The Tasteless Man (experience, atheist, faith, God, science)

[Mr Spinkles]

In another thread, the existence of God was being discussed, and someone came up with the analogy that a faithless man denying the ability of others to perceive/detect God is as pathetic as a tasteless man denying the existence of taste. Taste can never be proven to the tasteless man, and because he never experiences it himself he flat out denies it is real, or so the analogy goes.

However, if this tasteless man happened to appreciate science, we could indeed make the existence of taste clear to him. Here's how:

The tasteless man knows of but four senses: touch, sight, sound, and smell. If we design an experiment in which it is impossible to tell the difference between different drinks using these four senses, and yet everyone but the tasteless man can tell the difference between the drinks with high degrees of accuracy anyway, we will have proven that a fifth sense--this supposed "taste" sense--exists which the tasteless man does not possess.

The above paragraph should be sufficient, but I'll outline a detailed way of actually performing this experiment anyway.

1) Acquire some apple juice and some orange juice (no pulp). Add water and chemically alter the juices so that their textures are not perceivably different, and make sure they have the same temperature. By doing this, no one, including the tasteless man, will be able to distinguish between the apple juice or the orange juice by their sense of touch.

2) Use food coloring to make the two liquids appear the exact same color, or simply blindfold the subjects in the experiment. Make sure the cups of juice are labeled Apple or Orange juice on folded slips of paper that are not in plain view. By doing this, no one, including the T.M. (tasteless man) will be able to tell apart the apple juice and the orange juice by sight.

3) Our sense of hearing is not a factor, as orange and apple juice sound the same.

4) Make sure all the subjects have clothespins pinching their noses shut. Also, when they taste the liquids, each subject is to hold his breath, stick out his tongue, and dip it into the juice, thereby preventing any possibility of smelling the juice via the mouth (apple and orange juice don't have a very powerful aroma anyway).

5) To perform the experiment, simply have a bunch of people (including the T.M.), under the contraints outlined above, dip their tongues in apple or orange juice at random. Ask them whether they think the liquid was apple or orange juice, and record their answers over as many trials as you wish.

Predictions:

1) If the T.M. is correct and there is no such thing as a fifth sense called 'taste' that relies on sensory organs in the tongue, everyone should identify the liquid as apple/orange juice correctly about 50% of the time (the same % probability of getting it right by random guessing).

2) If the T.M. is wrong, and taste does exist, the T.M. should get it right about 50% of the time (as in #1). However, everyone else should correctly identify the liquids at a rate consistently higher than 50%.

Results: In this experiment, the T.M. would probably guess correctly about 50% of the time, and everyone else would easily be able to correctly identify apple or orange juice 100% of the time (or very close to that) simply by tasting it.

Conclusion: The T.M. can now clearly see that everyone else has a special sense besides sight, hearing, smell, and touch, that allow them to consistently distinguish between apple and orange juice. The sensory organs responsible for this fifth sense must reside in the tongue.

The above it just one of MANY ways we could prove the existence of taste, even to someone who doesn't have taste, using science. A further conclusion can be drawn: if supernatural senses existed, like the ability to sense spirits or other supernatural entities, it should be possible to prove this using science (even to people who do not have these senses).

[(Q)]

Nice work Spinky!

[Mr Spinkles]

Thanks. This is why I think the scientific method is so valuable...using it, we can make even the tasteless, believe! Go science!

[Zero Faith]

I'd just hand someone two cups of tea and ask them to tell me which one has sugar in it

[Paraprakrti]

Mr. Sprinkles...

You have not taken into account that taste is dependent on smell. How can the subjects of this experiment taste the liquid if their sense of smell is inhibited?


Zero Faith brings up the best point so far:

"I'd just hand someone two cups of tea and ask them to tell me which one has sugar in it"

Sugar has no aroma, so this would be the best answer in attempting to prove taste to the man who lacks the sense himself. But then the T.M. may question, "I cannot smell sugar, but how do I know others can also not smell it? Why should I assume that everyone lives by my standard?"

Now how do you prove that others can in fact not smell something? You could set up another experiment and have people smell samples of sugar and salt granulated to the same consistency (in order to appear the same). But, how does the T.M. really know that these people aren't just saying that they cannot smell the salt and sugar?

Thus, I still see no irrefutable proof of the sense of taste to one who has no experience of it firsthand.

[Ceridwen018]

You have not taken into account that taste is dependent on smell. How can the subjects of this experiment taste the liquid if their sense of smell is inhibited?

Mmmm...good point. I just held my nose and ate a grape to test out your theory, and you are correct. Sense of smell is necessary for taste. For this particular experiment to still work then, we would simply have to keep participants from simply smelling the aroma of the juice. Perhaps they would keep the clip on their noses, and then take a sip and hold it in their mouth. Then the clip would be removed and they could slosh the juice around for a minute to taste it before they swallowed.

Sugar has no aroma, so this would be the best answer in attempting to prove taste to the man who lacks the sense himself. But then the T.M. may question, "I cannot smell sugar, but how do I know others can also not smell it? Why should I assume that everyone lives by my standard?"

Now how do you prove that others can in fact not smell something? You could set up another experiment and have people smell samples of sugar and salt granulated to the same consistency (in order to appear the same). But, how does the T.M. really know that these people aren't just saying that they cannot smell the salt and sugar?

Sugar does have a smell though. Not when disintegrated in tea--it's not an awfully pungent aroma--but if someone were to have to distinguish between salt and sugar simply through smell, it could easily be done. Go test it out yourself right now--careful not to get your nose too close though!

As far as wondering if everyone is involved in a conspiracy to make this man believe he is deficient for not being able to smell sugar or whatever, I think that's taking it a bit far.

Thus, I still see no irrefutable proof of the sense of taste to one who has no experience of it firsthand.

The proof is there, but the tasteless man has to be willing to accept it. One can claim that the experiment has been rigged, but what would be the point of that?

[Paraprakrti]

Originally Posted by Ceridwen018

Mmmm...good point. I just held my nose and ate a grape to test out your theory, and you are correct. Sense of smell is necessary for taste. For this particular experiment to still work then, we would simply have to keep participants from simply smelling the aroma of the juice. Perhaps they would keep the clip on their noses, and then take a sip and hold it in their mouth. Then the clip would be removed and they could slosh the juice around for a minute to taste it before they swallowed.

Perhaps, but then the same line of reasoning the T.M. used for whether or not other's ability to smell is the same as his is applicable. He might consider, "How do I know that others cannot smell the food while it is in their mouths?" As ridiculous as that sounds to us, it is a very plausible inquiry from one who questions the extistence of something he has no firsthand experience of. I understand that most people will simply accept that other's are not out to cheat. But the propensity of cheating is there, nevertheless. So we must take it into consideration.

Originally Posted by Ceridwen018

Sugar does have a smell though. Not when disintegrated in tea--it's not an awfully pungent aroma--but if someone were to have to distinguish between salt and sugar simply through smell, it could easily be done. Go test it out yourself right now--careful not to get your nose too close though!

Then I mean to say sugar disintegrated into tea. Nevertheless...

Originally Posted by Ceridwen018

As far as wondering if everyone is involved in a conspiracy to make this man believe he is deficient for not being able to smell sugar or whatever, I think that's taking it a bit far.

But this is exactly the point. This was the debate to begin with. Whether the sense of taste can be irrefutably proven to one who has not the ability. I am simply applying the same line of skepticism that denies any tinge of faith being used.

Originally Posted by Ceridwen018

The proof is there, but the tasteless man has to be willing to accept it. One can claim that the experiment has been rigged, but what would be the point of that?

The "willing to accept it" means that he must ultimately surrender to the authority of those who have experienced taste firsthand. This is my point.

Originally, someone made an analogy comparing an atheist to someone who cannot taste denying that taste exists. I have made it apparent that even the atheists require some tinge of faith.

[Ceridwen018]

Perhaps, but then the same line of reasoning the T.M. used for whether or not other's ability to smell is the same as his is applicable. He might consider, "How do I know that others cannot smell the food while it is in their mouths?" As ridiculous as that sounds to us, it is a very plausible inquiry from one who questions the extistence of something he has no firsthand experience of.

I agree, it is a very plausible inquiry. However, I think that this too can be overcome. Assuming that the tasteless man has a sense of smell--which, now that I think about it, I'm not sure how that would work...--but for the sake of example, our tasteless man shall have one. The tasteless man would need to analyze himself: Can he smell the food when it is in his mouth? The answer would be 'no'. Because our tasteless man's sense of smell is identical to the other 'tasteful' participants, he can draw his own conclusion that the other participants cannot smell the food when it is in their mouths, just like he cannot.

But this is exactly the point. This was the debate to begin with. Whether the sense of taste can be irrefutably proven to one who has not the ability. I am simply applying the same line of skepticism that denies any tinge of faith being used.

Well, in all actuality, nothing can be 'irrefutably proven', but if our biggest issue is just that our tasteless man is a bit paranoid, I think we're doing alright.

[Paraprakrti]

"Because our tasteless man's sense of smell is identical to the other 'tasteful' participants, he can draw his own conclusion that the other participants cannot smell the food when it is in their mouths, just like he cannot."

But now we are saying that the tasteless man's sense of smell is the same as the 'tasteful' participants. How does the T.M. know this? We may know that we can't smell in our mouths, but how can we prove this to this incredibly skeptical man? He must accept our authority. Surrender is the final conclusion.

As a theist I very much understand and embrace the concept of surrender. Although, this does not mean that I sacrifice reason; only that my premise for anything rests upon the existence of an unchanging, eternal, supremely powerful and intelligent standard reality. Philosophically speaking, this is not so unreasonable at all. But further from this we may get into debates regarding specifics of this reality. Any specifics accepted by myself are admittedly done so by faith in the authority of scripture. I don't have a problem with people not accepting those specifics. I have a problem with people comparing the concept of God to things like 'pink unicorns', for example. There is no comparison. The word "God" implies an entire philosophy. If anyone wants they can replace the word "God" with the words "pink unicorn", but the same concept is nevertheless being portrayed. If I said, "God is a yellow cyclops", then someone could respond, "no, God is a pink unicorn", but what is the value of such argument? These are all attempts at describing specifics of a transcendental existence which, in concept, substantiates all things known and unknown to us. This is why the concept of God has remained so seemingly innovative despite that it has been around for at least thousands of years. Theories of 'big bang', 'chaos', etc, will come and go. God can be a pink unicorn, a yellow cyclops, a haze gray jackelope or something entirely different. The concept of God will remain in some form or another.

[Ceridwen018]

But now we are saying that the tasteless man's sense of smell is the same as the 'tasteful' participants. How does the T.M. know this? We may know that we can't smell in our mouths, but how can we prove this to this incredibly skeptical man? He must accept our authority. Surrender is the final conclusion.

He need only accept the authority of science. Here's what we have to do: Generally speaking, we hook our tasteless man and our other tasteful participants up to machines which allow us to monitor brain activity. We then locate the area of the brain which controls the sense of smell. From this point, we can see that this area of the brain is not stimulated when the subject has food inside their mouth, therefore allowing us to correctly conclude that the sense of smell is not being used when food is inside the mouth, aka, the subject cannot smell the food.