Science is wrong sometimes, therefore anything is possible

[huckelberry]

Harris is right that the switching from one kind of answer to another has all been in from religion to science. He is wrong, though, if he argues that religious answers are all bound to be inferior to scientific ones, just because the switches from one kind of answer to the other have all been in that direction. The unidirectionality of the switching can perfectly well be due entirely to the fact that science is newer.

What criterion (in your view) would enable someone to decide whether a religious answer to a question is inferior (or superior) to a scientific one?

Please illustrate this by giving a question which can be answered either by religion of by science, and showing what specific religious or scientific answers might be proposed.

It may be that Harris's question is a bit misleading. I do not see religion trying to answer questions in physics, chemistry, astronomy, biology, geology, or medicine. Well, a few individuals might try but with little success. I think there is some value in Gould's nonoverlapping magisteria proposal though there may be some points of contact between the two areas of thought. Religion is a pretty variegated category without sharp borderlines. I think of it centered in participatory theater to strengthen the spiritual dimension of human lives. Spiritual used not just to some non-physical arena but to the living processes of our strength, purpose, courage, and shared concerns for neighbors and community. These concerns do not just fall from the sky but are part of human ongoing experience. With experience involved, science is not completely excluded. I think in that area of contact cooperation not competition is the process. If cooperation is the process then the question of which partner has the best answer is not applicable.

[Gadianton]

"Confirmation" is a relevant concept, HS. We might re-write Sam Harris's question to ask when "confirmation" has ever been religious rather than scientific. Thinking about this sheds light on what feels like circular reasoning by Harris. Even in religion, confirmation is assumed to be scientific. When a prophet utters a prophecy, the truth of it is ultimately determined by observational consensus. The wicked will know that believers are right one day because the truth will be manifest in plain empirical terms. The truth then, being an empirical matter at the end of the day.

Religious mysticism, in the way Peterson tries to have it in order to get back at science, is the corollary to the idea I mentioned recently of non-physical ectoplasm -- the most uninteresting kind of non-physicalism. NPE is basically just like matter except it isn't matter. It may seem ridiculous, but in philosophy, any idea is permitted as long as it doesn't result in a contradiction. And so when he sees Hugh Nibley in a vision in the spirit world, he sees a man dressed in clothes, but everything from the man to the clothes is non-physical "stuff" that in its realm acts much like physical stuff. Mysticism is just the exchange of otherwise scientific ideas with the NPE world. There isn't anything fundamentally interesting about it.

To put this all together, consider water dowsing. The first point, is that if dowsing worked, it would simply be scientific and nobody would dispute it. In terms of "confirmation", instead of digging to demonstrate water, we'd prove the existence of water by carefully monitoring the antennae as it interacts with the water underground. Even if it only happens through a spiritual person holding a divining rod, we can monitor the nerve impulses of the rod wielder and discovering water would be an instrumental matter through dowsing rather than visually confirming it -- as most matters in science are confirmed.

We don't know exactly what's happening with NPE, but the possibilities are hinted at. The first possibility, is that some kind of NPE tracks with water, and also tracks with the human soul, which in turn is coupled to the body. In this way, the entire system would otherwise be a physical, determined system, except the NPE isn't physical by fiat. But science itself has no problem with agnosticism toward the lower layers as it nails down the upper layers. The second possibility is that some kind of intelligence on the other side is leading the man of the rod to the water. The intelligence, through whatever means, knows where all the water is, and simply communicates it to the rod holder through nerve impulses. To take the usual anti-realist position of science, the position of instrumentalism or falsificationism, science doesn't care if a spiritual entity is expertly linking the rod man and the water through the back-channels of the spirit realm in unknown ways any more than it cares if a spiritual entity is expertly placing electrons in the right spots every time we perform a quantum measurement. Whether it's through a spirit guide, a spirit substance, or just an unknown physical substance, if it works, it's a matter of science and if it works really well, it's a standard of science.

[drumdude]

Amid all of the eye-rolling and guffawing that have ensued here and (mostly) elsewhere over my recent ruminations[sic] about the possible reality of "extraordinary knowing," not a single mocker or critic has, so far as I'm aware, so much as glanced in the direction of the books that I've cited.

axelbeingcivil responding to DanielPeterson
an hour ago
I'm not sure whether I fall into either category in your mind, but did I not go through one of the CIA research documents that was the topic of one of the chapters of these works and provide a link to the full document for the interest of others?

I think this is at least the third time Dan has refused to engage with criticism of his hastily posted evidences for ESP.

[Rivendale]

Amid all of the eye-rolling and guffawing that have ensued here and (mostly) elsewhere over my recent ruminations[sic] about the possible reality of "extraordinary knowing," not a single mocker or critic has, so far as I'm aware, so much as glanced in the direction of the books that I've cited.

axelbeingcivil responding to DanielPeterson
an hour ago
I'm not sure whether I fall into either category in your mind, but did I not go through one of the CIA research documents that was the topic of one of the chapters of these works and provide a link to the full document for the interest of others?

I think this is at least the third time Dan has refused to engage with criticism of his hastily posted evidences for ESP.

This constant referral to books is amusing. Is that really how we uncover the underbelly of the supernatural? Really? The only way I can penetrate the veil of secrecy is to read one of his books. That gives little comfort to the many illiterate humans on the planet. The right combination of books accompanied by a ritual mirrored by said books cracks the code to the invisible world. Unbelievable.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

Maybe in a funny sort of synchronicity, or perhaps Extra Synchronicity Perception, while sitting in my tea spot, I read the CIA’s paper titled “CRYPTOLOGIC ASPECTS OF ESP” just this morning over a cup of, ironically, Limu Baby Geisha Natural Ethiopian coffee, a deeply sweet, fruit-driven, lively bean that, when hand-brewed evokes tones of dried apricot, dark chocolate, marshmallow, hazelnut, and pink grapefruit zest in aroma and cup. It possessed a sweet structure with bright, juicy acidity; a full, satiny-smooth mouthfeel. The cleanly fruit-toned finish is supported by notes of hazelnut and dark chocolate.

It was good.

Anyway, unlike some people who claim to read volumes of literature, and who shall remain unnamed, I actually read the darned thing. The paper delves into the exploration of parapsychological phenomena, particularly Extra Sensory Perception (ESP), from a cryptologic perspective (not cryptozoological, for Dr. Shades!). It examines the potential use of ESP in intelligence gathering and its implications for cryptographic security. The paper discusses various experiments, theories, and practical considerations regarding ESP and its relevance to intelligence operations.

The bottom line, the paper was basically a curious amalgamation of speculative inquiry and pragmatic assessment.

Regressing a bit, after taking a hard and fast crap, I drank another cup of coffee (exquisite!), and dove head first into an exploration that may, initially, provoke skepticism; the CIA's thorough examination of BS forces one to consider the potential ramifications for intelligence operations. One has to admit that ‘MIIIIIIND POWERS!’ would be useful to know whether or not Russia might invade some country, say, like Ukraine. *cough*

Ignoring that, I was seized with an, I dunno, academic desire to question the scientific validity of ESP and simultaneously acknowledging its allure as a subject of inquiry, I noted the methodological rigor of the studies were, well, Ancient Aliensy at best. I was probing for any potential biases or flaws in experimental design, and boy howdy, did my online degree in Social Psychology come in handy! It was apparent throughout the study that it lacked rigorous experimental design, failed to produce replicable results, and didn’t adhere to standard scientific protocols. Additionally, the findings of the study haven’t been validated by independent researchers, so…

Luckily, the CIA itself acknowledged the limitations of the study and didn’t endorsed its conclusions as definitive. I mean, I appreciated the CIA's willingness to explore unconventional avenues in the pursuit of intelligence gathering. But, I don’t appreciate know-it-alls not reading material they claim to read and then shill for flawed ‘science’ to push their, ultimately, religious agenda.

To summarize Peterson’s folly:

There once was a farmer with “ESP”,

Predicting the future with glee.

And then the dupes said,

"I love what’s in your head!”

And now we have a whole new theology!

- Doc

edited to add- https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/NS ... 0008-7.pdf

For Dr. Shades, naturally.

[drumdude]

I think this is at least the third time Dan has refused to engage with criticism of his hastily posted evidences for ESP.

This constant referral to books is amusing. Is that really how we uncover the underbelly of the supernatural? Really? The only way I can penetrate the veil of secrecy is to read one of his books. That gives little comfort to the many illiterate humans on the planet. The right combination of books accompanied by a ritual mirrored by said books cracks the code to the invisible world. Unbelievable.

You have to read his books and not look at who authored them and what bias they have.

You have to read his books and not look at what the author’s peers have said which criticizes their ideas.

You have to read his books until you can have the opinion that ESP is probably just as unlikely as you intuitively believe it is.

No thanks, Dan. I’m giving them the same treatment that I’d give a book about flat earth theory. I know that’s being so militantly dogmatic.

[Dr. Shades]

edited to add- https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/NS ... 0008-7.pdf

For Dr. Shades, naturally.

Not for everyone?

[Physics Guy]

In order to reduce costs, plastic has been tried as a component in things like power tools, only to be replaced by steel. I traded my plastic water bottle for a steel one over concerns about plastic pollution. The move away from plastic to stainless steel and cast iron is happening now all over the food industry.

Sigh. Yeah. I thought of airline cutlery myself, but indeed there are plenty of examples of plastic solutions reverting to steel, for various good reasons.

As I think you acknowledge, the point is still a reasonable one, that when one whole class of solutions is newer, it is more likely to be adopted, even if use cases for older solutions remain. I think what I learn from this problem is that the set of industrial design questions is larger than the set of philosophical questions. So many different kinds of constraints can be important for industrial materials that a newer material can indeed be tried, and found wanting from certain perspectives.

At this point I think my point stands that Harris's shot was a cheapish one, if you think about the issue seriously. I'm just coming back to this thread now, though, after trying not to procrastinate for a while, so perhaps I will have to recant in a subsequent post.

[Physics Guy]

What criterion (in your view) would enable someone to decide whether a religious answer to a question is inferior (or superior) to a scientific one?

Please illustrate this by giving a question which can be answered either by religion or by science, and showing what specific religious or scientific answers might be proposed.

I was hoping that the burden of this was on Harris, for proposing this comparison. I wanted to just take his premises, whatever they were, and apply them in a way that I hoped he would have to accept because technological questions like whether something is made of steel or plastic are science-y rather than religious-y.

In taking this assumption from Harris, that assessment of whether an answer is good or bad is straightforward, I don't think Harris was so far off. There's a big market that has voted on a lot of questions, and this may be a philosophical cop-out but I'm just not interested in holdouts from evolution and heliocentrism or in Nietzschean barbarism. People, like specifically Cardinal Whatsisname, have tried to answer the question of whether the Earth orbits the Sun, or vice versa, by appealing to the Bible. There's actually a longer and more interesting scientific story than many might realise about which answer is right, because motion is relative, but Bible verses do not add anything to it.

On the other hand there really were a lot of people in the 20th century who went along with sterilising people with low IQ scores because this was touted as a scientifically good plan. I think the consensus among right-thinking people now, and at any rate my own view, is that this was misguided, because IQ does not equate to value as a human being. I wouldn't say that's a non-scientific view, but I can't say it's scientific, either.

[Gadianton]

In terms of propositional knowledge, religion doesn't stand a chance. It becomes incoherent to even try to make a case for how religion could possibly be right -- that's where it seems fishy for Harris, because science trades in precise empirical description, measurement, and confirmation. Take the proposition, "God has a body and lives on Kolob." What would it mean for this proposition to take its rightful place as a firmly established idea in the modern world? 1) Most people would have to convert to Mormonism and gain a spiritual witness of it. 2) God would have to come down and have a roundtable with scientists, demonstrate it true, or when we all die, God empirically demonstrates it's true then.

If Harris doesn't accept 1), then he's kind of begging the question because he's assuming the only kind of knowledge is the kind science offers. Even if Kolob is real, by the time it's accepted as the right answer (2) and religion scores a point, it's really science scoring the point because the means of all credible empirical acceptance is at the end of the day, scientific. To really allow the "market of ideas" to determine which ideas win, we can't define the criteria of acceptance in advance. And while it may seem like a safe bet to go with science, the success of Trumpism should give everyone pause. Clearly, it's possible that the accepted best idea could be that God has a body and lives on Kolob, given 70 million Americans think that Trump is a genius and he alone can make America great.

That doesn't mean I'm against Harris on the point, as long as blogs like Sic et Non exist, the point should be made, but I think it's worth digging deeper into the merits of the point. I would like to see a hypothetical example from Harris of how a religious idea could replace a scientific one as the best idea, such that he'd accept it. If he can't provide such an example of how this would work in principle, then he's begging the question.