Science Forums 2

[James Putnam]

Originally Posted by Buffy

So you're basically saying that you object to anyone saying anything that cannot be empirically proved, but then you say that nothing can be proved.

I object to anyone declaring as fact that which they cannot prove. Theories are fine if they help us to organize our thoughts when solving problems. If your theory is intended to solve mechanical problems, then a mechanical theory is fine. Please do not then claim it has anything to do with solving the problems of life and intelligence.

You really need to decide what you want to say because your theory is internally inconsistent.

So you assume that your limitations are due to me?

And moreover, "belief" is not empirical.

That is why I am calling your idea of science for what it is. It is a belief system. It is not empirical.

Even the existentialists would not agree with this.
The scientific method places development of theories prior to empirical proof at the beginning of its process. Its called "formulating a hypothesis." Your attempt to claim that hypotheses should not be allowed is a round about mechanism for trying to redefine the Scientific Method to prove your unscientific beliefs.

You may twist this anyway you wish, but in the end you will have to establish that you are correct by explaining how mechanical properties can be the cause of life and intelligence. Your problem begins even before this point. You cannot even prove your mechanical properties.

Nice!

Nice back!

Knew you'd get around to it. Now provide us with some empirical evidence for your unproven hypothesis.

And I knew that you would get around to avoiding proving your case. I am challenging the viability of mechanical materialism as a theory. Are you or are you not defending it? If you are defending it then please proceed to do so.

Oh wait, you don't allow unproven hypotheses.

I do not allow half baked theories to claim a monopoly on truth.

[QUOTE]Oh well.
You'll find no argument with the notion that intelligence causes things to happen. Unfortunately, in Formal Logic:

A implies B

is not equivalent to

B implies A

Which is the fundamental premise of "intelligent design": "Since intelligence causes things to happen, if things happen, there must be intelligence behind it." I know you "believe" this is true, but it does not pass formal logic which is a foundation of the scientific method. Sorry!{/QUOTE]

Of course it is logical. I know you believe it is not, but your conclusion is incorrect. Intelligence is the property of the universe by which you are able to discern meaning in anything. Everything you think you know is the product of your intelligence. What is the cause of this intelligence?

Wanted to repeat this because I want to repeat, this statement does not in any way show that the theories are invalid. The scientific method can invalidate theories, but it does not say that theories for which there no *current* empirical tests are invald.
If you don't believe in them you're free to propose alternate theories. You cannot claim they are invalid unless you come up with an empirical test to disprove them (note this actually doesn't require you come up with an alternate theory, but you can't call a theory wrong unless you prove that it is incorrect with evidence).

However, I can say that which I am saying. Your theories are only ideas about the kinds of causes in which you would like to believe. Believe in them freely, but do not claim they are fact. And, please do not claim that they represent the real properties of this universe. I am saying they do not. Are you claiming they do?

Now what you seem to be doing here is the old canard of trying to redefine "theory" to mean "any idea that has not been proven" then segue into "so they're all unprovable, QED." This is not the accepted definition of the word "Theory" which is any set of statements that can be used to describe physical phenomena. A theory may or may not be testable, but that does not make it invalid or worthy of use. Now what's really silly about these statements is that you then say that "Good theory demonstrates unity and successful predictions" and we'd all agree with that with the exception of the word unity, which we don't really give a darn about. Now that being said, if you go around saying that no theories can be proven, there's lots of successful predictions from these theories that you either are unwilling to look up or accept. Oh well.

Why don't you stop circling and proceed to defend mechanical materialism? You do not appreciate the significance of achieving unity. That is fine. Disunity is certainly in evidence in physics theory. You may be satisfied with this piecemeal approach, but I am not.

Did ya ever hear about that experiment where they put a bunch of atomic clocks up in an airplane and flew it around for a long time and when they landed and compared them to the stationary clocks, they were a few clicks different? Please tell us why this experiment, based on a testable hypothesis provided by Einstein was somehow wrong?

You avoid explaining why this experiment proves that time slows. You think you are in the superior position, but you do not support what you say. You insist that I should disprove your unproven positions. The clocks slowed down. That is what is learned. The clocks are not time. The clocks are matter interacting with matter. You do not know the cause of their interaction. You do not know why that cause should slow. You certainly do not know that time is that cause. Time was not contained in a vessel traveling along with the clock. It was not experimented on. We cannot handle time.

Well I took care of the silly "a theory is not a fact" notion above, but the only point you appear to be making is because some of these theories do not have empirical evidence *yet* that there's gotta be an intelligent creator.

You will have to show where I mentioned creator. My position is that you do not get to declare your theories to be facts. You do not know what is cause. You do not know what is force. You do not know what is mass. You do not know what is electric charge. You only know that changes of velocity occur in patterns. You have no idea about a cause for intelligence. If you think you do, then please explain the cause of intelligence. My position is that there is no way for intelligence to arise from a mechanical cause. Do you think it can? Then please get around to explaining how it was accomplished. I repeat that insofar as human logic is concerned intelligence is uncaused.

This is not science. Science says we know what we can see and we can guess at what we can't see, and when we guess we'd better be prepared to have the guess be shown by experiment to be false.
No, it doesn't. Science is interested in causes only in so far as the theories about those causes produce testable hypotheses (not that we can actually perform those tests yet, but that they are testable given means not yet obtainable). If you want to find metaphysical "causes", that's fine, but its not Science.

It is so easy for you to simply declare victory without making your own case. This is science to you? We see what our intelligence lets us see through a process of interpreting information. Intelligence comes first and conclusions come second. Explain the cause of intelligence.

Well as you said, intelligence exists. No argument there. I can go on for hours about the evolutionary usefulness of intelligence, but this is not the proper thread for this (you'll find lots of arguments elsewhere on this site).

Thats not necessary. Why don't you just explain the cause of intelligence?

I don't have a problem with you feeling that mecahnical materialism is wrong, but that's a philosophical and metaphysical argument, not Science.

So you defend those who make up causes and say that this is science. You think an interpetation of the operation of the universe that has no relevance to the existence of life and intelligence is science? You are welcome to believe in mechanical materialism if you wish, but be satisfied with solving only mechanical problems. That is the lowest level of interpretation for the operation of the universe. It is not real. It is metaphysical. Real science is needed to remove this facade and allow progress to be made toward analyzing the operation of the real universe. The real universe contains the properties that produce life and intelligence. Do you know anything about those properties?

Welcome to Hypography!

Cheers,
Buffy

Thank you Buffy,

James