Refuting Mystical Experience: Possible?

[Cris]

lg,

If that is the case with science why does the knowledge change all the time.

Like for instance at one stage hawkins declared that no information can escape a black hole - then later on he changed his views to declare the opposite was in fact true - did reality change, or did a man change his views on reality?

You are simply confusing the development phases of speculative hypotheses with established theories. There is no problem here. The scientific method has many phases. Could you find statements where Hawkins would declare his suggestions as absolute truth? No of course not. Compare that with theists who do so declare there fantasies as absolutely true.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

...(you are right though - apparently they don't have dictionaries)

That's all I was saying to help support that assertion that I didn't make but chose to support anyway just because you seemed interested.

Reality is not self evident - like for instance if I say "the water is green" it is not self evident why it is green (maybe there are green rocks on the bottom, maybe there is algae in the water or maybe someone dumped green dye in the water, or maybe I just have green spectacles on etc etc) - in otherwords methodology will reveal the nature of why the water is green

It sounds like its self evident that the water exists and that it is green. Not knowing why the water is green seems like a human limitation which could be overcome by increasing visibility.

just like a physicist has evidence that electrons exist - electrons certainly don't appear to exist according to the views of a high school drop out who perceives all scientists as egg heads and all science text books as full of rubbish.

The flaw with that example is the high school drop out is paying a utility bill so a flow of electrons reaches his house and powers his appliances. His 'conviction' is blatently contradicted by reality; which is the final authority. This is an example of self-chosen delusion and theists are in a similar boat.

If that is the case with science why does the knowledge change all the time.

Like for instance at one stage hawkins declared that no information can escape a black hole - then later on he changed his views to declare the opposite was in fact true - did reality change, or did a man change his views on reality?

IMO, it was irresponsible of hawkins to make a declaration of absolute truth without verifying it with reality (and right now humans don't have the tools to make a 100% verification with that assertion). Science tends to utilize models. Take a bunch of objective truth and start making predictions. If some of those predictions are true then the heap of objective truth that goes into the theory increases. Now more predictions can be made and tested. Sometimes one of the truths in the middle is also discovered to be incomplete and the whole model has to be changed as a result. The knowledge grows and corrects as necessary and this is why you see it change.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

Of course my statement:

"IMO, it was irresponsible of hawkins to make a declaration of absolute truth without verifying it with reality..."

is reliant on you representing it accurately that Hawkins really did make an assertion of absolute truth. Chris' post suggest there might be some mis-representation.

 

[SkinWalker]

Who is Stephen Hawkins?

If you mean Stephen Hawking, he did, indeed, once hold that once information entered a black hole it would never be retrieved. New understandings of black holes and quantum physics have inspired Hawking (and others) to revise their positions. This is how science works and only the shallow and closed minds of the superstitious have difficulty with revising their positions. The rely instead on Bronze Age myths and post-modernist mumbo jumbo that posits superstitious and magical qualities to the universe around them. Qualities that are unchanging and resolute.

Hawking's response to those that questioned his revised opinion on information and black holes was, "my views have evolved."

 

[Crunchy Cat]

Hawking .

 

[lightgigantic]

Cris
,

You are simply confusing the development phases of speculative hypotheses with established theories. There is no problem here. The scientific method has many phases. Could you find statements where Hawkins would declare his suggestions as absolute truth?

Then you have a viewpoint that is different from Crunchy Cat's,

My point is that in theism, man is the only authority for assertions of truth. In science, reality is the only authority for assertions of truth.

as for the nature of science (from wooley)

Science, as we have already discovered, is outrageously demanding. It demands that it is not simply a way of explaining certain bits of the world, or even the local quarter of the universe within telescopic range. It demands that it explains absolutely everything.

Its just when the theories are dressed up, as many a scientist has the tendency to do (either for ideological reasons illustrated by hawking or due to pressuer from funding bodies and gov't's which tends to the case for the greater majority of scientistific researchers)

No of course not. Compare that with theists who do so declare there fantasies as absolutely true.

Is this a lure of the same circular argument in order to change the focus of discussion?

 

[lightgigantic]

Crunchy cat

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
...(you are right though - apparently they don't have dictionaries)
”
That's all I was saying to help support that assertion that I didn't make but chose to support anyway just because you seemed interested.

how magnanimous of you to argue in favour of view points you don't hold

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
Reality is not self evident - like for instance if I say "the water is green" it is not self evident why it is green (maybe there are green rocks on the bottom, maybe there is algae in the water or maybe someone dumped green dye in the water, or maybe I just have green spectacles on etc etc) - in otherwords methodology will reveal the nature of why the water is green
”
It sounds like its self evident that the water exists and that it is green. Not knowing why the water is green seems like a human limitation which could be overcome by increasing visibility.

Therefore the reality of "why" the "water" is "green" is not "self evident"

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
just like a physicist has evidence that electrons exist - electrons certainly don't appear to exist according to the views of a high school drop out who perceives all scientists as egg heads and all science text books as full of rubbish.
”
The flaw with that example is the high school drop out is paying a utility bill so a flow of electrons reaches his house and powers his appliances. His 'conviction' is blatently contradicted by reality; which is the final authority. This is an example of self-chosen delusion and theists are in a similar boat.

So before there was knowledge about electrons people never got electrocuted because they didn't know enough about it?

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
If that is the case with science why does the knowledge change all the time.

Like for instance at one stage hawkins declared that no information can escape a black hole - then later on he changed his views to declare the opposite was in fact true - did reality change, or did a man change his views on reality?
”
IMO, it was irresponsible of hawkins to make a declaration of absolute truth without verifying it with reality (and right now humans don't have the tools to make a 100% verification with that assertion).

You mean they are no longer using thheir imperfect senses (or instruments that are extension sof their imperfect senses) to come to conclusions about the phenomenal world?

Science tends to utilize models. Take a bunch of objective truth and start making predictions. If some of those predictions are true then the heap of objective truth that goes into the theory increases. Now more predictions can be made and tested. Sometimes one of the truths in the middle is also discovered to be incomplete and the whole model has to be changed as a result. The knowledge grows and corrects as
necessary and this is why you see it change.

so I guess we can dismiss your earlier claim

My point is that in theism, man is the only authority for assertions of truth. In science, reality is the only authority for assertions of truth.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

how magnanimous of you to argue in favour of view points you don't hold

What can I say, I'm a magnanimous kind of guy

Therefore the reality of "why" the "water" is "green" is not "self evident"

Therefore it is self evident that reality exists, the water exists, and the water is green and that their relationships are consistent, persistent, and without contradiction. Not having an answer to that particular why is not a matter of reality being self evident. It's a limitation in visibility.

So before there was knowledge about electrons people never got electrocuted because they didn't know enough about it?

They would get electrocuted by bolts of lightning or other similar phenomenoa. That something "shocking" existed was self evident. They just didn't have a finer granularity of visibility.

You mean they are no longer using thheir imperfect senses (or instruments that are extension sof their imperfect senses) to come to conclusions about the phenomenal world?

No, I meant that Mr. Hawking made a mistake. He is human and humans do that.

so I guess we can dismiss your earlier claim

My point is that in theism, man is the only authority for assertions of truth. In science, reality is the only authority for assertions of truth.

[/QUOTE]

Not at all. There is no contradiction.

 

[lightgigantic]

Crunchy cat

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
Therefore the reality of "why" the "water" is "green" is not "self evident"
”
Therefore it is self evident that reality exists, the water exists, and the water is green and that their relationships are consistent, persistent, and without contradiction.

How can the relationships be persistent if its not clear why the water is green - Like suppose one person with green glasses says the water is green and another person with red glasses says the water is red - are both their statements consistent, persistent and without contradiction in regards to the actual state of the water?

Not having an answer to that particular why is not a matter of reality being self evident. It's a limitation in visibility.

well what are you perceiving reality through if not vision?

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
So before there was knowledge about electrons people never got electrocuted because they didn't know enough about it?
”
They would get electrocuted by bolts of lightning or other similar phenomenoa. That something "shocking" existed was self evident. They just didn't have a finer granularity of visibility.

therefore with or without knowledge of electrons, life goes on - its not self evident that electricity is made up of electrons - for the most part of 120 years scientists were working with electricity (between franklin and thomson) without knowledge of electrons - just because our highschool drop out pays an electricity bill doesn't mean anything for as long as he has his attitude problem

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
You mean they are no longer using thheir imperfect senses (or instruments that are extension sof their imperfect senses) to come to conclusions about the phenomenal world?
”
No, I meant that Mr. Hawking made a mistake. He is human and humans do that.

Thats a relief - for a second there I thought we would have to seriously entertain his ideas as factual

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
so I guess we can dismiss your earlier claim

My point is that in theism, man is the only authority for assertions of truth. In science, reality is the only authority for assertions of truth.
”

Not at all. There is no contradiction.[/QUOTE]
You just admitted that hawking didn't base his statement on reality but his own imperfections - does that mean he is not a scientist?

 

[Sarkus]

You just admitted that hawking didn't base his statement on reality but his own imperfections - does that mean he is not a scientist?

Hawking's statement was merely his theory. Not fact. At no point have I ever heard him claim his ideas as truth. Maybe you can point me to where he does?

His new theory is based on the authority of reality - forcing an evolution of his previous theory. His previous theory did not fit with reality. So he changed it.
When reality again does not fit, a new evolution - or radical rethink - will be required - as the authority (REALITY) will have spoken, so to speak.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

How can the relationships be persistent if its not clear why the water is green - Like suppose one person with green glasses says the water is green and another person with red glasses says the water is red - are both their statements consistent, persistent and without contradiction in regards to the actual state of the water?

The answer to the first question is that some lack of visibility on your end doesn't affect the state of reality. For the second question, the first person is correct and the second person is incorrect. That's all it means.

well what are you perceiving reality through if not vision?

All my senses + my cognitive geometry.

therefore with or without knowledge of electrons, life goes on - its not self evident that electricity is made up of electrons - for the most part of 120 years scientists were working with electricity (between franklin and thomson) without knowledge of electrons - just because our highschool drop out pays an electricity bill doesn't mean anything for as long as he has his attitude problem

Both those old-school scientists and even the highschool drop out are know something is there (its self evident). Their lack of visibility prevents them from seeing electrons. In the case of the scientists, they just don't know about them. In the case of the highschool dropout, he's just being stupid.

You just admitted that hawking didn't base his statement on reality but his own imperfections - does that mean he is not a scientist?

Assuming you represented his assertion correctly (i.e. making a claim of absolute truth), I said that he made a mistake. The foundation of his theories are definately based on reality and the height of his theories may be nothing more than untested predictions. If he makes assumptions that those predictions are true, creates more predictions off of those, and claims them to be absolute truth then thats a mistake. If he hypothesizes, predicts, and even speculates then he's doing just fine. If he tests a prediction against reality and reality verifies it then he can assert the prediction as truth.

So, if scientist makes a mistake, then he/she is a scientist who made a mistake.

 

[lightgigantic]

Hawking's statement was merely his theory. Not fact. At no point have I ever heard him claim his ideas as truth. Maybe you can point me to where he does?

His new theory is based on the authority of reality - forcing an evolution of his previous theory. His previous theory did not fit with reality. So he changed it.
When reality again does not fit, a new evolution - or radical rethink - will be required - as the authority (REALITY) will have spoken, so to speak.

this is the problem

Science, as we have already discovered, is outrageously demanding. It demands that it is not simply a way of explaining certain bits of the world, or even the local quarter of the universe within telescopic range. It demands that it explains absolutely everything.
-Benjamin Wooley

 

[lightgigantic]

Crunchy Cat

Originally Posted by lightgigantic
How can the relationships be persistent if its not clear why the water is green - Like suppose one person with green glasses says the water is green and another person with red glasses says the water is red - are both their statements consistent, persistent and without contradiction in regards to the actual state of the water?
”
The answer to the first question is that some lack of visibility on your end doesn't affect the state of reality.

If you make a statement about reality based on your visibility it does

For the second question, the first person is correct and the second person is incorrect. That's all it means.

Why?
Because they have green glasses and the other person has red glasses?

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
well what are you perceiving reality through if not vision?
”
All my senses + my cognitive geometry.

how is cognitive geometry (or the conclusions that such cognition could grant) independant from your senses?

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
therefore with or without knowledge of electrons, life goes on - its not self evident that electricity is made up of electrons - for the most part of 120 years scientists were working with electricity (between franklin and thomson) without knowledge of electrons - just because our highschool drop out pays an electricity bill doesn't mean anything for as long as he has his attitude problem
”
Both those old-school scientists and even the highschool drop out are know something is there (its self evident). Their lack of visibility prevents them from seeing electrons. In the case of the scientists, they just don't know about them. In the case of the highschool dropout, he's just being stupid.

It indicates how a person, either stupid or misinformed, can worth with a situation and be unaware of its workings - this indicates that sense knowledge can never be anything more than metonymic

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
You just admitted that hawking didn't base his statement on reality but his own imperfections - does that mean he is not a scientist?
”
Assuming you represented his assertion correctly (i.e. making a claim of absolute truth), I said that he made a mistake. The foundation of his theories are definately based on reality and the height of his theories may be nothing more than untested predictions. If he makes assumptions that those predictions are true, creates more predictions off of those, and claims them to be absolute truth then thats a mistake. If he hypothesizes, predicts, and even speculates then he's doing just fine. If he tests a prediction against reality and reality verifies it then he can assert the prediction as truth.

its not clear how his claims could be valued as anything more than tentative claims - actual science is dependant on someone being in an authorized position of direct perception (like for instance you cannot compare the credibility of iron smelting technology to say anthropology)

So, if scientist makes a mistake, then he/she is a scientist who made a mistake.

given that this is the state of human affairs .......

1. imperfect senses... we cannot hear sounds below 20Hz, or alternatively we can only manufacture machines that operate within certain thresholds of "reality"
2. tendency to make mistakes ... perceive a rope as a snake
3. tendency to fall in to illusion ....seeing a mirage in the desert
4. a cheating propensity ... our perception of obejctivity is manipulated due to the influence of avaracice, wrath, lust etc

..... can such knowledge that is bereft of the authoratative position of direct perception be anything else?....

 

[Crunchy Cat]

Crunchy Cat
If you make a statement about reality based on your visibility it does

No really, a person making an assertion doesn't affect the state of reality. Try it out. Look at an orange and assert its insides are coal. Then test your hypothesis by peeling the orange. I predict that it will not be coal.

Why?
Because they have green glasses and the other person has red glasses?

The glasses have nothing to do with it. Reality agrees with one person's assertion and not with the other.

how is cognitive geometry (or the conclusions that such cognition could grant) independant from your senses?

I never said it was independent. Sensory input is simply raw data. Cognitive gemotry is the mental framework that the data is processed through.

It indicates how a person, either stupid or misinformed, can worth with a situation and be unaware of its workings - this indicates that sense knowledge can never be anything more than metonymic

It indicates that a person can distinguish whats important and not important to them.

its not clear how his claims could be valued as anything more than tentative claims - actual science is dependant on someone being in an authorized position of direct perception (like for instance you cannot compare the credibility of iron smelting technology to say anthropology)

Actual science is only dependent on someone willing to follow the process of science. Anyone is free to utilize it. Unless there is a claim of truth that reality agrees with, Mr. Hawking should not be claiming anything. Hypothesizing yes, theorizing yes, but no claim can be made until he gets reality's agreement.

given that this is the state of human affairs .......

1. imperfect senses... we cannot hear sounds below 20Hz, or alternatively we can only manufacture machines that operate within certain thresholds of "reality"
2. tendency to make mistakes ... perceive a rope as a snake
3. tendency to fall in to illusion ....seeing a mirage in the desert
4. a cheating propensity ... our perception of obejctivity is manipulated due to the influence of avaracice, wrath, lust etc

..... can such knowledge that is bereft of the authoratative position of direct perception be anything else?....

Of course it can. It can be true and it's consequently not bereft of authority. Reality IS the authority. If it agrees with you then you have some truth there bucko. If it doesn't agree with you then try again.