Yes, that seems about right.
It might not be possible to completely rule out telepathy. But, based on the evidence, if telepathy is possible then the effect is so weak that does not appear to have any important uses.
1 Like
This is false. They are rejected because of the lack of evidence to support them.
If evidence supported their existence then, if one is observing MN, they would be considered part of the natural world. MN is often misunderstood to mean that, even if there was evidence of ghosts or telepathy, as scientist must reject their existence. That is not correct.
3 Likes
The main point is not whether its useful or not.
The main impact would be on theories of consciousness/ the mind if it is true.
Do you think the results are statistically relevant?
Some scientists (like Rupert Sheldrake) are strongly claiming that the statistical evidence is sufficient.
I have also posted a paper above where a study is conducted trying to understand the neurology of telepathy… as if its existence is well established.
Why do most of the main stream scientists reject the idea?
Well, Science is done by scientists.
Explanations are proposed by human Scientists.
I think you are talking about an ideal that does not exist in reality.
That’s what motivates science.
If there is ever a successful theory of consciousness, it will probably come from philosophy rather than from science.
Yes. But it isn’t science just on the say so of a few scientists. It needs to show up in the peer reviewed literature before it can be considered to be science.
And I guess a “peer reviewed” journal such as what these guys who “research” into the paranormal use doesn’t count ?
I wonder if there are sociological causes.
The fairest assessment I can make is that if there is telepathy then it is heavily influenced by the testing methodology. There doesn’t seem to be any consistent results between labs or techniques. When these tests are done in the best lab conditions there isn’t a statistically significant result.
In other cases, the data is extremely subjective and very susceptible to bias. For example, if you have a person in one room thinking of a hammer and someone trying to read their thoughts in another room, what counts as a match? If the reader says they are picturing a tool, does that count? If they picture a brown structure, does that match the hammer handle?
For the reasons above. There is a lack of consistent results, objective measurements, and a clear statistical signal.
1 Like
It would count if it showed strong results that are reproducible by independent investigations. However, it does not seem to meet those requirements.
1 Like
Right. 'Cuz philosophy has such a stellar record or producing successful theories, compared to science.
Give me a break.
1 Like
This topic was automatically closed 3 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.
Thanks to @dga471 and @Michael_Callen for reopening the thread. I was tied up last week. Also, I’m new to this forum, so if I do something weird, feel free to let me know. And yes, Joshua @swamidass, this is a continuation of a discussion that started on the CAA facebook page that you participated in (transferred to here at the request of @dga471).
To answer your questions, Daniel, it does get at what I think is the foundational point of disagreement between TE/EC’s and ID’s approach to doing science. I agree with you (and I’m confident ID scientists do as well) that “science does not and cannot investigate the supernatural.” I also believe you and agree with you that when one adopts MN in science, he or she is not necessarily personally ruled by philosophical materialism.
But his or her practice of science is, and here’s where the difference lies (which I think gets at why you didn’t like Jonathan Wells’s phrase): When MN governs what is allowable as an inference, particularly in biology, then I do believe Wells’s summation is accurate. The philosophy of MN rules out, a priori, the design inference and instead requires - not just prefers, but requires - proposing only naturalistic causes, regardless of what the evidence might indicate. Materialistic philosophy is determinitive because it is setting the boundaries of what is allowable.
4 Likes
Welcome, Terrell Clemmons (@terrellclemmons) … Please tell us a bit about yourself!
1 Like
Thanks, @Michael_Callen. I’m not a working scientist, but I follow the science discussions where they intersect with Judeo-Christian theism. I write for Salvo magazine, which is not solely about science, but has a significant science section, plus a couple of other publications here and there. I don’t read the technical literature, but I read some of the writings of the people who do.
5 Likes
@terrellclemmons, for the purpose of argument, I am willing to drop MN. Even if we do this, ID arguments that I have seen end up failing on some fairly large evidential issues. Does this matter to you?
2 Likes
I think that the ID approach to doing science is not to do science. That is fundamentally different.
The pretense that science begins and ends with inferences is ludicrous. The practice of science is about testing those inferences as hypotheses, not arguing about inferences. ID doesn’t have any of those, at least none that they are willing to label as such.
2 Likes
There are two problems:
-
Designers can be natural. Humans are a good example.
-
If a deity interacts with the natural world in a detectable manner then the deity is considered to be part of nature, just as humans are.
What MN doesn’t allow are hypotheses that aren’t testable and/or aren’t falsifiable. That’s usually where the supernatural hits a speed bump.
3 Likes
Certainly, it does. I have not seen evidence to discredit ID, and I’m willing to consider otherwise, but that would be a different topic from the specific one raised in the OP. Is there something false you wanted to address from my response to Daniel?
1 Like
I think I completely agree with what you just said. I think also that my statement that you excerpted is accurate. Were you disagreeing with it, or simply noting your understanding of the limitations of MN?
1 Like