science?
This is true, large scale computer simulations in fields such as climate study are often not repeated. If they were repeated with exactly the same model and exactly the same input parameters then in theory exactly the same calculations would be done and exactly the same result found. Unfortunately with a chaotic system such as the weather an infinitessimal diffrence in starting parameters will feedback to completely alter the behaviour of the entire system. This is part of the reason weather forecasts are so bad, and climate models so poor.
The experiments are still repeatable but a diffrent group using only slightly diffrent methodology (and methodology will inevitably be slightly diffrent). May get vastly diffrent results. This indicates that the system is complicated and no current model exist that can satisfactorily model the system.
In the particular example of climatology this has given ammunition to climate-change deniers (who have often funded studies that suspiciously find no evidence for human induced climate change). Yet eventually, after enough diffrent groups have run simulations a consensus emerged that humans are warming the planet. The experiments were repeated, and the results were diffrent but eventually a consistent picture emerged.
If experiments can be repeated with the same results then it lends credence to a scientific field. The more variation in the results of similar experiments, the more complex the underlying system and the longer it will take to draw definite conclusions. The fundamental process is still much the same however.
Dream claims that the scientific methodology presented by myself and Rob amoung others is outdated without offering an alternative.
EDITED_BY: the boy g (1166530100)
Written by: dreamWritten by: The Boy G
"More than meets the eye" is a common colloquialism. It was intended to be interpreted as more than we can deduce through measurement and reasoning..."Written by: robnunchucks
the thing about repeatable experiments isn't that they can be repeated on demand. but that if you do the experiment again you get the same results.
For example dynamical systems theory works with qualitative analysis - that is understanding probabilities of non-linear and chaotic systems based on mapping the microstructure of a system's phase portrait. Working with probability indicates the application of a methodology within scientific study within which a repeated experiment is expected to give (often wildly) different results.
I disagree. The existance of probabilities within a system does not mean that repeatability is any less important. It just means that the results you get won't be the same every time but should have the same distribution. We can still draw conclusions about the average and the variance. This distribution might even be an even distribution, so the result could be anywhere from positive to negative infinity. This would still be a result and we would have to come up with a model that could explain why the results had an even distribution.
Written by: dream
The argument that scientific knowledge ought to be purely inductive and logical was made by philosopher of science Karl Popper last century... It has largely been torn to pieces by both philosophers and scientists since.
How So? Popper is still the most influential philosopher of science and the influence of him and his disciples towers over the field. What is the alternative to using logic in science?
Written by: dream
Part of the reason for this is the advances in technology in the last quarter of the 20th century, whereby computer simulations became a resource increasingly employed as a tool for the generation of scientific knowledge.
This is true, large scale computer simulations in fields such as climate study are often not repeated. If they were repeated with exactly the same model and exactly the same input parameters then in theory exactly the same calculations would be done and exactly the same result found. Unfortunately with a chaotic system such as the weather an infinitessimal diffrence in starting parameters will feedback to completely alter the behaviour of the entire system. This is part of the reason weather forecasts are so bad, and climate models so poor.
The experiments are still repeatable but a diffrent group using only slightly diffrent methodology (and methodology will inevitably be slightly diffrent). May get vastly diffrent results. This indicates that the system is complicated and no current model exist that can satisfactorily model the system.
In the particular example of climatology this has given ammunition to climate-change deniers (who have often funded studies that suspiciously find no evidence for human induced climate change). Yet eventually, after enough diffrent groups have run simulations a consensus emerged that humans are warming the planet. The experiments were repeated, and the results were diffrent but eventually a consistent picture emerged.
If experiments can be repeated with the same results then it lends credence to a scientific field. The more variation in the results of similar experiments, the more complex the underlying system and the longer it will take to draw definite conclusions. The fundamental process is still much the same however.
Dream claims that the scientific methodology presented by myself and Rob amoung others is outdated without offering an alternative.
EDITED_BY: the boy g (1166530100)
Walls may have ears but they don't have eyes
BRONZE Member
enthusiast
363 posts
Location: manchester uk
enthusiast
363 posts
Location: manchester uk
Posted:
dream ok i think your takeing things abit literaly here but to be fair i odviously didn't express my self clearly, hence the missunderstanding so let me try and clarify abit.
when i say experimental results must be repeatable to get the same results dont meen litteraly the SAME results as in the exact same numbers come of the experiment. i meen the same expected results, for example quantom mechanics states quite firmly that you can never predict exacly what is going to happen, you can only predict the probibility of something happening. The results in this cases are a statisical distribution of what you would expect to find. in quantom mechanics these results are mind bogglingly acurate, and no experiment has ever contradicted the probibly predictions of it.
this is what i meen by repeatable experiment. the climate models you refer to are baised on chaos theory and lorenz attractors in complex systems. again because these system are complex you will get vairying results. but like quantom mechanics in chaotic systems it is pointless to make exact predictions the only valid out come is to make probiblity estimates. By running a simulation several times you can produce probibility of what is going to happen. BUT if you run the same experiment again you should get the same probiblitys again and this is what we find. for example you run the program 10 times all with slightly diffrent inputs and 6 times it rains and 4 times its sunny. you would predict a 60% chance of rain but if another group does this useing the same model they should get roughly the same outcome.
i think your under the confusion that im talking about scientific determinism let me asure you im not i've read alot about quantum mechanicas and chaos theory as well as complex systems. All of which pritty much blow scientific determinism out the water.
but my point still stands all science is baised on repeatable experiments that get the same results. i should probibly have added that a probibility distribution is still classed as a result.
i shall aim to be more exact in the future
as for the part about logic not been a part of science that suprises me do you have someware i could read the arguements against it.
and what do you suggest we use as an alternative to logic? as far as i can see without logic the world decends into madness without logic the following statement is valid for example.
a monkey/a set of bagpipes = 6
also
Presenting outdated mechanistic and linear models of causality - whereby scientific knowledge equates certainty and repeatability - does a fine job of presenting 'mysticism' with a conclusively winning argument in this debate - ironically by referring to the decidedly un-mystical practices of contemporary scientific study.
can i just check this last sentence got alot of the spirtiualists excited but if i've parsed and understood it correctly. are you saying that while scientific determinism was supportive of mysticism. modern scientific methods are not? please feel free to correct me i dont thing i've quite grasped the point you were trying to make in this last paragraph
EDITED_BY: robnunchucks (1166533112)
dream ok i think your takeing things abit literaly here but to be fair i odviously didn't express my self clearly, hence the missunderstanding so let me try and clarify abit.
when i say experimental results must be repeatable to get the same results dont meen litteraly the SAME results as in the exact same numbers come of the experiment. i meen the same expected results, for example quantom mechanics states quite firmly that you can never predict exacly what is going to happen, you can only predict the probibility of something happening. The results in this cases are a statisical distribution of what you would expect to find. in quantom mechanics these results are mind bogglingly acurate, and no experiment has ever contradicted the probibly predictions of it.
this is what i meen by repeatable experiment. the climate models you refer to are baised on chaos theory and lorenz attractors in complex systems. again because these system are complex you will get vairying results. but like quantom mechanics in chaotic systems it is pointless to make exact predictions the only valid out come is to make probiblity estimates. By running a simulation several times you can produce probibility of what is going to happen. BUT if you run the same experiment again you should get the same probiblitys again and this is what we find. for example you run the program 10 times all with slightly diffrent inputs and 6 times it rains and 4 times its sunny. you would predict a 60% chance of rain but if another group does this useing the same model they should get roughly the same outcome.
i think your under the confusion that im talking about scientific determinism let me asure you im not i've read alot about quantum mechanicas and chaos theory as well as complex systems. All of which pritty much blow scientific determinism out the water.
but my point still stands all science is baised on repeatable experiments that get the same results. i should probibly have added that a probibility distribution is still classed as a result.
i shall aim to be more exact in the future
as for the part about logic not been a part of science that suprises me do you have someware i could read the arguements against it.
and what do you suggest we use as an alternative to logic? as far as i can see without logic the world decends into madness without logic the following statement is valid for example.
a monkey/a set of bagpipes = 6
also
Presenting outdated mechanistic and linear models of causality - whereby scientific knowledge equates certainty and repeatability - does a fine job of presenting 'mysticism' with a conclusively winning argument in this debate - ironically by referring to the decidedly un-mystical practices of contemporary scientific study.
can i just check this last sentence got alot of the spirtiualists excited but if i've parsed and understood it correctly. are you saying that while scientific determinism was supportive of mysticism. modern scientific methods are not? please feel free to correct me i dont thing i've quite grasped the point you were trying to make in this last paragraph
EDITED_BY: robnunchucks (1166533112)
My nunchucks vital statictics
weight: 500g
handle lenght: 16 inches
chain length: 2 inches
Scientist of Fortune
1,189 posts
Location: Edinburgh
1,189 posts
Location: Edinburgh
Posted:
Reading dream's posts clearly indicate that something other than logic is indeed used.
(sorry)
Written by: robnunchucks
and what do you suggest we use as an alternative to logic? as far as i can see without logic the world decends into madness without logic the following statement is valid for example.
a monkey/a set of bagpipes = 6
Reading dream's posts clearly indicate that something other than logic is indeed used.
(sorry) According to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Dynamics, we may already be making love right now...
Stargazer
6,650 posts
6,650 posts
Posted:
Bump
"Imposing your world onto others... "
Interesting point. Am I imposing myself if I (strongly) argue against or for something?
Am I imposing myself by - say smoking a cigarette in public? Or by carrying a sign on my back saying: Jesus died?
It's a tricky question, I guess.
Am I already imposing myself by posting or opening up a thread?
*Goes into pondering mode*
oops *comes back from pondering mode*
Wrong thread - this is exclusively about spirituality.. Ignore it and let it slowly sink back down into the archives of HoP.......
EDITED_BY: FireTom (1183115709)
Bump
"Imposing your world onto others... "
Interesting point. Am I imposing myself if I (strongly) argue against or for something?
Am I imposing myself by - say smoking a cigarette in public? Or by carrying a sign on my back saying: Jesus died?
It's a tricky question, I guess.
Am I already imposing myself by posting or opening up a thread?
*Goes into pondering mode*
oops *comes back from pondering mode*
Wrong thread - this is exclusively about spirituality.. Ignore it and let it slowly sink back down into the archives of HoP.......
EDITED_BY: FireTom (1183115709)
the best smiles are the ones you lead to 
© 1998 - 2024 Home of Poi
All prices converted to United States dollars using XE.com