If Science Can't Answer it...

[Dao Hao Now]

What I think is going on here is not so much any philosophical differences between us about science BUT rather a disagreement about the quantity, quality and consistency of psychic/paranormal/spiritual phenomena and spiritual traditions describing the super-physical in greater detail.

I think many in the scientism/atheist/materialist camp are just underinformed about these subjects as scientific-materialism has had its day in the last century as ruling the academic roost. So they are quick to make the false claim that this stuff has been studied and shown to fail by science and so forth. They probably truly believe that because they are underinformed and materialist-science has a bias against these 'spiritual and superstitious' things. I would ask how well-versed are these people in the evidence? Here's just one website chock full of evidence that I sincerely believe has never been explained-away by materialist science: Afterlife Evidence.

If you can provide a better explanation for the data presented there, I would accept your explanation.

Since you have neglected to answer the question I have now asked twice, I’ll venture to say it may be because you have a cognitive dissonance involved preventing you from being able to admit that unverifiable testimony constitutes sub par validity but still believe it so long as it corroborates you presupposed beliefs.

I think many in the scientism/atheist/materialist camp are just underinformed about these subjects

So they are quick to make the false claim that this stuff has been studied and shown to fail by science and so forth. They probably truly believe that because they are underinformed and materialist-science has a bias against these 'spiritual and superstitious' things.

I would suggest that it is you who has a bias TOWARDS these ‘spiritual and superstitious’ things.

Here's just one website chock full of evidence that I sincerely believe has never been explained-away by materialist science: Afterlife Evidence.

If you can provide a better explanation for the data presented there, I would accept your explanation.

Happy to help…..
After a quick perusal of this website, I see a lot of ‘testimony’, but very little (if any) actual evidence.
Again lots of ‘testimony’ that evidence exists….just not the actual evidence claimed.

The first 2 items I looked at;
1. Modern physics and the afterlife
2. Psychics
Both fail to be in the least bit convincing.

Note; all comments within parentheses and emphasis of words are from me.

1. Modern physics and the afterlife:
Claims……
“We now know that atoms are 99.999999999% empty space. And, thanks to 'quantum physics',” (this is incorrect; this was discovered by Ernest Rutherford known as the ‘father of nuclear physics’. A fascinating individual…you should look him up. It would be more accurate to say his discoveries helped to lead to ‘quantum physics’.) “we now know that subatomic particles- electrons, protons and neutrons - are not solid either.

They are made up of energy. So the world we think of as being solid is in fact empty space.”(This part is a play on words since there is no ‘solid’ at sub atomic levels it is an emergent property of matter above that scale.)

“Our senses and our instruments are only able to perceive a small range of vibrations between two fixed points”
“That is the section which makes up to us the physical world.”
“But the physical world is only a very limited section of vibrations compared with all the other vibrations in the universe.” (This is pure speculation without any attempt to back it up.
It is erroneously stated as fact)

“Scientists working in the Spirit world ,which they call the Etheric world, tell us that their world is just as solid as our world but on a different frequency- just above what our senses can perceive.
( Now they contradict their previous assertion that the world is in theory empty space!)

“They ARGUE (notice this is not ‘demonstrate’) that once the movement of the vortex exceeds the speed of light,
(This is impossible within any model of physics… nothing can exceed the speed of light!)
then a person or thing will enter into superenergy, a new dimension, a new world.
(Again pure speculation with absolutely nothing to back it up.)


2. Psychics:
Claims…..
“Psychic abilities are NOT BY THEMSELVES EVIDENCE”
(This part is correct, if ‘psychic abilities’ were demonstrated to exist.)
“of the afterlife but they are associated with the afterlife.
“Investigation of psychic abilities CAN PROVIDE EVIDENCE that consciousness extends beyond the physical brain and opens the possibility that it may survive beyond death.”
(Again all pure speculation not backed up but erroneously presented as fact.)

They then go on to tout experiments conducted at the Rhine Research Center by Dr JD Rhine and indicate the CLAIMS he made in his book
“Extra-Sensory Perception After Sixty Years”
and claim..
“These studies were repeated in 33 independent experiments in different laboratories in the five years following Rhine’s first publication of his results. Twenty of these or 61% were statistically significant where 5% would be expected by chance.”

Unfortunately according to Wikipedia…

“Rhine's results have never been duplicated by the scientific community.

A number of psychological departments attempted to repeat Rhine's experiments, but failed. W. S. Cox (1936) from Princeton Universitywith 132 subjects produced 25,064 trials in a playing card ESP experiment. Cox concluded "There is no evidence of extrasensory perception either in the 'average man' or of the group investigated or in any particular individual of that group. The discrepancy between these results and those obtained by Rhine is due either to uncontrollable factors in experimental procedure or to the difference in the subjects." Four other psychological departments failed to replicate Rhine's results.The American psychologist [URL='https://en.wikipedia.org/api/rest_v1/page/mobile-html/James_Charles_Crumbaugh']James Charles Crumbaugh attempted to repeat Rhine's findings over a long period without success.[/URL]”
And goes on to enumerate many methodological flaws in his studies which easily accounts for the failure to be able to replicate his results.

This is just from a quick perusal of a couple of the listed “evidence” presented.
Not very convincing to anyone applying critical reasoning.

Again this is demonstration of multiple attempts to verify evidence which has failed.

I don’t have the time or inclination to go through the whole website since the first 2 things I looked at are failures.
However, in order to be fair…
I’ll let you pick out what you believe to be the single best bit of ‘evidence’ and I’ll look at it and let you know my critique.

 

[sun rise]

Just out of interest, do you have an example of something science can't be used to examine?

Does God exist is my #1 example.Another is the existence of the soul.

But in general, Gödel's incompleteness theorems and Tarkski's theorem proving the "formal undefinability of truth" Tarkski's "theorem applies more generally to any sufficiently strong formal system, showing that truth in the standard model of the system cannot be defined within the system." These show that there are limits to mathematics and thus to one of the legs science in general rests on.

 

[HonestJoe]

Does God exist is my #1 example.

You would need a clear definition of "God" first but the common proposals involve events or actions in the world which could be studied. Also, if the proposed God is the one existing in heaven, alongside angels and the spirits of the dead, they would be able to apply scientific method to their observations of God.

Another is the existence of the soul.

Again, that is short a clear definition but, like God, there are events or actions attributed to it which could be studied and associated beings purported to be capable of observing and manipulating souls, so they could obviously study them too.

Of course, the only reason such things are even talked about as being beyond the scope of science is because they're defined by believers in that way but with absolutely zero rational justification.

But in general, Gödel's incompleteness theorems and Tarkski's theorem proving the "formal undefinability of truth" Tarkski's "theorem applies more generally to any sufficiently strong formal system, showing that truth in the standard model of the system cannot be defined within the system." These show that there are limits to mathematics and thus to one of the legs science in general rests on.

I certainlt don't claim to be an expert there, but I don't think they're about limitations of science specifically, they're about limitations on the fundamental possibility of certain things being known by any means. It is also scientific itself method being used to hypothesise the theorems and to support them (and leave the possibility, however unlikely, open to counter them).

It also, incidentally, raises questions about the possibility of omnipotence too.

 

[Nakosis]

" no value "

on what standard, please?

Regards

The standard of reality and accepting that some questions that can be asked are unanswerable.

IOW, if you ask a question of science which has no answer, what actual value does such a question have?

 

[Nakosis]

Does God exist is my #1 example.Another is the existence of the soul.

But in general, Gödel's incompleteness theorems and Tarkski's theorem proving the "formal undefinability of truth" Tarkski's "theorem applies more generally to any sufficiently strong formal system, showing that truth in the standard model of the system cannot be defined within the system." These show that there are limits to mathematics and thus to one of the legs science in general rests on.

Good example, IMO of the point of the OP.
Obviously humans are good an creating questions that don't have or can't be answered.
"Does God exist" can't be answered by science. A question with no answer, what real value does such a question have?
Ok, "truth" cannot be defined in a strong formal system. Now what? Perhaps the concept of truth has no value in such a system.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Well that would be the evidence rather than a question being studied.

It is definitely possible to study literature (including poetry) in a formal manner, looking at things like linguistic complexity, rhyming and scanning structure etc. (coincidentally, I've actually done that). You could also carry out psychological or sociologic studies on various forms of reaction of people reading and/or hearing the poetry.

Well, yeah. But the discipline you just described is called literary criticism, and is not generally taught in science departments.

As for psychology and sociology, are they sciences? Please note I am not dismissing either discipline, just pointing out that they are not universally considered to be so.

 

[HonestJoe]

Well, yeah. But the discipline you just described is called literary criticism, and is not generally taught in science departments.

As for psychology and sociology, are they sciences? Please note I am not dismissing either discipline, just pointing out that they are not universally considered to be so.

Sure, but the question wasn't "Is this thing routinely studied in formal scientific environments or in university science department.". The question was "What kind of scientific method could be used to study this thing."

The key point is that there is no fundamental principle or logical barrier that prevents anything from having scientific method applied to it. The only limitations are practical capability to consistently observe and intellectual ability to interpret those observations. With a hypothetical observer assumed capable of those things, literally anything could be studied.

Defining something as (currently) beyond human ability to understand is one thing (if somewhat contradictory), but defining something as being fundamentally "beyond science" is irrational. It's like saying there is a physical material that can't be broken or a finite distance that can't be measured.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Sure, but the question wasn't "Is this thing routinely studied in formal scientific environments or in university science department.". The question was "What kind of scientific method could be used to study this thing."

The key point is that there is no fundamental principle or logical barrier that prevents anything from having scientific method applied to it. The only limitations are practical capability to consistently observe and intellectual ability to interpret those observations. With a hypothetical observer assumed capable of those things, literally anything could be studied.

Defining something as (currently) beyond human ability to understand is one thing (if somewhat contradictory), but defining something as being fundamentally "beyond science" is irrational. It's like saying there is a physical material that can't be broken or a finite distance that can't be measured.

You're using a very loose definition of the word 'science' there. To rephrase my original question; what explanations and predictions about the natural world, can you derive from the study of T.S. Elliot's poetry? And how are any theories you might arrive at about poetry, either testable or falsifiable?

 

[HonestJoe]

You're using a very loose definition of the word 'science' there.

Sure, but it's the relevant definition in the context of claims of religious/supernatural things being somehow "beyond science". Maybe if there was any kind of reason or clarification behind those claims, a more specific definition of science could be considered. Of course, the entire point of such claims is to try to evade the requirement to provide reason and clarification in the first place.

To rephrase my original question; what explanations and predictions about the natural world, can you derive from the study of T.S. Elliot's poetry? And how are any theories you might arrive at about poetry, either testable or falsifiable?

I totally agree that there isn't a vast amount of great significance to be learned from any study of poetry but that isn't a limitation of science, it's a limitation of how much significance (especially to the natural world) poetry has in general. It doesn't matter what kind of process or methods you use to consider it. This is not an example of any specific limitations of science (by any definition).

 

[RestlessSoul]

Sure, but it's the relevant definition in the context of claims of religious/supernatural things being somehow "beyond science". Maybe if there was any kind of reason or clarification behind those claims, a more specific definition of science could be considered. Of course, the entire point of such claims is to try to evade the requirement to provide reason and clarification in the first place.

I totally agree that there isn't a vast amount of great significance to be learned from any study of poetry but that isn't a limitation of science, it's a limitation of how much significance (especially to the natural world) poetry has in general. It doesn't matter what kind of process or methods you use to consider it. This is not an example of any specific limitations of science (by any definition).

You see no value in poetry? Then you and I are poles apart there.

I also see great value in scientific enquiry by the way, especially enquiry undertaken for it's own sake. Science is a tool, or set of tools, and tools are specific to their particular purpose. You won't tune a piano with a socket set, and you won't plumb the depths of the human spirit with ultrasound.

 

[George-ananda]

Since you have neglected to answer the question I have now asked twice, l venture to say it may be because you have a cognitive dissonance involved preventing you from being able to admit that unverifiable testimony constitutes sub par validity but still believe it so long as it corroborates you presupposed beliefs.

I feel I answered it twice. The paranormal/spiritual cannot be described and studied with the certainty of physical science. (It's like you want me to say every anecdote is as valid as science)

Happy to help…..
After a quick perusal of this website, I see a lot of ‘testimony’, but very little (if any) actual evidence.
Again lots of ‘testimony’ that evidence exists….just not the actual evidence claimed.

The first 2 items I looked at;
1. Modern physics and the afterlife
2. Psychics
Both fail to be in the least bit convincing.

Note; all comments within parentheses and emphasis of words are from me.

1. Modern physics and the afterlife:
Claims……
“We now know that atoms are 99.999999999% empty space. And, thanks to 'quantum physics',” (this is incorrect; this was discovered by Ernest Rutherford known as the ‘father of nuclear physics’. A fascinating individual…you should look him up. It would be more accurate to say his discoveries helped to lead to ‘quantum physics’.) “we now know that subatomic particles- electrons, protons and neutrons - are not solid either.

They are made up of energy. So the world we think of as being solid is in fact empty space.”(This part is a play on words since there is no ‘solid’ at sub atomic levels it is an emergent property of matter above that scale.)

“Our senses and our instruments are only able to perceive a small range of vibrations between two fixed points”
“That is the section which makes up to us the physical world.”
“But the physical world is only a very limited section of vibrations compared with all the other vibrations in the universe.” (This is pure speculation without any attempt to back it up.
It is erroneously stated as fact)

“Scientists working in the Spirit world ,which they call the Etheric world, tell us that their world is just as solid as our world but on a different frequency- just above what our senses can perceive.
( Now they contradict their previous assertion that the world is in theory empty space!)

“They ARGUE (notice this is not ‘demonstrate’) that once the movement of the vortex exceeds the speed of light,
(This is impossible within any model of physics… nothing can exceed the speed of light!)
then a person or thing will enter into superenergy, a new dimension, a new world.
(Again pure speculation with absolutely nothing to back it up.)

Well theoretical physics is still a mysterious area for sure and I can say that if this paranormal/spiritual stuff really occurs then something beyond our current understanding of physics must be involved.

2. Psychics:
Claims…..
“Psychic abilities are NOT BY THEMSELVES EVIDENCE”
(This part is correct, if ‘psychic abilities’ were demonstrated to exist.)
“of the afterlife but they are associated with the afterlife.
“Investigation of psychic abilities CAN PROVIDE EVIDENCE that consciousness extends beyond the physical brain and opens the possibility that it may survive beyond death.”
(Again all pure speculation not backed up but erroneously presented as fact.)

They then go on to tout experiments conducted at the Rhine Research Center by Dr JD Rhine and indicate the CLAIMS he made in his book
“Extra-Sensory Perception After Sixty Years”
and claim..
“These studies were repeated in 33 independent experiments in different laboratories in the five years following Rhine’s first publication of his results. Twenty of these or 61% were statistically significant where 5% would be expected by chance.”

Unfortunately according to Wikipedia…

“Rhine's results have never been duplicated by the scientific community.

A number of psychological departments attempted to repeat Rhine's experiments, but failed. W. S. Cox (1936) from Princeton Universitywith 132 subjects produced 25,064 trials in a playing card ESP experiment. Cox concluded "There is no evidence of extrasensory perception either in the 'average man' or of the group investigated or in any particular individual of that group. The discrepancy between these results and those obtained by Rhine is due either to uncontrollable factors in experimental procedure or to the difference in the subjects." Four other psychological departments failed to replicate Rhine's results.The American psychologist James Charles Crumbaugh attempted to repeat Rhine's findings over a long period without success.”
And goes on to enumerate many methodological flaws in his studies which easily accounts for the failure to be able to replicate his results.

This is just from a quick perusal of a couple of the listed “evidence” presented.
Not very convincing to anyone applying critical reasoning.

Well Wikipedia is a bias source for skeptical information and that can be beyond my opinion verified as a concerted effort: Guerilla Skepticism on Wikipedia

But the world of psi testing has come along way since the days of Rhine in the first half of the twentieth century where skeptics would like to end things. Allow me to quote a modern scientist Dr. Dean Radin:

“After a century of increasingly sophisticated investigations and more than a thousand controlled studies with combined odds against chance of 10 to the 104th power to 1, there is now strong evidence that psi phenomena exist. While this is an impressive statistic, all it means is that the outcomes of these experiments are definitely not due to coincidence. We’ve considered other common explanations like selective reporting and variations in experimental quality, and while those factors do moderate the overall results, there can be no little doubt that overall something interesting is going on. It seems increasingly likely that as physics continues to redefine our understanding of the fabric of reality, a theoretical outlook for a rational explanation for psi will eventually be established

Again this is demonstration of multiple attempts to verify evidence which has failed.

I don’t have the time or inclination to go through the whole website since the first 2 things I looked at are failures.
However, in order to be fair…
I’ll let you pick out what you believe to be the single best bit of ‘evidence’ and I’ll look at it and let you know my critique.

Well. each of those other subjects can provoke an endless debate too, I'm sure. I've been into this stuff for decades now and am already familiar with the skeptical rebuttals that are out there. In the end we each have to look at all things considered and decide who is being fairest and unbiased with the information.

I think a key point is that the paranormal/spiritual is beyond direct detection by our physical senses and instruments. Science tells us the vast majority of the matter and energy in our universe is beyond direct detection (so-called Dark Matter) so this should not be so impossible to science.

So your next fair question would be if it is beyond detection then how can these wisdom traditions I've mentioned (Vedic (Hindu), Theosophical, etcetera) tell us anything about it. Well, the argument is that we are not just physical matter but have etheric, astral, etcetera components that we cannot directly detect with the physical senses (it would be like trying to capture an atom with a butterfly net). These realms are held to be in dimensions beyond the familiar three of our physical senses and at vibratory rates outside of our sensing range. And so we have senses composed of our higher realm matter that can indeed tell us of more than the physical. And those with the most gifted and refined use of these senses can tell us things for our consideration that physical science cannot address.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Do you agree?

I very strongly disagree and find it beyond impossible to agree as every thing we know in science began as a question of why or what or how or when, very many of them unanswerable the first time the question was asked.
It's also not very well suited to answer some things we deal with today, such as morality and ethics. We can use science to help us base a position on these things, but there is not one principle of science or law of nature to say why this is a better approach and there are absolutely no proofs available to say why it's better for people. For this we must turn to philosophy and those such as Mill, Aristotle, Locke, Nozick and Rawls to gain challenges and insights necessary to strengthen why a science based position would be better.

 

[sun rise]

You would need a clear definition of "God"

The ineffable can't be defined in words by definition.

Ok, "truth" cannot be defined in a strong formal system. Now what? Perhaps the concept of truth has no value in such a system.

"theorem applies more generally to any sufficiently strong formal system, showing that truth in the standard model of the system cannot be defined within the system."

If we're speaking of formal science, then "truth" can't be defined within science and formal science is by it's nature provably incomplete.

There is of course empirical science, that which involves experiments. So physics is not a formal science but mathematical physics is.

Stepping back and hopefully being clearer: "God" and "soul" can't be defined because they are ineffable concepts. In addition, the attempt to use formal systems to speak to "God is the truth" can't be done because "truth" can't be defined in the confines of a formal system. In addition, given various theologies such as advaita which asserts that the world of experience is an illusion, like a dream, any possible experimental result can be dismissed as just part of illusion and not real at all.

 

[HonestJoe]

You see no value in poetry? Then you and I are poles apart there.

I didn't say anything of the sort. I was answering in the limited context of your question on "explanations and predictions about the natural world". There can be massive value in things without scientifically analysing them (indeed, doing that can sometimes lessen the value, like explaining a joke). My sole point is that there is nothing that it is fundamentally impossible to apply scientific method to (regardless whether there is anything meaningful to gain as a result).

I also see great value in scientific enquiry by the way, especially enquiry undertaken for it's own sake.

I couldn't agree more. Isn't that somewhat contradictory to your earlier objection to my "loose definition of science" though? One of the great values of science is the massive scale and scope over which it can be applied.

Science is a tool, or set of tools, and tools are specific to their particular purpose. You won't tune a piano with a socket set, and you won't plumb the depths of the human spirit with ultrasound.

Science is a set of tools but it is an extremely large and diverse set of tools. In your metaphor, it would include both the socket set and the piano tuning tools.

Can I reverse your question; What explanations and predictions about the natural world, can you derive from T.S. Elliot's poetry in a manner that would be literally impossible to address via scientific method? (note it doesn't need to be answerable via scientific method, only capable of being hypothesised and observed, and the observer isn't necessarily human beings of today)

 

[HonestJoe]

The ineffable can't be defined in words by definition.

But "God" is defined in words. The problem is that lots of believers describe it using all sorts of different words (even ones who are nominally of the same faith).

Also, would God be capable of defining himself?

 

[sun rise]

But "God" is defined in words. The problem is that lots of believers describe it using all sorts of different words (even ones who are nominally of the same faith).

People try to define God in words because they are in the grip of the intellect which works by comparing and contrasting things.

Also, would God be capable of defining himself?

Meher Baba, who I take as God in human form indicated:

"Even I cannot express this, but I try to do so as far as possible. It is beyond the intellect.
...
When you are in the grip of the false "I," which identifies itself with what happens, illusion governs you. But when you know the truth, you do not identify yourself with it. All we see, hear and experience in the world is not God. Whatever you can understand, is not God. Whatever is explained is not God. Whatever is expressed is not God....

It is all words. When you say Self, God, Infinity, they mean nothing. To attempt to understand by reading or hearing explanations is an insult to our beloved God, Who is beyond all understanding"

 

[Dao Hao Now]

I feel I answered it twice. The paranormal/spiritual cannot be described and studied with the certainty of physical science. (It's like you want me to say every anecdote is as valid as science)
Well theoretical physics is still a mysterious area for sure and I can say that if this paranormal/spiritual stuff really occurs then something beyond our current understanding of physics must be involved.

Well Wikipedia is a bias source for skeptical information and that can be beyond my opinion verified as a concerted effort: Guerilla Skepticism on Wikipedia

But the world of psi testing has come along way since the days of Rhine in the first half of the twentieth century where skeptics would like to end things. Allow me to quote a modern scientist Dr. Dean Radin:

“After a century of increasingly sophisticated investigations and more than a thousand controlled studies with combined odds against chance of 10 to the 104th power to 1, there is now strong evidence that psi phenomena exist. While this is an impressive statistic, all it means is that the outcomes of these experiments are definitely not due to coincidence. We’ve considered other common explanations like selective reporting and variations in experimental quality, and while those factors do moderate the overall results, there can be no little doubt that overall something interesting is going on. It seems increasingly likely that as physics continues to redefine our understanding of the fabric of reality, a theoretical outlook for a rational explanation for psi will eventually be established


Well. each of those other subjects can provoke an endless debate too, I'm sure. I've been into this stuff for decades now and am already familiar with the skeptical rebuttals that are out there. In the end we each have to look at all things considered and decide who is being fairest and unbiased with the information.

I think a key point is that the paranormal/spiritual is beyond direct detection by our physical senses and instruments. Science tells us the vast majority of the matter and energy in our universe is beyond direct detection (so-called Dark Matter) so this should not be so impossible to science.

So your next fair question would be if it is beyond detection then how can these wisdom traditions I've mentioned (Vedic (Hindu), Theosophical, etcetera) tell us anything about it. Well, the argument is that we are not just physical matter but have etheric, astral, etcetera components that we cannot directly detect with the physical senses (it would be like trying to capture an atom with a butterfly net). These realms are held to be in dimensions beyond the familiar three of our physical senses and at vibratory rates outside of our sensing range. And so we have senses composed of our higher realm matter that can indeed tell us of more than the physical. And those with the most gifted and refined use of these senses can tell us things for our consideration that physical science cannot address.

It's like you want me to say every anecdote is as valid as science

I’m not trying to coerce you into saying anything in particular……
I ask the question to clarify your position so that I’m not making an incorrect assumption about your point of view; that simple.
I try to wherever possible avoid straw manning.

Well Wikipedia is a bias source for skeptical information and that can be beyond my opinion verified as a concerted effort: Guerilla Skepticism on Wikipedia

This is laughable…
You use Wikipedia as a reference in earlier posts when it fits your purpose,
and then you point to an obviously biased website as ‘evidence’, which I perused and not finding any references listed, went to Wikipedia in order to familiarize myself with what was being purported…

Rhine Research Center:
Which list 5 references; 4 of which are the Rhine Research Center and 1 from Discovery News which in the article referenced “Whatever Happened to Parapsychology?” which is about the fact that there are very few ‘serious’ research facilities anymore and includes the quote
“Critics respond that, as a field of scientific study, parapsychology has much bigger issues. In short, the science has a fundamental evidence problem.”

Joseph Banks Rhine:
Which was linked from the Rhine Research Center’s page and contains 31 references from 31 different individual sources.
How many of these 31 independent resources are you contending are ‘biased’?

But the world of psi testing has come along way since the days of Rhine in the first half of the twentieth century where skeptics would like to end things.

I did not bring up Rhine…it was you who sent me to the website….

Here's just one website chock full of evidence that I sincerely believe has never been explained-away by materialist science: Afterlife Evidence.

It was one of the first bits of ‘evidence’ that you claim it is “chock full of”.
THEY apparently think it is one of the best if they were following the theory of best foot forward.
I merely pointed out the obvious flaw.

Allow me to quote a modern scientist Dr. Dean Radin:

Wow….seriously?!
I know you selectively discount Wikipedia, but looking at his page…other than listings of his education and books written it almost exclusively rejections of his work…
i.e.
“The review of Radin's first book, The Conscious Universe, that appeared in Naturecharged that Radin ignored the known hoaxes in the field, made statistical errors and ignored plausible non-paranormal explanations for parapsychological data.”
“Radin's paranormal claims have been rejected by those in the skeptical and mainstream scientific communities, some of whom have suggested that Radin's beliefs embrace pseudoscience and that he misunderstands the nature of science.: 158  The physicist Robert L. Park has written "No proof of psychic phenomena is ever found. In spite of all the tests devised by parapsychologists like Jahn and Radin, and huge amounts of data collected over a period of many years, the results are no more convincing today than when they began their experiments."
“Chris French criticized Radin for his selective historical overview of parapsychology and for ignoring clear evidence of fraud. French recounts that the medium Florence Cook was caught in acts of trickery and two of the Fox sisters confessed to fraud, but that Radin did not mention this fact.”
Etc. etc.

You say:

It's a judgment on 'all things considered'.

Hence the best method is reason over all available information. And from there I take away what the preponderance of evidence is showing my reason. The more thorough I research and reason, the more neutral and fair-minded I can be, the more valuable is my takeaway.

Yet you seem to readily discount any evidence contrary to paranormal/psychic phenomena as ‘biased’, and point to sources that clearly present a one sided pro-psychic/paranormal point of view which claims conspiratorial opposition from established sciences and the public at large without any critique of the veracity of opposition’s point other than the claim of ‘bias’.

I notice you did not point me to what you consider the single best bit of ‘evidence’ for my consideration.
Thus my suspicion of cognitive dissonance in these matters on your part.

Have you considered it is possible that like Fox Mulder from X-Files you just want to believe?

 

[Sheldon]

The answer to the question is actual value to humanity. That was implied in my answer.



Science can NOT provide an answer to the meaning and purpose of life. It's not within the scope of science to address such things. The range of what science can solve is not infinite. Gödel incompleteness theorems showed that formal systems are unsolvable. And WIkipedia notes that Tarski's undefinability theorem proves the formal undefinability of truth.

And of note Erwin Schrödinger had this to say:
“Consciousness cannot be accounted for in physical terms. For consciousness is absolutely fundamental. It cannot be accounted for in terms of anything else.”

“We do not belong to this material world that science constructs for us. We are not in it; we are outside. We are only spectators..."

The man couldn't even tell if a cat was dead mun...

 

[George-ananda]

Have you considered it is possible that like Fox Mulder from X-Files you just want to believe?

Well, our differences comes down to who is the one between us most willing to be unbiased and that's where we're stuck. No amount of debate can change an emotionally held position.

Just curious, do you believe every anecdotal, experimental and investigative claim of paranormal phenomena has a materialistic explanation?

 

[paarsurrey]

paarsurrey said: ↑
" no value "

on what standard, please?

The standard of reality and accepting that some questions that can be asked are unanswerable.

IOW, if you ask a question of science which has no answer, what actual value does such a question have?

It simply and loudly tells that

1. it is beyond the limits of Science,
2. the narrow limits of Scientific Method,
3. and it tells reality is not a function of Science
4. or the Scientists, please. Right?

Regards