by Shining One 369 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
Cygnus,
It is only honest research if there is no assumption we're there. They have turned around the act of observation and "identified" cause subtractively that they do not know to exist in the first place, they only hypothesize the existence of cause from perceived effects.
I have serious, and I think well-founded, problem with Science stepping outside its bounds by stating and labeling unobserved cause, then reframing in such a way that it seems they did no such thing.
Respectfully,
OldSoul
Well, to bring up Star Trek again, in the fourth movie changed variables were going to make it difficult to calculate the Enterprise's reentry into their own time. Kirk told Spoke to guess. Spock couldn't understand - how could he guess at this important scientific model? MCcoy reassured him by telling him, "What he means is, he thinks your best guess is better than most people's facts."
That's how I see it, when people far more learned than I am make such guesses in their studies. ::shrugs::
determination of cause by observed effect is not observation of cause.
Like gravity?
Um, yes, tdogg. Like gravity. (see previous page, LOL)
And wind?
Nah, we know what wind is. And not just by its effects. Wind is not technically a force, per se. It is movement of air, displacement of gasses. Technically, wind is caused by gravity (whatever gravity is) and temperature.
Respectfully,
OldSoul
Oldsoul,
>> Ockham's Razor? Please, use it. What is gravity?
Why should I be concerned with what gravity *is*? I only care about what it *does* and how it *works*. "Gravity" is just a label we use for the phenomenon so we can talk about it... a shorthand if you will. It's much more convenient than saying, "the apple fell from the tree because of the invisible force that affects matter based on the following rules... blah blah blah..."
If you want to play philisophical word games, be my guest. Is gravity the combined actions of an infinite number of angels all predictably working in concert? Maybe, but who cares? It doesn't change how gravity works, nor does it offer any more explanatory power.
Also, we can use Occham's razor to give us hints into the relative probability of the existence of other unseen realities. We can hopefully all agree on what we do know something about... our material reality - the one we have evidence of. We have learned from this material reality that the human mind is easy to fool - our perceptions of physical events are many times incorrect (that is, they cannot be corroborated by third parties).
How much more suspect is a human's perception of some other reality? Occham's razor comes in to play and shows us, based on what we know of *this* reality, that the person with these perceptions is most probably beeing fooled. And even if they are not being fooled and they really are experiencing some other reality... how reliable is that experience? The chances are good that they are not even really perceiving what they think they are in that reality - especially considering their lack of experience in that reality.
So how could I ever trust someone's subjective experience of the "other side" when I can't even trust their subjective experiences on this side? I realize you have repeatedly said you are not set out to prove anything, but I do believe you need to be reminded of the imperfections of your own perceptions - especially when they cannot be verified.
rem
Consider me reminded. LOL.
rem,
What I take issue with is not Science exploring material reality. I take issue with people who infer that spirituality is delusional. That would make the majority of the world's population, including many scientist's who don't support young earth, delusional.
If delusions are as Psychiatry define, "falsifiable beliefs" then those who believe in a spiritual realm are not delusional. Are they, rem? Tetrapod.sapien? Cygnus? Caedes? kid-A?
On the other hand, that doesn't mean science is deluded either, unless they treat gravity as more real than it has actually been proven to be, for instance. Gravity is not falsifiable, only some of its properties are.
Respectfully,
OldSoul
Nah, we know what wind is.
But we can not observe wind or air for that matter.
And not just by its effects.
Then how?
Great
"Great discussion" I was about to type before my post posted itself. Who knew such great phiosophical discussion could be found on an ex-JW website.
