Is Mormonism And Science Compatible? Attn Bcspace

[mfbukowski]

Science doesn't disregard the placebo effect. In fact, science has studied it quite a bit. It just hasn't made much headway in figuring it out.

Didn't mean I was giving up on this though!

But of course that is my point- they haven't figured it out. It is unexplained.

There are cases of people with multiple personality disorder having totally different lab results - including a diagnosis of diabetes- for different personalities- ie: one personality has diabetes and the other does not.

The mind is a powerful thing and is still largely unexplored

Edited August 14, 2012 by mfbukowski

[cinepro]

That simply isn't true.

What part of science isn't public knowledge? Other than science that might be related to "trade secrets" (i.e. if the formula for Coke is "science", it isn't public knowledge), what part of science isn't available to the world to study as they see fit?

[cinepro]

Didn't mean I was giving up on this though!

But of course that is my point- they haven't figured it out. It is unexplained.

But I would be careful about theorizing about causes for the placebo effect, because if you say it is due to prayer or "God", you are making the argument that what we see as the effects of prayer or the actions of deity are synonymous with the placebo effect, and if you're right, you may have proven something other than what you thought you were.

[mfbukowski]

But I would be careful about theorizing about causes for the placebo effect, because if you say it is due to prayer or "God", you are making the argument that what we see as the effects of prayer or the actions of deity are synonymous with the placebo effect, and if you're right, you may have proven something other than what you thought you were.

That is neither what I said nor what I meant. The point is that the placebo effect is unexplained and could be explained in many ways.

[volgadon]

What part of science isn't public knowledge? Other than science that might be related to "trade secrets" (i.e. if the formula for Coke is "science", it isn't public knowledge), what part of science isn't available to the world to study as they see fit?

There are research and advancements which aren't yet made public. You mentioned trade secrets. Government programs are probably the best examples, and no, I'm not talking Hollywoodish Area 51 things either.

[cinepro]

That is neither what I said nor what I meant. The point is that the placebo effect is unexplained and could be explained in many ways.

You could also test whether or not it comes from prayer or God.

Just make a test where you have two groups, and one does whatever you define "prayer" as, and the other doesn't. Then compare the results and see if one group had more "placebo" than the other.

For God, you would just have one group do whatever it is you theorize "God" wants you to do in order to act like a placebo, and the other doesn't.

Even placebos are testable.

[ERayR]

Ahab:

One person alone can not establish science. A disinterested third party is needed to do that.

I guess if you consider "Ghost Busters" to be science.

Nope I thought it was a terrible movie too. However I consider people whose veracity is beyond reproach as reputable witnesses. Just because you haven't seen or communicated with spirits does not mean others haven't. Are you able to replicate DNA research? I would wager you rely on those who can for your information. Likewise with spirits some can communicate and some can not.

[cinepro]

Nope I thought it was a terrible movie too. However I consider people whose veracity is beyond reproach as reputable witnesses. Just because you haven't seen or communicated with spirits does not mean others haven't. Are you able to replicate DNA research? I would wager you rely on those who can for your information. Likewise with spirits some can communicate and some can not.

If the evidence for DNA research was as strong as the evidence for people who claim to hear spirits, I suspect no one would believe the DNA researchers either.

Especially if there were a bunch of people going around doing fake DNA research that was just as convincing as the stuff the so-called "real" DNA researchers were doing.

Edited August 14, 2012 by cinepro

[cinepro]

There are research and advancements which aren't yet made public. You mentioned trade secrets. Government programs are probably the best examples, and no, I'm not talking Hollywoodish Area 51 things either.

Even if there are research and advancements that haven't been made public, it's the nature of science that anyone else in the world can do the same research and make the same discoveries without the other's permission. I think that's partly what's meant by science being "public knowledge".

[ERayR]

If the evidence for DNA research was as strong as the evidence for people who claim to hear spirits, I suspect no one would believe the DNA researchers either.

Especially if there were a bunch of people going around doing fake DNA research that was just as convincing as the stuff the so-called "real" DNA researchers were doing.

Are you suggesting that just because there are fakers that we ignore the evidence of those we know to be truthful and honest?

[Robert F. Smith]

I was just going to say so Ahab thinks he himself can accept and establish science as showing spirits exist, but science is PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE. UNTIL it is demonstrated that OTHERS can also, using scientific methods, this is simply a testimony meeting, not science. Science doesn't care about your personal belief, it wants objective, viable, testable ideas and conclusions based on evidence, not testimony that one believes in ghosts. Spirits/ghosts, both are the same thing, and I guarantee you you CANNOT find legitimate science which says ghosts are real. Just go ahead and show us where to find the evidence.

Science is most certainly not "public knowledge." 98% of the public has had no science training and hasn't a clue as to what science is or might be. "Science" is better defined as whatever the guild of scientists believe it to be, and this varies through time. Scientists have opinions, hunches, and predilections, just like other people, but within the scientific method those views must be subjected to verification/falsification before they are accepted as valid. Scientists prefer that any conclusions reached fit within already extant theories and systems. If not, controversy ensues which can only be dealt with via further inquiry and, perhaps, paradigm shifts. If there are questions which scientists will not address (perhaps because they haven't the time, money, or inclination), then those questions remain uninvestigated and moot, despite strong opinions pro or con.

[harfad]

Science is most certainly not "public knowledge." 98% of the public has had no science training and hasn't a clue as to what science is or might be. "Science" is better defined as whatever the guild of scientists believe it to be, and this varies through time. Scientists have opinions, hunches, and predilections, just like other people, but within the scientific method those views must be subjected to verification/falsification before they are accepted as valid. Scientists prefer that any conclusions reached fit within already extant theories and systems. If not, controversy ensues which can only be dealt with via further inquiry and, perhaps, paradigm shifts. If there are questions which scientists will not address (perhaps because they haven't the time, money, or inclination), then those questions remain uninvestigated and moot, despite strong opinions pro or con.

Kerry is right. Science is public knowledge. Public knowledge doesn't mean that everybody on the planet knows it. It means that everyone can know it if they wanted to. It is publicly available knowledge. Also, what takes place in secret places and behind closed doors is not science until it becomes public knowledge, and can be investigated and verified by other scientists. If I discovered a secret way travelling faster than the speed of light, but kept it secret and didn't tell anybody, that is not science. It becomes science when I publish a paper explaining the theory behind it, and what I have done to test it so other people can verify it, or devise other means of testing it.

[thesometimesaint]

Nope I thought it was a terrible movie too. However I consider people whose veracity is beyond reproach as reputable witnesses. Just because you haven't seen or communicated with spirits does not mean others haven't. Are you able to replicate DNA research? I would wager you rely on those who can for your information. Likewise with spirits some can communicate and some can not.

I liked the movies. I liked the Lord of Rings movies too, and I sure don't use them as my science.

Actually I have no problem with the Holy Ghost/Spirit, but again I don't put the Supernatural into my science of the Natural.

It is immaterial whether or not I personally replicate DNA research. I didn't invent the wheel, nor do I have any reason the try to replicate it. I'm comfortable with using it however.

It doesn't matter what I believe. Science isn't based on what any one individual believes. It is what a disinterested third party can reproduce under controlled circumstances, and publishes(or lets be known) about it. IE; Galileo didn't establish science when he tossed those two balls out of that tower and they hit at the same time. It was when he did it in public that made it science. Anyone could do it then. Though I suppose few actually did.

Edited August 14, 2012 by thesometimesaint

[mfbukowski]

I liked the movies. I liked the Lord of Rings movies too, and I sure don't use them as my science.

Actually I have no problem with the Holy Ghost/Spirit, but again I don't put the Supernatural into my science of the Natural.

It is immaterial whether or not I personally replicate DNA research. I didn't invent the wheel, nor do I have any reason the try to replicate it. I'm comfortable with using it however.

It doesn't matter what I believe. Science isn't based on what any one individual believes. It is what a disinterested third party can reproduce under controlled circumstances, and publishes(or lets be known) about it. IE; Galileo didn't establish science when he tossed those two balls of that tower and they hit at the same time. It was when he did it in public that made it science. Anyone could do it then. Though I suppose few actually did.

It's interesting to think about that first time that he peered into his telescope at Saturn and saw a blurry lump of light consisting of what he first thought were three spheres, and which subsequent observation and better focus finally resolved into a single sphere with reflective rings to the sides.

But for a few days or weeks, that was a subjective experience of his own. No one else had ever looked into a telescope at Saturn and his experience had not yet been replicated.

Much of science even now starts as a subjective experience of some scientist in some lab somewhere, who sees an anomaly in the data, a blip on a screen when there is not supposed to be a blip, or some outlier which his brain registers as "abnormal", which might lead to a "hunch" that if he slightly tweaked the experiment, suddenly that blip or that outlier might suddenly turn into something significant.

At that moment, he is experiencing something subjective no one else has experienced, and his idea- his "hunch"- is part of bringing order to matter as yet unorganized. Sound familiar?

Of course when he publishes the data in whatever form, all of that changes from a subjective experience to an objective one that anyone can verify, and that act of publication makes it part of the totality of what humanity knows, and in a sense creates that reality for others.

This is the insight I wish Kerry could see, that this is the kernel of what humans do and what is part of our little ventures into embryonic godhood and how we parallel God and how what he does symbolizes what we do and what we do symbolizes what he does.

It is an incredibly beautiful concept if he could just see it.

[Ahab]

I was just going to say so Ahab thinks he himself can accept and establish science as showing spirits exist, but science is PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE. UNTIL it is demonstrated that OTHERS can also, using scientific methods, this is simply a testimony meeting, not science. Science doesn't care about your personal belief, it wants objective, viable, testable ideas and conclusions based on evidence, not testimony that one believes in ghosts. Spirits/ghosts, both are the same thing, and I guarantee you you CANNOT find legitimate science which says ghosts are real. Just go ahead and show us where to find the evidence.

So you're saying one person alone can't confirm that something is real even if it is right there in front of his (or her) face?

Hmm, maybe that's part of what the Lord meant when he said something about needing 2 or 3 witnesses to establish the truth of someone's testimony.

So, okay, let's roll with that now. Suppose 2 or 3 (or maybe even more) people saw the same thing, like in this case a spirit (or ghost if you like that term better). Would their testimony then count for something, to you?

Just in case you don't know it, there's lots of evidence in this world to show that people have seen spirits (or ghosts) before, even if you don''t believe what they've said they've seen. Where do you get off on the idea that nobody has ever seen spirits (or ghosts) before, dude?

Seems like you're living in a closet, or maybe you just don't accept what other people say they've seen just because you haven't seen those things for yourself. I can understand that, somewhat. It's good to be cautious and not just automatically believe what everyone says. Just don't get so stuck in your rut that you won't accept the possibility that some people really have seen what they say they've seen, even though they may not describe it very well or refer to it by some other name that you would use. Just think they may or may not have really seen or heard those things, and then get out there for yourself to see if you can find the same things, even if it may take your whole life to discover those things for yourself. Lots of people are interested in the search, itself, and those are the people I call the true scientists.

Someone like you who just keeps saying some things don't really exist, when I know they do, looks very silly to me.

[Ahab]

I officially give up.

On what? Or on who?

Never surrender, dude! It may be a good time to take a break for a while, though.

[cinepro]

Are you suggesting that just because there are fakers that we ignore the evidence of those we know to be truthful and honest?

The answer to your question is contained in the question.

Edited August 14, 2012 by cinepro

[ERayR]

The answer to your question is contained in the question.

I take it then that refuse to answer because that position is really untenable..

[thesometimesaint]

mfbukowski:

I agree with that.

[Ahab]

The answer to your question is contained in the question.

Heh, are you aware that there is more than one answer in that question?

The fact that there are fakers doesn't mean there aren't true witnesses, and the fact that there are fakers should clue you in that there is something they are faking. Otherwise they wouldn't know enough about it to know there is something to fake.

[Kerry A. Shirts]

Even if there are research and advancements that haven't been made public, it's the nature of science that anyone else in the world can do the same research and make the same discoveries without the other's permission. I think that's partly what's meant by science being "public knowledge".

Exactly right.

[Kerry A. Shirts]

Ahab:

So, okay, let's roll with that now. Suppose 2 or 3 (or maybe even more) people saw the same thing, like in this case a spirit (or ghost if you like that term better). Would their testimony then count for something, to you?

Just in case you don't know it, there's lots of evidence in this world to show that people have seen spirits (or ghosts) before, even if you don''t believe what they've said they've seen. Where do you get off on the idea that nobody has ever seen spirits (or ghosts) before, dude?

Kerry:

You obviously, and I mean ***obviously*** don't have a clue about how science works do you? Fess up thar cowboy. It is absolutely IRRELEVANT if you have someone say they believe something occurred. Science is about testing and then submitting the experiment and evidence to MORE scientists who then experiment and test and submit it to YET MORE, until it can be established as *justified* in line with what we currently know about the world and the universe. It HAS to be public, BROADLY so in order for it to be valid across the boards. It is not about bearing a spiritual testimony (HOW, pray tell, is THAT even remotely testable?) about something you believe in.

I have NEVER said that no one has seen ghosts and spirits, I most certainly said, and will most certainly say it again however, that simply seeing something you INTERPRET as spirits is NOT scientifically valid or established as justifiable truth with what we already KNOW about the world and the universe, taking into account, of course, human fallibility. Someone seeing spirits may very well occur, that someone's interpretation that it is from GOD, is just that, an interpretation. There are other explanations than that person's however, and these other explanations HAVE to be taken into account (based on what we know to be thus far), and the law of Parsimony or Occam's Razor applied to the interpretations to see which one is more plausible. Plausibility, based on neuroscience certainly has a greater demonstration than testimony based on a no evidence God (evidence in our actual physical existence, something measurable, that we can see, or understand through detection with our fine tuned instruments, etc.) Testimony does not establish every claim as scientific, otherwise, we'd still be believing in Santa Claus, the tooth fairy, and Xenophogasions from Uranus as reality. Because someone claims she has seen Slithy Toves, and has a couple of his brothers and a cousin who also claim this does NOT prove their actual, real, physical existence. Surely you can comprehend that?

Edited August 15, 2012 by Kerry A. Shirts

[Robert F. Smith]

Kerry is right. Science is public knowledge. Public knowledge doesn't mean that everybody on the planet knows it. It means that everyone can know it if they wanted to. It is publicly available knowledge. Also, what takes place in secret places and behind closed doors is not science until it becomes public knowledge, and can be investigated and verified by other scientists. If I discovered a secret way travelling faster than the speed of light, but kept it secret and didn't tell anybody, that is not science. It becomes science when I publish a paper explaining the theory behind it, and what I have done to test it so other people can verify it, or devise other means of testing it.

What you are saying is utter nonsense for several reasons.

What volgadon and others say about secret projects is quite true, and all the pretending in the world that it was not publicly available knowledge did not prevent the Manhattan Project (where science and technology were wedded) from devastating two Japanese cities in 1945 with secret fission weapons. A good deal of industrial espionage as well as trade secrecy worldwide is at issue even as I write, and this will continue to be so as nations seek to obtain advantage over other nations.

If you mean by "publicly" -- "openly, worldwide," then you should say so, rather than giving the false impression that yokels have anything to say about science. The hoi polloi use technology, if they can afford it, and have no idea what scientific principle underlies it.

[Robert F. Smith]

I liked the movies. I liked the Lord of Rings movies too, and I sure don't use them as my science.

Actually I have no problem with the Holy Ghost/Spirit, but again I don't put the Supernatural into my science of the Natural.

What if the Holy Ghost is a natural, material entity? Would that disturb you?

It is immaterial whether or not I personally replicate DNA research. I didn't invent the wheel, nor do I have any reason the try to replicate it. I'm comfortable with using it however.

It doesn't matter what I believe. Science isn't based on what any one individual believes. It is what a disinterested third party can reproduce under controlled circumstances, and publishes(or lets be known) about it. IE; Galileo didn't establish science when he tossed those two balls out of that tower and they hit at the same time. It was when he did it in public that made it science. Anyone could do it then. Though I suppose few actually did.

A Zen master might ask whether the law of gravity exists if there are no humans to see it in action. Do the laws of physics exist if no humans or other sentient beings are aware of them? You know the answer, and it has nothing to do with public knowledge. Well, maybe it would make a good koan.

Edited August 15, 2012 by Robert F. Smith

[volgadon]

Because someone claims she has seen Slithy Toves, and has a couple of his brothers and a cousin who also claim this does NOT prove their actual, real, physical existence. Surely you can comprehend that?

If a couple of Slithy Toves' brothers and a cousin claim to have seen him, I think that would be good evidence...