I don't think that's been proven completely yet Piskie, but it proves my point. It's theorised to exist because of it's interaction with things that we can detect. The same should apply to the supernatural, shouldn't it?
I've said before that the term 'supernatural' is a misnomer. If something occurs, then it occurs in nature. But for argument's sake - some people would argue that the 'supernatural' does interact with the natural world for others, because it doesn't fit their paradigms of what's real, they dismiss it. Yet our understanding of the cosmos around us grows exponentially and we incorporate more and more understanding with it. As I've mentioned, it wasn't that long ago that people believed that you'd fall off the edge of the Earth if you ventured into the unknown.
No idea. It's a hypothesis at the moment. People don't dismiss the supernatural, or whatever you choose to describe it as, because it would upset their world view, Piskie. They claim that there's no proof that it exists and challenge those that do believe in it to offer evidence that it does. There have been tons of studies of virtually every aspect of it. People look into it constantly.
I just think we need to be cautious is assuming that our current understanding and scientific methods are reliable enough to explain everything. That anything that falls outside of these parameters must therefore be untrue. A classic example of this is in mathematics, another rigorous approach to seeking truth. It was once believed that all true mathematical statements could be proven from a handful of axioms. This idea was fruitful as long as it lasted. However, in 1931 it was blown away by Godel's Incompleteness Theorem, which proved the existence of some true-but-unprovable statements. Since then, it has been shown that there are many other unsolvable problems, including undecidable propositions and incalculable numbers. Thus - you don't have to have absolute proof to conclude that something may exist, paradoxically - as Godel's Incompleteness Theorem 'proves'
The analogy's meaning is that - what we consider to be a complete world view, is then changed by the introduction of new knowledge.
That's not what I'm saying, you can't extrapolate that therefore 'everything must be' because one theory shows that what is considered to be rigorous, actually isn't but you can suggest that what is considered to be rigorous, does not always follow with predictable outcomes.
I'm probably split between the two opinions here. It's possible that various supposedly supernatural phenomena have rational, natural explanations, but until we can find ways to detect and explain them, then it's probably best to work from the assumption that they're not real. If something's undetectable and unexplainable, then how does it have any effect upon our reality? If it's later shown that these things do exist and do have some influence upon our lives, then we just accept it and continue to try and progress. I'm not suggesting that these things shouldn't be studied, only that our current studies don't indicate that there's any truth to any of it.
So what about the outcomes that can't be measured? Take the big bang for example Physics of the early Universe is at the boundary of astronomy and philosophy since we do not currently have a complete theory that unifies all the fundamental forces of Nature at the moment of Creation. In addition, there is no possibility of linking observation or experimentation of early Universe physics to our theories (i.e. its not possible to `build' another Universe). Our theories are rejected or accepted based on simplicity and aesthetic grounds, plus their power of prediction to later times, rather than an appeal to empirical results. This is a very different way of doing science from previous centuries of research. Our physics can explain most of the evolution of the Universe after the Planck time (approximately 10-43 seconds after the Big Bang). However, events before this time are undefined in our current science and, in particular, we have no solid understanding of the origin of the Universe (i.e. what started or `caused' the Big Bang). At best, we can describe our efforts to date as probing around the `edges' of our understanding in order to define what we don't understand, much like a blind person would explore the edge of a deep hole, learning its diameter without knowing its depth. In other words, the actual cause of the Big Bang is unknown, and probably unknowable. Yet, One thing is clear in our framing of questions such as `How did the Universe get started?' is that the Universe was self-creating. This is not a statement on a `cause' behind the origin of the Universe, nor is it a statement on a lack of purpose or destiny. It is simply a statement that the Universe was emergent, that the actual of the Universe probably derived from a indeterminate sea of potentiality that we call the quantum vacuum, whose properties may always remain beyond our current understanding. If everything follows simple cause and effect principles, why did the universe suddenly spring up, out of nothing, for no apparent reason?
I work in psychology - and the idea of 'misleading experiences' is actually a value judgement, based on a perceived definition of reality. Science - for all of its wonderful contributions to our understanding (and I'm a fan) is actually just another belief system.
Who says that it did, Piskie? There are multiple theories about whether it did or not. The Big Crunch and the cyclic model both offer alternative suggestions.
The idea that "if you can't provide good evidence that it happened, then it didn't happen" is a good methodological assumption for science. But this assumption itself, is not true. It may simply be that the evidence has yet to be found. Thus, at best you can say that although there is no current evidence for the existence of the supernatural, this is not evidence that it does not exist.
No - it doesn't, the argument means that you cannot prove that something doesn't exist because of an absence of evidence. not that you should accept everything as truth despite a lack of evidence There is a big difference. As for Wenger out, I would argue that this is an absurd proposition, given that the likely evidence would suggest that we would struggle further without him. Anyway - good to chat to someone with some well thought out views, makes a refreshing difference from the usual inane stuff usually found on GC All the best Piskie
PISKIE - that was predictable. You know I'm on your side - but go and have a lie down - you've deserved it.....but please make sure you wake up again ( in this life )
so what you are saying is no life no evolution right? so interconnected, as in no abiogenesis no evolution
I showed exactly where you indicated it, you utter moron. It's not my fault if you can't accept that. Again, you clearly can't read properly and have a distinct problem with articulating what you're saying. Read that yourself and I'm sure you'll be able to see what I mean. It's a meaningless term. According to your own definition you are a Darwinist, as you claim to accept evolution. I said that it was a stupid term in my first reply. That clearly recognises that the term exists, you ****wit. Utter, utter bullshit. Abiogenesis is not creation. The two things are totally separate hypotheses about the same thing. Yet more bullshit. You clearly still don't understand what a scientific theory is and you don't understand evolution, either. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_theory_and_fact Monkey to man isn't the theory. Try reading a ****ing book.
