Is It Correct to Say There is “No” Evidence For the Supernatural Part 2

[Jim]

@dga471

Well, in this case, on one side are the scientific experts on quantum mechanics. What are the experts on the other side? You already conceded that you are a layman with respect to both the science and philosophy of quantum mechanics.

Are you forgetting that there is no agreement among quantum physicists about how to interpret quantum mechanics? The point is that there is disagreement among experts.

@dga471

I didn’t say you have to have a PhD. I did say, that you have to take the time to learn about QM sincerely and seriously first.

I think I’ve done my due diligence for the arguments I’m making.

@dga471

Different fields have different standards and practices on how to handle different types of evidence. (I already argued this above.) This is why most people need years of training to get accepted as part of the guild. This is also why Joshua is taking a lot of care to run his theological ideas by professional theologians and biblical scholars.

If I were writing a scholarly article or book on the subject that would make sense. However, all I’m doing is pointing out what I view as some obvious problems that exist in certain areas of science. All I’m asking for is for someone to provide me with reasons and evidence for why my objections don’t hold water. That’s all. I don’t think that’s being unreasonable in any way, is it?

@dga471

Because the mathematics is known to correctly describe reality, it is a powerful tool to understand reality for those of us who are interested in the philosophical issues.

On the contrary, I don’t see how the mechanics informs the philosophical issues at all, particularly the ones I’m concerned with which are abductive inferences. What informs those inferences are relevant reliable observations, and in the cases I’m presenting it would be objective and verifiable observation.

@dga471

and where the verified empirical science ends and philosophical speculations begin.

In science I would say philosophical speculation begins pretty obviously when the conversation shifts from the observable to the unobservable, i.e., when an abductive inference about such is made. Are there any examples of where that wouldn’t be the case?

@dga471

But we can’t discuss these possibilities in a productive way if our knowledge of the science is too rudimentary.

How do you determine when the science is no longer too rudimentary considering the vast amount of unknowns that exist. I would argue that where there are significant amounts of research we can and should base our explanation on the evidence from that research until further evidence is discovered. But when there is no evidence, it can only be an idea. And if the idea can be shown to be logically impossible, then it should no longer even be considered as a possibility.

@faded_Glory

This is not really how it goes in science. Abduction leads to models, models lead to predictions, predictions lead to observations and observations lead to confirmation or falsification of (parts) of the models. Back to the start, round and round it goes, and hopefully the models become better and better over time. Apart from plain old empiricism there isn’t a lot of philosphy in this method that I can see.

If you’re talking about coming up with an hypothesis, I agree that is an abductive inference. And that can apply to things which can later be observed and verified, as well as things that cannot. However, my focus is on the things which, practically speaking, never can be observed, or at least appear to be beyond human limitations of observation.

No matter what happens, whether part or all of a model, if it can’t be observed it cannot be verified or falsified, only shown to be more or less probable by the amount of evidence for or against it.

@swamidass

@jim what type of science would you like to learn more about?

Oh I learn lots by many of the answers I get to my questions on this forum. Or when I want to ask a question about something that I’m not so familiar with, there’s usually tons of reliable information on the internet. I’ve found this to be an excellent way to learn, at least for me. But any answers or explanations that reasonably address the questions I’m raising help me learn a lot.

[dga471 (Daniel)]

@Jim

In science I would say philosophical speculation begins pretty obviously when the conversation shifts from the observable to the unobservable, i.e., when an abductive inference about such is made.

It seems to me you’re saying that the role of scientists is just to collect data, and any conclusions they make on the basis of said data is an “abductive inference” that anyone, even without scientific training, is able to do. And these conclusions based on abductive inferences are just philosophical speculations.

Am I representing your views correctly?

[Mercer (John Mercer)]

@Jim

If you’re talking about coming up with an hypothesis, I agree that is an abductive inference. And that can apply to things which can later be observed and verified, as well as things that cannot. However, my focus is on the things which, practically speaking, never can be observed, or at least appear to be beyond human limitations of observation.

And you seem genetically unable to consider the truth that empirical testing of hypotheses, not retrospective inferences, is at the center of science.

[Jim]

@dga471

Am I representing your views correctly?

I haven’t really thought about it that much. I would guess science involves forming hypothesis about phenomena and testing to verify or falsify those hypothesis that can be. Of course mechanics is a big part of physics, so whatever that involves is certainly part of science. It’s when it’s not observable that it becomes more of a philosophical endeavor.

I imagine since it’s dealing primarily with scientific evidence it can still be called science as long as it’s recognized for the predominately philosophical endeavor that it is. But I would say that advanced courses in philosophy might be a good idea for those who want to deal mainly in unobservable theoretical aspects of science.

[dga471 (Daniel)]

@Jim

Of course mechanics is a big part of physics, so whatever that involves is certainly part of science.

I’m not sure what you mean by “mechanics”. Can you explain?

@Jim

It’s when it’s not observable that it becomes more of a philosophical endeavor.

What do you mean by “observable”? Are atoms observable? How about viruses?

[Jim]

@dga471

I’m not sure what you mean by “mechanics”. Can you explain?

Well, if I say quantum, relatavistic, and newtonian mechanics, is that the answer your looking for? That would entail studying the behavior of matter and the descriptive formulas for that behavior that are confirmed inductively by objective and verifiable observation.

@dga471

What do you mean by “observable”? Are atoms observable? How about viruses?

I don’t want to split hairs, but generally anything that we can see is observation. It can be actual human sight, or sight aided by instrumentation. But there’s a difference between observing the object itself and observing readings from instruments that are used to detect an unobservable object. So, for example, we can observe the oscillation patterns of quantum particles confirming something exists, but we have to infer what those oscillation pattern represent as far as what it is that’s being detected.

And as I understand it the claim that I’ve heard is that atoms are the smallest entity that we can observe. If that’s the case, it would seem that we can say by objective and verifiable observation that atoms exist, and we have enough of a visual to confirm that they are generally spherical in shape, at least according to the photo that was presented in the article I read.

[Faizal_Ali]

@Jim

It can be actual human sight, or sight aided by instrumentation. But there’s a difference between observing the object itself and observing readings from instruments that are used to detect an unobservable object.

No, there is no difference. “Actual human sight” does not demonstrate the existence of a particular object anymore than does a reading on an instrument. Both entail philosophical presuppositions of an identical sort.

But this has already been explained to you.

Maybe this will help clear things up for you: You see a bird up in a tree above you. You look at it with your bare eyes, and it appears to be fully brown in colour. Then you look at it thru a pair of binoculars and see that it has red spots on its breast.

Would you now say it is a brown bird with red spots on its breasts? Or that it is a fully brown bird, and it might have red spots on its breast but only according to some philosophical argument?

@Jim

And as I understand it the claim that I’ve heard is that atoms are the smallest entity that we can observe. If that’s the case, it would seem that we can say by objective and verifiable observation that atoms exist, and we have enough of a visual to confirm that they are generally spherical in shape, at least according to the photo that was presented in the article I read.

I’d like to see that article. I suspect you have either completely misunderstood it, or it is just a bad article.

[John_Harshman]

And anyway, p orbitals are not generally spherical in shape.

[Faizal_Ali]

Is this what you were talking about? If so, the description of how the image was created only further demonstrates your fundamental error:

This particular apparatus uses strontium because of its size: Strontium has 38 protons, and the diameter of a strontium atom is a few millionths of a millimeter. Normally this would still be much too small to see, but this setup employs a clever trick to make the atom much brighter.

The strontium atom in the photo is hit by a high-powered laser, which causes the electrons orbiting the strontium atom to become more energized. Occasionally, these energized electrons will give off light. With enough energized electrons giving off enough light, it’s possible for an ordinary camera to image the atom.

This Picture of a Single Atom Is Visible With the Naked Eye (If You Look...

[Faizal_Ali]

@John_Harshman

And anyway, p orbitals are not generally spherical in shape.

Yeah. I’d already picked enough low-lying fruit for one morning.

[Jim]

Here’s one that I just found. Can’t find the one I was referring to.

This Microscope Can See Down to Individual Atoms

Can’t guarantee it’s accuracy, but it’s not something that is central to what I’m arguing. Whatever is the smallest object we can see, the point is that the things we can’t see have to be abductively inferred from the evidence.

[Faizal_Ali]

They’re not seeing an atom. They’re seeing the image the atom produces in the apparatus they are using.

[Rumraket (Mikkel R.)]

Images like those are produced by having a tiny, extremely sharp point on a probe, dragged extremely close to a surface, and having a computer infer the topology of the surface from vibrations in the probe.

The theory goes that electromagnetic interactions between the surface and the probe will produce those vibrations. The individual lumps in those images are inferred to be individual atoms. There is no actual direct picturing going on.

[AllenWitmerMiller (Semi-Expired Professor & Minister.)]

@Jim

Sorry, I just beg to differ with you on this. Practically everyday as jurors, laypersons have to make life and death decisions about conflicting “expert” opinions being presented by both parties in a criminal case. The jurors are instructed to always focus on the actual evidence and choose between the expert opinions based on what makes the most sense of the evidence.

Jury trials are all too often extremely flawed and terribly unfair. I don’t want to start a new sub-thread but jury trials should not be used as some sort of standard or proof that the average uninformed person is competent in weighing evidence provided by experts.

Jury trials have been eliminated (or at least greatly reduced) in vast areas of the world due to their many limitations, biases, and flaws. The U.S. is unique in the world for relying on jury trials in a wide variety of non-criminal cases.

There are countless examples of juries falling for pseudoscience concepts and biases—even in cases where judges tried their best to keep pseudoscience off the table.

As long as the Dunning-Kruger Effect applies to human beings we should be skeptical of the claim that the average person is qualified to make crucial decisions based on weighing the expertise of scientists.

[Jim]

@Faizal_Ali

They’re not seeing an atom. They’re seeing the image the atom produces in the apparatus they are using.

Good enough for me. Not a major concern for what I’m arguing that I can see.

@AllenWitmerMiller

Jury trials are all too often extremely flawed and terribly unfair.

That does happen from time to time, I agree. But I would imagine that’s more the exception than the rule.

@AllenWitmerMiller

jury trials should not be used as some sort of standard or proof that the average uninformed person is competent in weighing evidence provided by experts.

Are you suggesting that our legal system is at its core unreliable? Seems to me it’s stood up to the test of time. And the jurors wouldn’t be uniformed, they would have access to all the relevant evidence presented by both sides.

@AllenWitmerMiller

Jury trials have been eliminated (or at least greatly reduced) in vast areas of the world due to their many limitations, biases, and flaws.

“Their many limitations, biases, and flaws?” Or maybe, if it is really the case that jury trials are being reduced, the real reason could be because they’re too difficult to manipulate for those who want to control things. Easier to influence one judge than 12 jurors.

@AllenWitmerMiller

There are countless examples of juries falling for pseudoscience concepts and biases—even in cases where judges tried their best to keep pseudoscience off the table.

As long as the Dunning-Kruger Effect applies to human beings we should be skeptical of the claim that the average person is qualified to make crucial decisions based on weighing the expertise of scientists.

Maybe they were persuaded by the evidence that the claims of pseudoscience were unmerited. I would argue that this line of reasoning seems to be an elitist way of looking at things, and that arguably there are times where a reasonable layperson has more sense than an academic who has his nose to close to the details.

Regardless, maybe engaging with the argument from the op would be a more positive approach rather than trying to cast doubt on the person presenting the argument. Or maybe, that’s the only option you seems to think is left?

And by the way, what qualifies you to comment on the American legal system? What’s your credentials in the matter? If you don’t have any, aren’t you doing exactly what you’re trying to make a case against doing?

@Rumraket

The individual lumps in those images are inferred to be individual atoms.

Seems to me that this is not a case of an abuductive inference, but rather a deductive inference. Either way, I don’t see why it is in any way a serious concern to what I’m arguing.

[AllenWitmerMiller (Semi-Expired Professor & Minister.)]

@Jim

That does happen from time to time, I agree. But I would imagine that’s more the exception than the rule.

Rather than “imagining”, I would recommend actual investigation of jury trials. The nations which have abandoned jury trials had many solid reasons for doing so. There are good reasons why the USA stands alone in its heavy reliance on jury trials. You are ignoring the facts of the matter in favor of simple “imagining” based on your own personal intuition.

Moreover, I challenge you to check out the entire industry which makes millions of dollars helping lawyers to select juries that will be biased for or against a client. Manipulating the jury system has little to do with justice.

@Jim

Are you suggesting that our legal system is at its core unreliable?

I did not do so—but now that you mention it, that is far too often the case. I’m not going to start a new sub-thread topic but I would encourage you to investigate the American legal system.

@Jim

And the jurors wouldn’t be uniformed, they would have access to all the relevant evidence presented by both sides.

Do you think that “access” necessarily decides cases?

@Jim

Easier to influence one judge than 12 jurors.

I’d be curious to see your evidence!

@Jim

I would argue that this line of reasoning seems to be an elitist way of looking at things, and that arguably there are times where a reasonable layperson has more sense than an academic who has his nose to close to the details.

Interesting.

@Jim

Regardless, maybe engaging with the argument from the op would be a more positive approach rather than trying to cast doubt on the person presenting the argument.

You started the jury trial tangent. Not me. Moreover, claiming to know my motivation rather than engaging the argument was your choice, not mine.

[AllenWitmerMiller (Semi-Expired Professor & Minister.)]

@Jim

And by the way, what qualifies you to comment on the American legal system?

The very same qualification which qualified you to comment on the American legal system by citing jury trials in your argument. (That qualification is being a participant on this forum.)

@Jim

What’s your credentials in the matter?

So now you are going to play the negative version of the Argument from Authority fallacy?

@Jim

If you don’t have any, aren’t you doing exactly what you’re trying to make a case against doing?

No. The standard is evidence—and the evidence I mentioned is that nations throughout the world have found jury trials to be biased and deeply flawed. That evidence serves to undermine your claim that jury trials somehow support the qualifications of average citizens to overrule the expertise and evidence-based judgments of scientists and scholars.

@Jim

If you don’t have any, aren’t you doing exactly what you’re trying to make a case against doing?

Credentials aren’t what’s important here. Evidence, knowledge, and careful analysis are important.

[Jim]

@AllenWitmerMiller

Credentials aren’t what’s important here. Evidence, knowledge, and careful analysis are important.

Exactly the point I was making. I totally agree. Relevant evidence, relevant knowledge, and careful analysis, that’s what’s important. Since we seem to agree on this point, I see no need for any further discussion about our disagreement over this unrelated topic to the op.

[Faizal_Ali]

@Jim

Good enough for me. Not a major concern for what I’m arguing that I can see.

Actually, it is pretty much a fatal blow to your argument. By the standards you are using in your argument, atoms do not exist because we cannot “see” them. @Rumraket has presented a more technically detailed explanation for what is happening there.

But, of course, you are just going to blithely continue on ignoring the philosophical and scientific objections to your claim. I’m not sure who you expect to be impressed by that.

[Jim]

@Faizal_Ali

By the standards you are using in your argument, atoms do not exist because we cannot “see” them.

This is just not so. Either you don’t understand my argument, or you are misrepresenting it. On my argument, even if we cannot “see” atoms, we simply follow the relevant evidence where it leads. And if it leads us to conclude that atoms exist, then that is the conclusion to make.