Re: Proposal - a new strategy to counter anti-evolutionists


Alexander wrote:
> "Reed" <rrichter@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:1126519218.290733.254660@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >
> >>
> >> I feel you've missed the entire point of my objections. I made the claim
> >> that the investigation of paranormal anomalies could be done. However
> >> once
> >> you start saying something along the lines of 'well it was the vibrations
> >> that gave you that negative result' the whole exercise is redundant.
> >>
> >> The ID claim which boils down to 'goddidit' is similarly redundant.
> >
> > In fact, the claims you make on the subject are vague and confusing.
> > You started out by claiming:
> >
> > (1) "I cannot agree with your basic premise of being able to
> > investigate the supernatural." [It was a reasoned conclusion, and not
> > a premise, but that's a trivial point.]
> >
> > The most straightforward reading of "my premise" is:
> >
> > (2) Scientists and other researchers of the paranormal such as Randi
> > can fruitfully investigate, disconfirm (i.e. bring empirical evidence
> > to bear against the likelihood of a claim), and debunk supernatural
> > _claims_ or hypotheses.
> >
> > At least that is all I ever intended to say. I certainly never
> > asserted, or intended to assert or imply, the existence of the
> > paranormal, and then say science disconfirms claims about such
> > phenomena. So what exactly are you disagreeing with in my premise?
>
> If that's the case then why are you challenging me on this point? You've
> neatly cut out my statement that:
>
> "You can certainly investigate the _claims_ of paranormal researchers or
> theists who point to miraculous events. However you can only do so from
> within the constraints of naturalism. If you know of any scientifically
> well documented paranormal events that have _no_ naturalistic explanations
> then please drop me a line - would make a good piece for Fortean Times."
>
> I don't disagree that you can investigate the claims being made. In the
> case of ID such investigations have been done and ID is found severly
> wanting. Are you claiming that some additional burden of proof is necessary
> before we can consign ID to the dustbin?

I repeat the question: what is the "premise" of mine that you disagree
with?

>
>
> >
> > Then you go on to say:
> >
> > (3) "However once you start saying something along the lines of 'well
> > it was the vibrations that gave you that negative result' the whole
> > exercise is redundant."
> >
> > Who is the "you" here?: me? the skeptic researchers? or the proponents
> > of the paranormal?
>
> It's irrelevant - I was being flippant.
>
> >
> > Of course, the skeptical researcher or I would never say such a thing.
> > And even if paranormal proponents do make such irrational claims - so
> > what!? That doesn't show that "the whole exercise is redundant" or
> > pointless. For example, the radiocarbon dating results on the Shroud
> > were not rendered "redundant" or pointless simply because they failed
> > to convince true-believers. Changing the minds of true-believers was
> > not the primary objective to begin with. It's fine to take the
> > theoretical position that the burden of proof is always upon the
> > paranormal proponent to provide evidence (and otherwise to disdain the
> > claim). But in the real world, the results of scientific investigation
> > make a great deal of practical difference - this is especially true in
> > the Shroud case.
>
> What difference? I haven't heard any statement from the Vatican declaring
> the shroud to be a fake. It's an interesting exercise from a historical
> perspective and the genuine story behind the creation of the shroud is going
> to be a fascinating one if it's ever finally demonstrated - but it's
> irrelevant in relation to belief.
>
> In any event, you've just supported my view that this kind of exercise does
> nothing to alter the mind of the 'believer'. What actually needs to change
> is religious and political attitudes and understandings before more moderate
> and pluralistic possibilities develop in the mind of the believer.

But you are ignoring the key point in my response above: "Changing the
minds of true-believers was not the primary objective [of the Shroud
testing] to begin with." The primary objective was to bring scientific
evidence to bear on a popular controversy - regardless of your personal
opinion on the legitimacy or importance of the controversy. You ask
"What difference [did the results make]?" implying that changing the
mind of true believers is the only relevant yardstick. The Shroud case
is an important example for skeptics and rationalists to demonstrate
how science and evidence combine to dispell ignorance and rational
belief. It makes a difference for the skeptical community and making
the public aware of the impact of science on unsuppported popular
belief. It serves to inoculate and reinforce the resistance to such
claims that already existed. Of course skeptics did not believe in the
authenticity of the Shroud before the radiocarbon tests. But at that
point the skepticism was simply based on lack of evidence. But
establishing persuasive, positive evidence that the Shroud image is
composed red ocher and vermilion tempera paint and is only 600 years
old, makes belief in the authenticity of the Shroud even more
irrational - it changes the epistemic status of the Shroud claim.

> >> >> You can certainly investigate the _claims_ of paranormal researchers
> >> >> or
> >> >> theists who point to miraculous events. However you can only do so
> >> >> from
> >> >> within the constraints of naturalism. If you know of any
> >> >> scientifically
> >> >> well documented paranormal events that have _no_ naturalistic
> >> >> explanations
> >> >> then please drop me a line - would make a good piece for Fortean
> >> >> Times.
> >> >>
> >> > The success of naturalistic explanation over the past few hundred years
> >> > is the main reason you and I don't believe in the existence of the
> >> > supernatural. But it doesn't follow that science can't disconfirm and
> >> > render claims about purported supernatural entities improbable. After
> >> > all, it is primarily _because_ of the results of scientific
> >> > investigation that you and I don't believe in the supernatural.
> >> > Establishing the likelihood that the Shroud of Turin is only 5 or 6
> >> > hundred years old establishes that God - even if he does exist - likely
> >> > did not zap the image into existence 2000 years ago. It disconfirms
> >> > the supernatural claim that "God zapped the image on the Shroud of
> >> > Turin into existence at the time of JC's death (or 2000 years ago)".
> >> > Yes it is true that Shroudies don't accept the results of science in
> >> > this matter - but that just makes their belief about the authenticity
> >> > of the Shroud irrational. The irrationality of Shroud proponents
> >> > doesn't mean that scientific investigation cannot establish beyond
> >> > reasonable doubt that the image on the Shroud is likely a hoax.
> >>
> >> What is the evidence that the image on the shroud actually had
> >> supernatural
> >> origins?
> >
> > As mentioned above, as a practical matter, the scientific investigation
> > made a great deal of difference in the context of the public debate
> > _despite_ the fact that the evidence presented by the Shroudies was non
> > existent or poor at best.
>
> .... and?

> >> >> Your example of the Vampire that is examined over a period of years is
> >> >> a
> >> >> nice thought experiment but misses out on one crucial point. That the
> >> >> vampire actually represents an entirely natural, but hitherto unknown,
> >> >> species that forms the origins of all Vampire myths. All the
> >> >> 'vampiric'
> >> >> symptoms are explicable by natural mechanisms (cell decay is tehre for
> >> >> example but simply over an inordinate and possibly undetectably large
> >> >> time
> >> >> frame). Again, if you have evidence of any potentially supernatural
> >> >> entity
> >> >> that has turned up and allowed itself to be examined let me know.
> >> >
> >> > Yes, no amount of empirical data over 50 or even 1000 years rules out
> >> > the _possibility_ that all of our vampiric observations are consistent
> >> > with the natural laws that determine the physics of our local
> >> > space-time continuum. According to current physics, all matter in our
> >> > universe is subject to proton decay and will eventually deterioate.
> >> > But suppose, for example, that science reaches the point where it can
> >> > detect the effects of proton decay in any molecule over the course of 6
> >> > months. But lo and behold vampire matter defies any such detection
> >> > over the course of a century of continued readings. If that and a host
> >> > of other factors _systematically_ suggest that vampires are not subject
> >> > to natural, physical law, eventually one has to take the totality of
> >> > observations as legitimate _evidence_ for the supernatural. Sure it's
> >> > _possible_ that the vampire protons are decaying despite the lack of
> >> > observation. But holding onto this assumption despite overwhelming
> >> > evidence to the contrary is no more rational than what the creationists
> >> > do. Sure, extraordinary claims require not just evidence, but
> >> > extraordinary evidence to give them credence. But one cannot
> >> > reasonably rule out the possibility of acquiring such extraordinary
> >> > evidence a priori.
> >>
> >>
> >> I asked for an example of such a situation - can you provide one or not?
> >
> >
> > We both agree that actual cases of the supernatural or credible
> > evidence for such cases likely do not exist - have I ever suggested
> > otherwise? I really don't understand the point in asking me to provide
> > an actual example.
>
> It was your thought experiment within the article you wrote. You have
> developed a fictional situation that supports your assertion no matter what.
> It's a bit like saying 'The bible is true, because the bible says so'.
> These exercises work well if they describe plausible scenarios or situations
> and present you with an actual dilemma or moral/philisophical problem.
> Asking whether your fictional vampire scenario _could_ provide evidence for
> the supernatural is as useful as asking whether or not God exists. It's not
> something that can be explored or understood until it's experienced and as
> we can have no direct, objective, experience of God (or Vampires) then it's
> a redundant process.
>
> In other words - show me a vampire then we'll consider the question again.
>
> > The issue is whether or not it is _possible_ in principle to present
> > genuine, credible evidence for the supernatural.
>
> And can you? Present actual evidence I mean. If this is only a
> hypothetical situation then absolutely anything can be claimed in the same
> breath. It does not allow us to assess anything as the goalposts will be
> continually moved ('ahhh ... but it could be supernatural if the criterion
> were different').
>
> I am claiming it is,
> > whereas, you appear to be claiming it isn't (although I am not sure).
> > For example, if I claim alien life or solid evidence for such life is
> > possible - it is inappropriate for a doubter to respond: ok - show me
> > one real example; otherwise your claim is meaningless. can you provide
> > such an example or not?
> >
> > How can I demonstrate to a doubter the possibility of a strong
> > evidential case for alien life except by a hypothetical?
>
> I have met plenty of UFOlogists who believe that the evidence is there.
> I've been shown that evidence. I'm still not convinced that what they were
> showing me was anything more than out of focus flocks of geese, out of focus
> lampshades, satellites, planes seen in the dark from odd angles and tales of
> sleep paralysis and waking dreams.
>
> On the other
> > hand, if you agree that credible evidence for the supernatural is
> > hypothetically possible, that why doesn't my vampire case suffice to
> > demonstrate the possibility.
>
> I have a book of fairy tales on my book shelf full of numerous examples of
> similar hypotheticals. Not to mention sci-fi, fantasy and a large number of
> religious tracts that all make similar cases demonstrating the possibility
> of super/supra-natural forces that defy known science. Your vampire case is
> as useful as they are in that respect.
>
> You can make the case that _any_ knowledge is theoretically possible and a
> great deal of creative talent is exercised in positing those ideas every
> year. What makes your vampire case so problematic is that not only is it
> self-referential but doesn't actually provide any sort of useful conclusion
> to apply in practice. I can say 'could vampires exist' and then admit 'well
> ok ... maybe' .... but my next question would be 'what evidence do we have
> that such a creature exists outside the mind of Anne Rice?' .... and the
> inevitable reply is 'well none ... not in our entire history ... absolutely
> zip.'
>
> In relation to the ID debate and your proposal we can say 'well maybe God
> really does exist' .... 'can we demonstrate his existence in any real or
> practical way' .... 'nope'. So the issue is moot. We can consider the
> theological/philisophical implications of a designer all we want. Can we
> demonstrate scientifically any aspect of that designer? Nope ... not a bit
> ... is all speculation.
>

So I take it that on your view, hypothetical speculation about God,
vampires, and space aliens are on epistemological par with one another
- even if God and vampires purport to be supernatural entities and
whatever space aliens are being speculated on purport to be natural
beings entirely subject to natural law. Are you suggesting that that
developing scientific evidence against the supernatural claims is no
more inherently problematic than developing evidence against the
entirely unsupernatural alien claim?

.

Relevant Pages
Loading