Science and the nonphysical/The paranormal and creationism

Links between creationism and the paranormal (13-17 February 2007)

Well, and what has paranormal stuff got to do with creationism? (As an aside, when I said "science is what it is" I was talking about the word "science", to argue that what creationists do cannot be called "science", just as I cannot be called "French", as French as I can feel myself: The word means what it means, not what I (or anybody) want it to mean) --Jorge 00:21, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

"Well, and what has paranormal stuff got to do with creationism?" <-- Just trying to make the point of what originates the problem of the non acceptance of creationism as real science, or it would open political space here for the doctrine of spiritual creation of life be admited as scientific. The point is that the fact physical phenomena is so much easier to handle led science to develop materialistically, and now it would be fair to give the same right for the realm of spiritual (or psychic) phenomena to develop as science (with the same meaning of the word too). Skytel 05:06, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I myself don't accept creationism as a science and had never before thougth of any linkage with spirits. I see the question more simply: science is the practice of the scientific method. If you don't follow it, you're not doing science, you're doing whatever you want to call it, but not science. The scientific method leaves no place for dogmas in the sciences: Every proposition (as "life was created by a supreme being" or "I can read your mind" or "water boils when applied heat at 100º") must be provable whenever, wherever, and by whoever. Science doesn't reject what is not provable this way (rejecting it would be, in fact, dogma), it simply doesn't discuss it. It leaves it to others.

It's the abolition of dogmas what has kicked out, until now at least, the unproven (scientifically) psychic phenomena from science. It's far more easier to study, say, telekinesis, than to achieve to cool helium below its liquefaction temperature in order to be able to study superfluyds. Try yourself.

When some repeatable phenomenom which cannot be explained with present scientific theories is discovered, scientists from all over the world are quick in studying it. It has not to be material; it just has to be repeatable, provable by the scientific method. I wouldn't say time dilation is a material phenomenom, and many people would find it more difficult to believe than any psychic phenomenom. Yet muons reach the surface of the Earth every day to provide a scientific proof of it.

"not to search for it while NOT having any material proof in favor or against it, is TO BELIEVE [...]" <- Not necessarily. There are infinite (not many, infinite) things of which we have not proof (scientific ones) in favor or against. For example, psychic energy (although I don't know what it is), the existence of Jedi's Force, the flying spaghetti monster, Allah and the 99 virgins for each martir, Alleh (which I have just invented) and the 100 virgins solely for me, Alloh, Alluh, Joseph Smith's world of fantasy, Christian afterlife (on which I believe), Christian God (on which I do not necessarily believe), etc. It's just a game of imagination. All things of which we have no proof in favor or against cannot be searched, because they are infinite. It's the opposite: If you select one of those infinite things and go searching for it, it's because you believe in it. It's not the others do not believe in it, they could just don't care until a scientific proof is found.

A common misconception of the present days, due (I agree with the Pope -the present or the former one, I don't remember) to the unbeliveable technological success that science has brought us (if we are communicating this way it's thanks to Quantum Mechanics, for example), is to believe that what isn't science isn't reasonable. To believe that only science deserves the attention of human Reason. That, of course, is not true, and is unfair, since advances in disciplines such as Phylosophy can be as difficult or more to attain than scientific advances.

So yes, it perhaps would be more "fair" for those disciplines to have more people studying them, and for those studying them not to be disregarded as unworthy. But studying something without loyalty to the scientific method (e.g., using dogmas) cannot be called science, the same way playing with three teams cannot be called playing football, and listening to radio cannot be called watching TV. It's just not the meaning of the word.

"TO BELIEVE in matter exclusively, what is weird (to do without FAIR reason) to someone born in a religious culture." <- It's not that weird as you believe: I happen to not believe in matter exclusively, but I am one of a constantly shrinking minority. My self-consciousness, joined with some reasonings, makes me believe in the existence of soul. And science fanatics disregard me too when I speak of it. But, despite my self-consciousness being the one and only thing of which I can be sure (as Descartes was), I understand it cannot be treated scientifically, since I cannot prove the self-consciousness of others, nor others can prove I am self-conscious (see Turing's test).

The Catholic Church learnt decades ago that the slow but firm advance of science (since the adoption of the scientific method) cannot be endured by dogmatic theories. Some hundred years ago, there was no scientific proof to decide wether the Earth or the Sun was the center of the Universe. Based on dogma (and on reason), the Catholic Church said it had to be the Earth. Scientific proofs appeared of what wasn't thougth to be provable (and not because anybody went searching for them; the fact was that the studied movement of celestial bodies became more and more complex if the Earth remained at the center). And the non-scientific Geocentric theory was rebutted.

So the loyalty to the scientific method isn't so a matter of belief or liking, but a way to make only sure steps. Ojects will always describe a parabola when shot. White light will always decompose in colours when passed through a prism. Muons will always be able to reach the surface of the Earth despite their half-life being too short for it. If one of those things stops happening forever, all science will go to hell.

But, on the other hand, the scientific method isn't a way to possibly explain it all. The constant wondering about the cause of things cannot have an end. Each new explanation will always be followed by a "why?". If "a superior being created life" is once accepted as a scientific theory, "Why and how did He did it?", "Are there more beings like Him?", "Who created Him?", etc, will follow. So science will never give us the ultimate cause of things, nor will it teach us how worthy and powerful Love is, for example. For that, we are lucky to have religion. --Jorge 04:03, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

"I myself don't accept creationism as a science and had never before thougth of any linkage with spirits" <- Not that creationism is a science, but scientific. Evolutionism also is just scientific (and so also with the right to be wrong at least in some extend). Of course biology is the parent science of both theories, and BOTH make use of scientific data to make their points. I understand that the resistance to accept creationism that simply is the materialist (or atheist) antecipation that giving credit to it will consequently give credit to the possibility of the existence of God. And as God is spiritual, atheists strategically provide to disbelieve in any kind of spiritual or psychic claim, or even far related nonphysical phenomena. The desperate care to avoid ticking a single card of this weak barrier is evident: no materialist had ever explained why suddenly try to *disprove* the existence of the spiritual side of life. For many (including myself) it ever stood clear their motives were not on spirit itself, but on priesthood and its morals, tithings and threats. Unfortunately for most nowadays skeptics they have already trapped themselves in the rules of science with which they began to challenge religious dogmas. Now they have to object spirit itself - but there is no sufficient *scientific* data to even doubt spiritual existence. Science has simply nothing to say about, never had, and so skeptics have to find *reasons* for their doubts elsewhere. "Science doesn't reject what is not provable this way (rejecting it would be, in fact, dogma), it simply doesn't discuss it." <-I see you see it - but skeptics (or your science fanatics) do disscuss, and even ask for direct scientific evidences of the existence of spirit, what is dishonest as they ask already knowing that this is quite impossible. I understand there are means to study superfluids, but no means to study some still unknown energy able to move objects nonphysically. "I wouldn't say time dilation is a material phenomenom, and many people would find it more difficult to believe than any psychic phenomenom" <- Well well: thats because time is the most psychic fenomena we can deal with. It is the basic natural faculty of our very soul, or consciousness. Time is evident, everybody feel it, or have its intuition, but never had it been proven to exist. You will not remember me the clocks or changes. And no matter how greatly it is evident to be nonphysical, no atheist will quietly allow anyone to call it "spiritual". Thats the POINT. "...the existence of Jedi's Force, the flying spaghetti monster..." <- Well, I'll not risc to push that much here... :-) "But studying something without loyalty to the scientific method (e.g., using dogmas) cannot be called science," <- Will the scientific method evolve? Was it invented in order to never get changed? Or: Can time be repeated? Is history a science? Can we point some more present and more repeateble fenomena than our thoughts? But can be them really repeated? Could repetition be a fair requirement for consciousness to be scientifically studied? Just because psychogists can stimulate the nervous system repeatedly - does it makes suggestive that mental phenomena is *originated* in the brain? Isn´t that like to find suggestive that the nervous system of the spider is its limbs? Or that life has nothing to do with some imaterial soul because we can stop it with a material bullet? One can manage the light in a room at its window, but is it intelligent to conclude that the window is the source of the light? Anyway creationists are not waiting for that much - they are just calling attention for the same kind of data, and with the same ground reasonings that evolutionist make use - but to point out ANOTHER hipothesis. Now, if we find it mandatory to censure creationists just because we see their hipothesis are motivated in dogmatic spititualism, then we should also censure evolutionists for seeing their hipothesis are motivated in dogmatic materialism. "I understand it cannot be treated scientifically, since I cannot prove the self-consciousness of others, nor others can prove I am self-conscious (see Turing's test)." <- With time perception you have the same problem, but that makes not a hindrance for science, does it? With such a criterion you cannot even prove you and someone else are looking to each other. "...the fact was that the studied movement of celestial bodies became more and more complex if the Earth remained at the center" <- Occham? Just a method to see what hipothesis to consider first. Nature really seem to be economic, but that does not mean WE can tell (through our hiper-advanced science) what degree of complexity corresponds to this economy. "Muons will always be able to reach the surface of the Earth despite their half-life being too short for it. If one of those things stops happening forever, all science will go to hell." . <- Humans will always tend to search for or interpret information in a way that confirms his preconceptions. This is a psychological law - which in fact explains why materialist psychologists prefer to understand it is a neurological law. However, as there is no sufficient scientific data that endorse this preference, lets give equal attention to the psychic version, because the law will still work exactly in the same way. "Each new explanation will always be followed by a "why?" <- What will ever tend to biased researches. Unless some GOOD method... "Who created Him?" <- "What was before time?"... Maybe also not an appropriate question, nevertheless creationists do question really appropriate questions. Skytel 17:20, 17 February 2007 (UTC)