Everything That is Wrong With Modern Science

[webolife]

I follow that mostly, with a couple counterpoints:
1. Abraham means "father of multitudes"
2. "God is up there" is the exact opposite of Jesus' saying, "The kingdom of God is among you".
As paradoxical as it may seem to many here, [despite, or maybe given, the duality of physical vs spiritual] I believe nature is essentially supernatural. Most of the greatest discoveries in science history were made upon this premise, but post-modern science has lost this connection entirely.

[Grey Cloud]

Hi Webolife,
Your point 1 - I meant in Sanskrit, I'm guessing you mean in Hebrew?
Your point 2 - Every tradition and every great teacher says the answer is within not without - Know Thyself. This is what Plato's philosophy is about, see:
http://plato-dialogues.org/tetralog.htm#tetramap
I understand your use of the word 'supernatural' but it a word I tend to avoid as it carries too much baggage and people's prejudices tend to kick in and any meaningful dialogue stops right there.

[webolife]

Points taken, but I am of a firm belief that peoples' prejudices are ALWAYS "kicked in." People can talk about objectivity, but cannot be truly objective. This is why we need each other, the reason for forums.

[Plasmatic]

I believe nature is essentially supernatural. Most of the greatest discoveries in science history were made upon this premise, but post-modern science has lost this connection entirely.

Say Web would you be interested in supplying a few examples of this claim?

[webolife]

Physicists: Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler, Boyle, Pascal, Halley, Newton, Joule, Thompson/Kelvin, Faraday, Maxwell...
Biologists: Redi, Pasteur, Hooke, Leewenhoek, Cuvier, Mendel...
By their own hand these science pioneers declare that their faith in the rationality of the universe:
1. was based on their belief in a rational/intelligent designer
2. drove their exploration into the mysteries of the creation
When paleontologists find a fossil amid a pile of rock and sand, they see the clear markings of patterned specificity and design that distinguish it from the rubble. When archaeologists find a potsherd in a muddy layer at a tel, even just a small fragment, they may detect the stylistic elements that conclusively prove what people, time, and events were happening at the time of its burial. Such treasures not only delight the finders, but drive them to seek for even more evidences of the mysterious story of origins which they believe. When it comes to earth history and cosmology, basic beliefs are at the very foundation of every scientist's pursuit . But the life-force or intelligence behind the treasures of the universe is not just an organism or a human being, it is its very creator. Now you may believe that the universe perpetuated itself, and as a result you see no design or supernaturality to it at all, and that is of course your right . I on the other hand see elements and evidences of design everywhere I look, and in ways that surprise, amaze and delight me just like the shards found by the aforementioned diggers. Though surrounded by a sea of apparently "random" material, each bit fills in another detail of the life that formed or left it, and the context in which that life operated, or operates. To me that makes nature supernatural at its very essence.

[Grey Cloud]

Hi Webolife,
You could also have mentioned Francis Bacon, Bohr, Bohm and Einstein.

[Plasmatic]

Physicists: Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler, Boyle, Pascal, Halley, Newton, Joule, Thompson/Kelvin, Faraday, Maxwell...
Biologists: Redi, Pasteur, Hooke, Leewenhoek, Cuvier, Mendel...
By their own hand these science pioneers declare that their faith in the rationality of the universe:
1. was based on their belief in a rational/intelligent designer
2. drove their exploration into the mysteries of the creation

It would be interesting to read some quotes. Not that Im disputing that the above mentioned folks werent religious or mystic or men of faith or whatever you want to call it. I bet if one looked into their use of "rational" it would lead to an interesting discussion.The important thing would seem that those who recognize reason as the path to understanding [for whatever reason] are the ones who make discoveries.

. Though surrounded by a sea of apparently "random" material, each bit fills in another detail of the life that formed or left it, and the context in which that life operated, or operates. To me that makes nature supernatural at its very essence.

The whole point that is missing here is that there is no random non specific anything. Everything has identity,is something specific/particular. the whole idea of ID rest on the false idea that somethings are not "specific" or "complex" [if I recall from my old Dembski books specificity and complexity =design]. Understanding that identity is axiomatic destroys the nonsense belief that anything could be "random". the least complex existent still is something specific and is subject to causality. Supernatural = acausal by definition.

[Brigit Bara]

Grey Cloud said,

"IMO the EU cannot become a new paradigm, at best it will become a revision of the existing paradigm. The EU has nothing to say about how the Universe originated or how life came into it. The SM has the Big Bang and Darwinian evolution. I suppose the EU could come up with the Big Arc or something."

Oh pish posh, Grey Cloud. If there is not enough information "to even frame an intelligent question" (holoscience) about how the Universe and life originated, then EU is perfectly positioned to become the new paradigm. It does not go where empirical evidence does not lead. Wouldn't that be nice?

I am more than fascinated to see how much electricity can explain, and how much of its ways can be understood.* But scientists are hardly in danger of having exhausted the subject.



*ref:
http://www.physorg.com/news115650653.html
"Those findings leave the researchers wondering why electrical fields exist inside cells."

article posted by MGmirkin on another thread

[webolife]

Plasmatic said: "Supernatural = acausal by definition."

I say that's your definition, but let's talk about "rational", "reason", "logic"...
Belief base #1 ---> looks at the evidence [as much as is available, not just preferred/selected factoids]
---> uses logic, reason, even the scientific "method" ---> arrives at conclusion #1
Belief base #2 ---> looks at the same evidence ---> uses logic, reason, the scientific method
---> arrives at conclusion #2
Depending on how disparate the two belief systems are, the conclusions could/will be very different,
yet both be the result of using the parameters of reason and logic.

I think you misunderstand the use of the term "specificity"... I don't care for the term myself, as it has too general application, but in terms of ID, it means that information is being communicated to effect a specific outcome, not that every outcome is unique. It can be easily argued that every outcome of every action in the universe is unique, either temporally, spacially, or qualitatively at a specific level, but this is not the evidence of special design. Rather, design is indicated when the only [or the most] viable outcome of indefinite possibilities is the outcome specifically informed. Chalk it up to natural selection if you choose, but chaos is the inevitable consequence of an undirected process, and I don't see chaos in the universe. If you do, then natural selection is your "man". And the object of your faith.

[Grey Cloud]

Hi Brigit,
You wrote:

Oh pish posh, Grey Cloud.

I like it - I feel like I've just been scolded by Mary Poppins.

[Plasmatic]

Depending on how disparate the two belief systems are, the conclusions could/will be very different,
yet both be the result of using the parameters of reason and logic.

This is because one CANNOT seperate their foundational philosophy from their "method". In fact that exactly what epistemology is.So if you dont get the foundation right the rest will fail as well.And how one defines reason and logic is directly related to the foundational "method".

I think you misunderstand the use of the term "specificity"... I don't care for the term myself, as it has too general application, but in terms of ID, it means that information is being communicated to effect a specific outcome, not that every outcome is unique. It can be easily argued that every outcome of every action in the universe is unique, either temporally, spacially, or qualitatively at a specific level, but this is not the evidence of special design. Rather, design is indicated when the only [or the most] viable outcome of indefinite possibilities is the outcome specifically informed. Chalk it up to natural selection if you choose, but chaos is the inevitable consequence of an undirected process, and I don't see chaos in the universe. If you do, then natural selection is your "man". And the object of your faith.

No I did not think this is what "specificity" was at all. Causality is the opposite of "chaos". I do not subscribe to "faith"/ non causal belief. Design depends on their being "randomness" or "chaos" in fact. Otherwise their is nothing to differentiate the "designed" from. This is why design is nonsense.

[altonhare]

Grey Cloud once (I think sarcastically) asked me what a Ptolemaic explanation is:

http://www.youstupidrelativist.com/02Sc ... emaic.html

The discrete, disconnected particle is the easiest thing to think of for most people. Even more importantly, it's the easiest thing to stick into an equation! And thus we have the ridiculous standard model.

The ontology of Objecthood:

http://www.youstupidrelativist.com/04Ex ... umObj.html

[webolife]

Plasmatic said:
"No I did not think this is what "specificity" was at all. Causality is the opposite of "chaos". I do not subscribe to "faith"/ non causal belief. Design depends on their being "randomness" or "chaos" in fact. Otherwise their is nothing to differentiate the "designed" from. This is why design is nonsense."

Well, I do not view faith as non-causal... so that will pretty much put us at odds in any discussion I suppose.
You don't acknowledge chaos as a concept in the universe, but use "causality" as a reified deity to produce all the order and complexity, including the human mind. Quite a faith leap there. This is why [your version of] "causality" is nonsense.

[Plasmatic]

Well one good turn deserves another I suppose....But if your inclined at all,could you tell me how causality becomes "a reified deity to produce all the order and complexity," etc?

[altonhare]

Plasmatic said:
"No I did not think this is what "specificity" was at all. Causality is the opposite of "chaos". I do not subscribe to "faith"/ non causal belief. Design depends on their being "randomness" or "chaos" in fact. Otherwise their is nothing to differentiate the "designed" from. This is why design is nonsense."

Well, I do not view faith as non-causal... so that will pretty much put us at odds in any discussion I suppose.
You don't acknowledge chaos as a concept in the universe, but use "causality" as a reified deity to produce all the order and complexity, including the human mind. Quite a faith leap there. This is why [your version of] "causality" is nonsense.

"Order" is not a thing which is produced by an extrinsic agent. There are no random events, there is no true "chaos". Humans use the terms chaos and random to refer to that which we don't perfectly understand. Identity is not imposed on an entity, identity is axiomatic. If something exists then it must be what it is. As such it must act accordingly.