The Limits of Science

[Blaggard]

What is "logically" true is true only in the context of specifix axioms. And axioms are based on nothing. ...

Not true, axioms can be based upon many things but in the case of Logic they are based upon the existence of things or states of affairs.

Religion is based on empirical evidence as science does. Religious people believe because of some religious experience they have...

Not quite like science does, whilst true that the term 'empirical evidence' could be used this way its a slippery argument as what you are saying is that a subjective experience is enough to claim existence of an objective entity, my take is if it is objectively empirical show me one!? Show me an observable 'God' that you believe in, in the way you can show me that you believe a tree exists because you've had an experience of one.

Actually no. Axioms are based on nothing.
Actually they are based on intuition.
I like intuition very much.
Would you trust it if it told you God exists?

Take for example the simple axiom "Every logical proposition is either true OR false".
Did you know that EVEN THIS is an axiom?!?

Lies. Can't be true. Every logical proposition is either true or false, you made that up.

[Kuznetzova]

We need to name the logical fallacy that goes , roughly:

"Since science cannot explain X, I am now uniquely qualified to explain to you the exact nature of X."

This fallacy is committed by Deepak Choprah, Bill O'Reily, Wayne Teasdale, Stuart Hammeroff, and several people on this forum. It's high time we give it a name for brevity.

[Kuznetzova]

In christian philosophy "faith" was traditionally defined as "Belief in things un-seen."

I see no egregious problem with that philosophy, stated that way. However, of recent date "faith" has turned into a delusional denial of the raw, empirical data measured by telescopes and instruments of science. ( I do not refer to the interpretation of that evidence with various theories. ) I'm talking the raw data coming in from measurement. "Faith" was never supposed to be = "denial of factual, physical evidence".

It is not the case that science is over-eager to have its imaginings confirmed with flimsy one-offs. It is not the case that we are all somehow more skeptical than the peer-review process. When the evidence is presented in publication, the researchers are expected to bound the data with error bars, indicating that they understand the statistics and uncertainty of measurement. Getting something, anything, through peer-review is an odious struggle, and often requires that the experiment be repeated independently. Even the disciplines of science have a healthy skepticism of raw data. It is simply unrealistic to characterize the acceptance of raw measurements by scientists as "blind faith".

Not all sciences are so rigid, but I have already characterized which branches of science are better or worse in this regard.

[Hjarloprillar]

The religious experience is not something "privy". There are billions of people having it.

Or so they say. But humans are not to bright.

Thy followed dictators by the score. Simply believe bin laden dropped twin towers in own footprint and believe in ghosts vampires and honest govt.

The hearsay of the masses is effluent

[skakos]

Actually no. Axioms are based on nothing.
Actually they are based on intuition.

You contradict yourself.

The axioms of logic are generally based upon observation of the world and symbols.

I like intuition very much.
Would you trust it if it told you God exists?

Only if you can tell me what this 'intuition' consists of?

Take for example the simple axiom "Every logical proposition is either true OR false".
Did you know that EVEN THIS is an axiom?!?

Any proposition can be an axiom, in the case of the above its truth or falsity depends upon the Logic being used.

No matter what you observe, you can define whatever axioms you want!
And no matter what axioms you choose, you will end up with a valid theory!
Do you disagree with that?
Do you believe that either of the three main different geometries for example is "better" or "more valid" than the other two?

[skakos]

"The religious experience is not something "privy". There are billions of people having it."

Billions of individuals have individual experiences...this is not a collective event....the experiences of one are not interpretable as indicative of the experience of another.

So: no person can be privy to the wholly subjective experience of another beyond what one communicates to another.

#

"And yes, me and you may see the fire and experience it. But others may not."

Hogwash. Fire burns. It'll burn me and you and the one with disconnected senses all the same.

Take some poor schmuck (blind, deaf, with a cold, numb from the neck down) put his legs in a camp fire...he'll burn...he may not feel it, may not initially be aware of it, but he'll burn.

His inability to experience the fire doesn't negate the reality of the fire or the fire's effect on him.

#

"We also see death and experience it. But others (wise people, e.g. Chirst) do not."

I've seen folks die, yes...haven't had the pleasure of the experience yet (my having not died yet doesn't negate the reality of dying)...Christ is a fiction.

#

"We see colours and shapes, but others do not."

As color is 'in' the light, a lack of experience -- again -- doesn't negate reality.

#

"Who is correct here?"

Me, of course...

There are also people who EXPERIENCE Near Death Experiences.
But I guess you do not accept these EXPERIENCES because you did not have them your self.
As with colours, it is not only a matter of "lack of experience".
It is a matter of DIFFERENT experiences!
I see red.
You may see yellow.
Or grey...

And no, I am correct!

[skakos]

Actually no. Axioms are based on nothing.
Actually they are based on intuition.
I like intuition very much.
Would you trust it if it told you God exists?

Take for example the simple axiom "Every logical proposition is either true OR false".
Did you know that EVEN THIS is an axiom?!?

Lies. Can't be true. Every logical proposition is either true or false, you made that up.

Look out for "Dialethism".

[Hjarloprillar]

"Any proposition can be an axiom, in the case of the above its truth or falsity depends upon the Logic being used."

No it depends on parameters of question being asked.

[Blaggard]

There are also people who EXPERIENCE Near Death Experiences.
But I guess you do not accept these EXPERIENCES because you did not have them your self.
As with colours, it is not only a matter of "lack of experience".
It is a matter of DIFFERENT experiences!
I see red.
You may see yellow.
Or grey...

And no, I am correct!

Did you know you can induce NDEs by giving people large doses of tranquillisers. The feeling you are floating above your body, the feeling of euphoria, the sense of other worldliness.

The studies around NDEs such as there are are pretty conclusive that there is no astral projection going on, and it seems the reason so many people experience them is more due to the fact that anyone can be made to experience them with the right drugs. It's easy enough to test although clearly people don't inconveniently die and experience them. Most research is anecdotal based and doesn't really tell you anything about the experience.

As to whether people leave their bodies and view themselves well that is easy to test put a random 6 digit number on a high shelf and ask the person to tell you what it was when they wake up.

[Hjarloprillar]

The idea that vision and cognition leave the body at death. That one is basically same but
disincorporated.
Is up their with an intrusive god and gilligans island.

I will examine any idea that is not 'the moon made of cheese'.
And some 'paranormal' actually has meritable evidence to underpin it.

nde? is a sop to a desire. IT should be "not quite dead yet."
Humans are not too bright. They latch on to anything that smacks of life eternal. As oblivion scares the
hell out of them. ----They know not what it means.----
To see a star born and still be there as it in old age is shredded in disc of singularity. to be effectively a god.
everything ever loved torn away by time till nothing but ashes remain.

To me, eternal life is the horror.

To NOT be able to find that grave, a fine and quiet place, where none i think do there embrace.
is a nightmare

Prill

[henry quirk]

"There are also people who EXPERIENCE Near Death Experiences."

Sure...they have hallucinations or dreams...internal, subjective, events rooted in the recursive nature of the human brain.

The biological event leading to the NDE is real; the interpretation of the event 'as' out-of-body is not.

#

"But I guess you do not accept these EXPERIENCES because you did not have them your self."

Don't think I even hinted at such a thing anywhere in this thread.

#

"I see red. You may see yellow. Or grey..."

Yeah, physical differences between our eyes (color blindness on my part, for example) may lead to differing interpretations of 'red', but 'red' itself is in the light, my interpretation of 'red' is the result of my eye and brain (me).

[Hjarloprillar]

You reveal much..
well said
"The biological event leading to the NDE is real" true

but after that.

" i seen a ghost"
personal descriptive 'interviews' are very hard to ignore.
They tug at the core of being.
Emotion is POWERFULL.
but Ceteris paribus

This is why spock in star trek became a demigod. LOGIC. a human thing challenged gods.

i believe nde a total waste of time.. but thats me. Robby the robot.[ ex gladio equitas]

Prill

__________________
The make latin live again. Acronym MLA. it is too precise to abandon.
A few lines of latin says a page of english.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XbI-fDzUJXI

[SpheresOfBalance]

My point earlier was that many that follow science, can only believe, not know, that any particular finding is accurate/true, they take it on faith, much like one does that reads the bible, and that just like the bible, the information could be fictitious from an absolute/universal perspective, or maybe not. Only the scientists conducting the experiments could know, but even that's not always sure.

Then, I for one, wonder why most that follow science, speak of it, as if they just saw god! That is, with so much conviction, that they believe it trumps alternate views. Just that someone studies such things, on a daily basis, does not 'necessarily' speak of their accuracy, not even their conviction, as sometimes it may just be a job, to get money, to survive, as this particular human construct, demands. Whenever one can see a hint of potential, conflict of interest, it should cause their skepticism, to kick in, not definitively of course, yet ever hovering in the wings, of ones mind.

When considering Science, I remember this proverb:

'Men are four:

He who knows not, and knows not he knows not;
He who knows not, and knows he knows not;
He who knows and knows not he knows;
He who knows and knows he knows.'

Yet when analyzing it, I wonder how one could ever 'truly know' which of the four applies to them, as not knowing precludes knowing?

I see that in truth, like Socrates noted, we can only ever be sure, that #2 applies to us, or in his words, 'I only know that I know nothing.' As at least I see, that knowing something is at the end of the line, not ever being capable of further refinement, otherwise merely belief. The problem is, how can one 'know,' they are at its end? It's not like there is a big printed sign from god that says, "you have completed this quest, congratulations!" I guess we just keep making educated guess's, then supply maths, that seemingly support them, as if it's absolutely definitive, the actual truth/fact of the matter, universally speaking.

The "end" is getting back at the beginning...
Rather, it's looking back to find the truth of the beginning, thus putting the now into it's proper perspective, so that the future can be built smartly.

When we started analyzing things, we started destroying them. We started cutting them into pieces so that they fir the little boxes we have in our mind.
Rather, we take things apart, to understand their components, so as to understand the origin. We only destroy, not even as much as the universe destroys itself, due to it's physics; entropy; it's truth of actuality, we can only hope to fully understand, from day to day. And I'm sure that allowing ones mind to bias their findings, does happen, from time to time, as not everyone's perfect when modelling the experiments, considering the wisdom implied in the "Scientific Method," to it's fullest extent, thus leaving some type of bias in place, flavoring their findings.

Too much analysis of the world, destroys its true essence...
Totally absurd! Though I do see how one could imagine the possibility that messing with molecular structure, could be dangerous, what with understanding fusion and fission, thus bosons and beyond, who knows until one gets there, if they've done something they shouldn't have or not, it's easy to not have faith in a scientists controls, that you don't even know. I mean, do they have the right stuff, or not? And would/could one even know for sure, else run away in fear, screaming about demons and such! Of course one can learn!

One should not speak definitively, when in fact they are not necessarily capable of knowing something in truth; in all actuality, all certainty! Characterizations are easy, often a figment of ones own bias. Knowledge and wisdom are the keys to understanding; insuring a scientific approach, with proper controls, of impeccable logic, based upon a solid a knowledge as possible, of the broadest, all inclusive scientific understanding, of the universe complete. Then one can have the truest of visions, bar none. Of course one must keep "wants for self" out of the mix, for the most factual actuality.

[Hjarloprillar]

skatos

"When we started analyzing things, we started destroying them. We started cutting them into pieces so that they fir the little boxes we have in our mind."

In gen pop yah. but we here are not gen pop so dont talk to us as sheeple.
sob says it [in red, my color]
so ill be blue

You imagine " i know" .That you cannot be wrong.
you have skills i do not. my skill is seeing where truth is. not defining it.

My skill says you are not even close.
-----------------good friday
chocolate day i'm off to shops to drown in chocolate...and egg shaped chocolate..mmm better than cunnilingus you don't have to wash face

death of a god requires chocolate and cunnilingus...lol

[Blaggard]

@skatos

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zSZNsIFID28

I've never understood the reasoning behind claiming understanding thing is somehow detrimental to the process of wonder and hence detrimental to the appreciation of life in all it's amazing configurations, Feynman sums it up best. A very short excerpt from ode to a flower.

I appreciate the complexity of the universe, the beauty of a mountain landscape, the sublime shades of a rose and the fractal nature of a trees branches. I likewise appreciate the myriad of cells that interact in complexity to produce energy and materials to form that flower; and the millions of years of geological process that led the mountains to their heights; and how each branch of a tree follows a simple pattern of division, to emerge at the most efficient configuration for maximising the area of coverage of its leaves, so as to absorb light most efficiently.

These people who think knowledge subtracts from beauty are missing the whole picture of what makes the universe such a marvel, as such nothing you understand makes such a thing less special, it just dispenses of superfluous stuff that you can't see or prove anyway, like revealing the man behind the curtain is in fact Oz. To claim a person of a more realist bent sees the world as some sort of grey funk, is actually ignorant, who are you to speak for my appreciation of the majesty of everything?