Invoking The Voyagers Against Id Options

[ljk4-1]

Cornell President Rawlings Condemns Intelligent Design

Drawing from sources ranging from Cornell's founders to Voyager
space missions, Interim President Hunter R. Rawlings III condemned
the push to teach intelligent design in public schools Friday. The
attack came during the president's State of...

http://www.cornellsun.com/vnews/display.v/...4/435c7762cf891


"The desire to understand the world and the desire to reform it are the two great engines of progress." - Bertrand Russell

[deglr6328]

.......Most scientists will say they reject Intelligent Design because it is not supported by facts. It is a good reason. But I am afraid that, in some cases, they reject it because it involves a metaphysical entity. This is not a good reason. I think that, even in science, we are not allowed to reject a-priori such explanations. Simply, until today, there is no physical evidence of any such entities, so that it is still largely speculative to invoke them. A possibility is that we shall NEVER have any physical evidence of the existence of God or other metaphysical/spiritual entities, because these evidences exist, but are not in the domain of physics. In this case physical science will have to admit that it cannot explain everything.

I would like to very strongly, but respectfully disagree on this point. I think it is not only ok and an equally good reason to reject it; but it is in fact necessary to reject things like ID from the realm of scientific inquiry precisely because it involves a metaphysical entity. It is an idea that by definition belongs fully and completely within the supernatural realm. It is an idea whose precepts lie outside of the natural world and therefore cannot be examined and tested by our science.

If you accept the idea that there actually is a supernatural world then yes, it would follow that "science would have to admit that it cannot explain everything". However, I (for instance) remain completely unconvinced that there needs to be any supernatural counterpart to our natural world, and therefore I am apt to think that all of this ID talk is just so much bollocks.



If I might, I would like to revisit ljk4's mention of Carl sagan's thoughts about us and our place in the universe. When I first read his idea that "we are the universe experiencing itself" (can't remember if it was in Cosmos or The Demon Haunted World) it immediately struck me as one of the most intensely beautiful ideas I had ever considered.

At first, it is an idea that sounds rather akin to any other of the many "new agey"-feelgood but ultimately nonsensical and subjective ideas of the fuzzyheaded Deepak Chopra type gurus. But on further examination, it is an idea that reveals itself to be the exact opposite of that sort of thing. Its real. We really are living conscious beings that evolved over millions of years on a planet borne of billions of years of stellar elemental transformation. It's an idea that just gets better and truer the more you learn about how the universe works and how the evolution of life and finally self-aware intelligence fits so perfectly within the universe. It is a thought so deeply mysterious and wonderful that I think it is the closest I have ever come, or ever will come to experiencing a feeling that might be called "spiritual".

[Guest_Richard Trigaux_*]

... or ever will come to experiencing a feeling that might be called "spiritual".

Yes it is. What I say is tha THIS kind of feeling can be called spiritual. That is no all the spirituality of course, but great masters encourage us toward such feelings.



The idea that there may exist "supernatural" entities is another matter. But can really science positively state there are not, only because it cannot check? Remember the famous Popper epistemological point: if we cannot do a test for an hypothesis, so we cannot state that this hypothesis is true (or even probable). But, would be said, it does not PROVE that it is false. It can be true. Simply we do not know, and therefore we cannot built any knowledge or line of conduct on it. (for instance we cannot teach ID as an "alternative science hypothesis", just mention it as a speculation)

And if science today accepts only MATERIAL evidences, it cannot prove/disprove any hypothesis of an IMMATERIAL nature. To be able to positively state the existence/inexistence of other domains will obviously require OTHER TYPES of evidences.

Things goes so far that some fundamentalist scientists denegate the existence of consciousness itself (a very practical stance to also denegate any morals or responsibility toward society) because it is not materially observable!! Of course we cannot weight consciousness, but however you can do the test very easily: we can observe our own consciousness (at least this one), more preciselly the fact that we are conscious, and it is even the very first thing we are aware of, when we wake up in the morning.

There is even a whole domain of today science which deals with "metaphysical" entities which existence cannot be materially observed. They even go so far than rigorously rejecting any material evidence. I let guess what, you and Tom Ames.

[Tom Ames]

And if science today accepts only MATERIAL evidences, it cannot prove/disprove any hypothesis of an IMMATERIAL nature. To be able to positively state the existence/inexistence of other domains will obviously require OTHER TYPES of evidences.

I agree. Which is why science has nothing to say about supernatural phenomena.

Things goes so far that some fundamentalist scientists denegate the existence of consciousness itself (a very practical stance to also denegate any morals or responsibility toward society) because it is not materially observable!! Of course we cannot weight consciousness, but however you can do the test very easily: we can observe our own consciousness (at least this one), more preciselly the fact that we are conscious, and it is even the very first thing we are aware of, when we wake up in the morning.

Please provide the name of ONE such "fundamentalist scientist".

There is even a whole domain of today science which deals with "metaphysical" entities which existence cannot be materially observed. They even go so far than rigorously rejecting any material evidence. I let guess what, you and Tom Ames.

What domain of science would this be? If you're thinking of string theory, then I'd argue that the scientific status of the theory is questionable. Even so, string theorists don't let the non-scientific status of their discipline stop them from asking questions and finding objectively determinable answers. And they DON'T hire public relations firms to campaign for including their field in the high school science curriculum. (Nor does Pat Robertson call down the wrath of God onto school districts that decide not to teach string theory.)

I think this had better be my last contribution on this topic.

[Guest_Richard Trigaux_*]

Please provide the name of ONE such "fundamentalist scientist".

Not on this forum!!!
I do not know the details either. But basically behaviourism states that "consciousness cannot be observed" only "behaviours" so we cannot do a consciousness science. To point at somebody without hurting actually living people, look at the nazi "scientists" and what they did.

What domain of science would this be? If you're thinking of string theory, then I'd argue that the scientific status of the theory is questionable. Even so, string theorists don't let the non-scientific status of their discipline stop them from asking questions and finding objectively determinable answers. And they DON'T hire public relations firms to campaign for including their field in the high school science curriculum. (Nor does Pat Robertson call down the wrath of God onto school districts that decide not to teach string theory.)

Not string theory, although with such theories physics goes closer and closer from sheer esoterism! (I think that string theory is a legitimate science theory, although I personally do not believe it to much).

I was simply speaking of mathematics. Of course the mathematicians do not say that what they study is "metaphysical" or "esoteric", they say it is "abstract". But it is the same family, isn't it?
Think: how can you positively prove that 2+2=4? How can you be sure that taking two sheeps more two sheeps will alway make 4 sheeps? Certainly not with material evidences, that anyway mathematicians reject in every case. To be sure of that, the mathematicians (mainstream mathematicians) just THINK: two objects on right hand, two others on the left hand, and count them all: this is just a visualisation, not essentially different of the visualisation techniques used in meditation. A consciousness experience, will say consciousness scientists. It works, because our consciousness is able to directly apprehend the abstract objects of the mathematic realms, without the need of any experimental aparatus, microscope, spectrometres, etc.
Still stronger, these abstract objects have a tremendous influence on the world. Think that in most cases, material objects obey to laws such as addition, multiplication, etc. (if they don't, it is that they obey to more complex laws, for instance the addition of relativistic speeds).


This characteristic of mathematics does not prove that consciousness items can influence the physical world in the same way that mathematic objects do, but it makes a bit of the path toward this. I shall just say that consciousness is able to directly apprehend other objects than just mathematical objects, and by considering these objects we can do a consciousness science about conciousness items, for instance about ethics, and even a consciousness technology, for instance learn to master disturbing emotions.

I think this had better be my last contribution on this topic.

Why? pitty, this discution is stimulating.

I think that the problem is that there are a bunch of fundamentalists, cultist and the like who speak and make noise in the name of religion and spirituality, and give a very bad and very false image of these domains. People truly and seriously involved into such domains just do the good without making fuss, and at very first they do not seek to impose their point of view by force. You may disagree with what I say, this is not a matter for bringing anger to me. But in the fight against abuses such as by Pat Robertson and the like, we are on the same side.