Natural Science and Philosophy

Some comments posted recently;
 

New Humanist (http://newhumanist.org.uk/2841/ending-the-wedge);

Agreed. But the problem is unfortunately on both sides. We need to separate philosophy from natural science.

Materialism is a philosophical position, and not a scientific one. Let's state our terms and run with them. Clearly.

Here are some starting points for those concerned;

- There is no empirical evidence for two universes, let alone an infinite number of them. Furthermore, if another universe is non-observable by definition, then it can and will never constitute a scientific hypothesis. There are thousand year old debates regarding first cause, predictive power, observed-to-predicted-number-of-elements-ratio; all far more advanced than your average "cosmology" pass off.
- don't down play zombie arguments. Just because we have no less reason to believe another person than ourselves on this matter, doesn't mean that the logical possibility is beyond rational thought. Find a monkey that doesn't believe in itself. An evolutionary by-product to benefit our survival perhaps - but we all believe in it - yes believe.
- observed probability in nature is not equivalent to "random chance" (this is a subtle but real philosophical position) - and we certainly don't have any "random chance" without law - we have zero chance
- we have no reason to accept the scientific method applied without first accepting non-physical abstract objects (logic included) - again this speaks against philosophical manipulation of scientific theory that claims to be able to prove otherwise (circles are real)

And for the people who probably won't read this blog;
- The book doesn't say it all happened at once
- and I would swear it mentions something about a light, and an alternative cosmological principle - the modern one

I like to think that if you didn't have philosophical absurdity paraded as science, then you wouldn't have "creationism".


The Daily Beast (http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2012/07/08/how-the-higgs-boson-posits-a-new-story-of-our-creation.html);

Science and Philosophy;

: Excuse us, but the author is quite mistaken. This is science not philosophy.
:: Philosophy is just science for people too lazy to do experiments and research.
::: No science relies upon philosophical presuppositions like causality, logic, and the empirical method (it cannot hypothesise regarding that which cannot at least in theory be disproved by observation).

Paranormal Activity;

If paranormal activity could be documented in a repeatable fashion, then it wouldn't be paranormal - it would constitute scientific data.

But you raise an interesting question regarding that which cannot be confirmed by empirical method. Is sense of self only physical (an evolved belief to benefit our survival), or does our brain's belief in itself as an observer correspond (map) to something else beyond neural activity? If you think this is a silly question, then add it to your presupposition list.

Mythology;

Monkeys don't wake up in the morning and decide to wear ties. Things take time. Generally the reason this has involved religious belief, is the same as that why we prefer not be monkeys. Even the Greeks came to their systems of values in this way. Mythology laid the groundwork for modern civilization. Yet even civilization is not everything it is cut out to be.

"God" as a definition;

"God" is generally defined as the cause of the universe, or the "first cause" as Aristotle put it. I believe he claimed an infinite regression of causes implies there is no cause.


"Why We Believe in Gods" - Andy Thomson - American Atheists (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1iMmvu9eMrg);

The physical development of mind and its corresponding time scales, being viewed from a human perspective, are otherwise irrelevant and cannot be used to judge/negate intentionality in creation/evolution. The 'hijacking' of such evolutionary developments [by religion] is therefore quite possible. Yet human civilisation and culture (including the speaker's tie) are perhaps more profound examples of the hijacking of evolved cognitive processes, including in particular those related to our sense of self