What would it take to convince you of magic / supernatural?

[BillTre]

However, there can be times when naturalistic explanations are so convoluted and ad hoc as to be actually more improbable than a supernatural one to me. In those cases, I would actually favor a supernatural one.

This is a poor guide for making these kind of choices.

Throughout history, based on this kind of judgement, a lot of people have thought very complex natural events somehow require a supernatural (or at least explained by science not known to us) kind of explanation.

Biological Examples:

• structural and functional complexity of life
• origin of life

Similar conclusions could also be drawn (especially, in the past) from the complex (and largely hidden) mechanisms in today's complex electronic products, with their microscopic structural details.

These poor interpretations based on a superficial analysis, are both in theme of "indistinguishable from magic".

 

[kyphysics]

This is a poor guide for making these kind of choices.

Throughout history, based on this kind of judgement, a lot of people have thought very complex natural events somehow require a supernatural (or at least explained by science not known to us) kind of explanation.

I actually don't follow your logic, BT. But, I'd like to clarify my own here too.

You say in your earlier post that you'd be inclined to believe in some form of deception in cases of highly weird phenomena, due to the probability of it being true over a supernatural cause. Now, you never define what that probability is like, but never mind that. You basically rely on probabilities for your decision-making.

Yet, when I say that would use probability to favor a supernatural cause of something over a naturalistic one when the naturalistic one is so improbable and filled with extremely convoluted and ad hoc features as to be a non-starter, you say this form of reasoning is "poor."

To be fair, it's not entirely how I'd make my decisions on belief in the supernatural. It's not just the improbability of a naturalistic cause, but also how well the evidence positively affirms the supernatural case. This is precisely how professional academics (in philosophy, history, mathematics, etc.) handle these things.

John Earman's work (previously mentioned) on miracles, Bayesian statistics and probability sets the framework for how to mathematically evaluate miracles. This is hardly "poor" decision making. One is entirely rational to follow this approach.

Another standard approach is the use of abductive reasoning (a.k.a., inference to the best explanation) - one of the three known forms of logical reasoning (induction and deduction being the other two). One might look at the Richard Gallagher-"Julia" case, for example, that I referenced on the previous page and reasonably/logically conclude that the best fit explanation is that Julia was really demon possessed. All other explanations could be so convoluted, ad hoc, and improbable as to be dismissed. This would also be fine as a form of accepted reasoning. It's done all the time by scholars!

Whether one is using a Bayesian probability approach or abduction to evaluate miracle claims, these are standard professional academic methods of reasoning.

 

[Bullhead]

There are universal theories that depend on the existence of a dimension that transcends the natural laws of physics. This would point to the necessary existence of the supernatural in order for existence of the natural to occur.

Misunderstood science has historically been viewed as magic.

When I was young many strange things occurred in the house that I and my family lived in. The supernatural was often the only explanation at the time. As I grew older and learned more, I found that the house was very old and had most of the original unshielded and poorly grounded wiring. Beyond that, the electrical transformer was extremely close to the house and the main (overhead) power line leading to the house had become partially unraveled and formed a dangling loop below the tension cable. A copper deposit was later discovered underneath an aquifer below the property as well. I believe that all of this led to electromagnetic radiation at varying frequencies causing momentary auditory and visual hallucinations. No one in my family has experienced this type of "supernatural" occurrence since moving out of that house.

 

[AlexCaledin]

It's internal experience that really matters. My cat's paw was broken and restored again, it's natural of course. But, several days before it restored, a short but very intense prayer had happened inside me, after many days of observing the broken bone wandering loosely under the cat's skin. And the vet had said it's hopeless. It's things of that sort that really matter, as to believe or not.

 

[sysprog]

er, had the compass been invented yet?

You mean the magic needle?

 

[DaveC426913]

after many days of observing the broken bone wandering loosely under the cat's skin. And the vet had said it's hopeless.

There's a saying in the vet world:

"Put two ends of a broken cat bone in the same room and the bone will heal."

 

[valenumr]

What would it be? If you're saying that would make it science, I think that misses the point. Science is a procedure, not strictly a body of knowledge.

Hmmm, I think of science more as a body of knowledge, built upon procedure. Science is a bit Socratic, in the modesty of not claiming truth. But the method and the results prove useful, and our current body of science fairly well describe *most* known phenomena. Theorists build models, experimentalist try to break those models, or otherwise confirm their accuracy. Fundamentally, we know our models aren't perfect, but they are pretty damned good, and science is a hard endeavor these days. It's been around 50 years since the higgs mechanism was developed, and it's really a beautiful theory, and it's essentially been "confirmed". We're on a pretty good track. Cosmology also has its struggles, but we are much closer to understanding, or at least modeling, the evolution of the universe. JWST will be launching soon, and is expected to provide vast insights into many outstanding questions. Science is a never ending endeavor.

In short, if something looks like magic, I'm confident that smart folks will figure out a good explanation. Just because one can't understand something doesn't mean it is magic. And I don't think magical thinking has been a then for around 400 years, at least in the sciences.

 

[sophiecentaur]

There's a saying in the vet world:

"Put two ends of a broken cat bone in the same room and the bone will heal."

I have a friend who is a retired vet. She was saying that you have to pretty swift with animal surgery because the 'wrong' two things can stick together in no time at all during an op.
Humans are much the same. I remember having a Radical Prostatectomy and telling the surgeon that I was worried about the urethra coming apart and leaking when the catheter was removed. He laughed and said that the main risk was for the whole thing to heal up and block the tube up completely; the catheter was to deal with that as much as to deal with leaks. So plumbing is nothing like surgery!

 

[valenumr]

This is a poor guide for making these kind of choices.

Throughout history, based on this kind of judgement, a lot of people have thought very complex natural events somehow require a supernatural (or at least explained by science not known to us) kind of explanation.

Biological Examples:

• structural and functional complexity of life
• origin of life

Similar conclusions could also be drawn (especially, in the past) from the complex (and largely hidden) mechanisms in today's complex electronic products, with their microscopic structural details.

These poor interpretations based on a superficial analysis, are both in theme of "indistinguishable from magic".

Let's not forget that out of the number of possible codes that exceed the number of stars in the observable universe, almost every organism on Earth shares one (with a few minor variations).

 

[tribdog]

My wife posed a theoretical similar to this last night while watching the show Supernatural. I also was thinking about the concept that technology that is sufficiently advanced becomes indistinguishable from magic.

The more I think about it, the more I see that idea as paradoxical. Understanding that idea fundamentally assigns anything magic to being an advanced technology. So once understanding that, is there anything at all that we could see that would convince us that there is some big fundamental aspect of the universe that we don't understand and can't with science?

I keep thinking back through history and there isn't a single thing that I couldn't conceive of some theoretical technology doing. There is literally a Star Trek episode where Picard uses the technology of The Enterprise to take on the powers of the devil. Jesus turning water to wine is just a teleport trick. Zeus throwing lighting bolts sounds like a plasma weapon. Making a covenant with a group of people to bring them to heaven sounds like transplanting the consciousness of someone upon death into a simulation. Some angels being describes as flying wheels with eyes all over them sounds a lot like the way I would build a probe if I had the tech. Even in fiction: mixing franchises, I could imagine The Force actually being some sort of Q technology that a civilization with a 5 billion year head starts eventually manufactures.

So is there anything you could think of that could convince you you're seeing something extra-universal that science or future science can't grapple instead of just some very advanced technology?

Wow. You people really need a LOT of proof. I think I could believe in magic if I took off my shoes and my toenails were painted, but the weren't when I put my shoes on.

 

[sophiecentaur]

Just because one can't understand something doesn't mean it is magic.

You, and most of the rest of this thread, have got this the wrong way round. People want things to be magic. They want to believe in magic, fairies, conspiracies and all the rest, not forgetting a god because it means they can step back from personal responsibility and interpose an agency between them and real life.
The most hard boiled, dry, literal Scientists still have a corner, inside their minds which wants some fanciful notion to be true. And if you don't believe me, I'll turn you into a frog.

 

[pinball1970]

You, and most of the rest of this thread, have got this the wrong way round. People want things to be magic. They want to believe in magic, fairies, conspiracies and all the rest, not forgetting a god because it means they can step back from personal responsibility and interpose an agency between them and real life.
The most hard boiled, dry, literal Scientists still have a corner, inside their minds which wants some fanciful notion to be true. And if you don't believe me, I'll turn you into a frog.

I tried my best with this challenge but I think the consensus was no matter what, if it happens then it is natural.

 

[DaveC426913]

Wow. You people really need a LOT of proof. I think I could believe in magic if I took off my shoes and my toenails were painted, but the weren't when I put my shoes on.

That would merely be a mystery.

 

[kyphysics]

You, and most of the rest of this thread, have got this the wrong way round. People want things to be magic. They want to believe in magic, fairies, conspiracies and all the rest, not forgetting a god because it means they can step back from personal responsibility and interpose an agency between them and real life.
The most hard boiled, dry, literal Scientists still have a corner, inside their minds which wants some fanciful notion to be true. And if you don't believe me, I'll turn you into a frog.

I've had a lot of professors who absolutely didn't want God to exist. They hated the concept of God practically judging from their sentiments.

It's true that something like 90% of the world is religious and believes in the supernatural. But, many do so out of rational thinking, evidence, and argument. They don't just blithely assert their faith. Of course, you're right too that many people want to believe in fairies and magic. But, I just wouldn't take such a black and white view of things. Much of academia has a secular, anti-supernatural orientation.

Lawrence Krauss practically bullied theists and there are lots like him.

 

[sophiecentaur]

I've had a lot of professors who absolutely didn't want God to exist. They hated the concept of God practically judging from their sentiments.

You don't need to be a smart academic for that, of course. But very 'clever' people do have a problem in that they are able to argue very well and they can eliminate their doubts in the same way. But they are all human and, pro or anti Theist, they are in a better than average position to hold their opinions, either way, by internal argument. Atheism is a just another very powerful 'ism'.

As with UFOs and conspiracies, there are few arguments supporting the existence of Magic (and the rest) based on actual evidence. Personally, I see all that stuff as human artefacts, invented to satisfy our needs. I do not feel strongly about it all but I do recognise how attractive Magic etc. can be.

Suspending disbelief is a major activity in all our lives.

 

[pinball1970]

I've had a lot of professors who absolutely didn't want God to exist. They hated the concept of God practically judging from their sentiments.

It's true that something like 90% of the world is religious and believes in the supernatural. But, many do so out of rational thinking, evidence, and argument. They don't just blithely assert their faith. Of course, you're right too that many people want to believe in fairies and magic. But, I just wouldn't take such a black and white view of things. Much of academia has a secular, anti-supernatural orientation.

Lawrence Krauss practically bullied theists and there are lots like him.

These are the guys we would have to convince magic/supernatural is real.

https://evolution-outreach.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1936-6434-6-33

I do think there are too many surprises here though? In terms of numbers?

How many scientists do you think go to fortune tellers, palm readers or read the daily horoscopes?

Biologists have been hounded by creationists since Darwin probably so more so than Krauss and other physicists. (if you read the ink)

Krauss has claimed that many of the scientists he talks to, do not think about such things enough to know whether they are atheist or not!

Trying to convince scientists that there is something in this (magic/supernatural) would be asking them to forget the about the methods used in science.

In short, Empiricism, all that stuff you measure test and verify that is great BUT there is all this other stuff that is there but there is no way of demonstrating it, testing or verifying it.

If you notice in the link the poll becomes a lot less polarized when the (NOMA) question is put them.

So religious scientists seem happier with “leave your bible in your locker when you come into the lab and leave your lab coat in the lab when you come to church.”

I used that method till I was 24 but I had already dismissed miracles and magic by then.

Being totally honest about it though, something very strange happening during that time may have convinced me the almighty was sending me a sign (probably because I was losing my faith)

Something inexplicable now would be viewed as I do not understand but there has to be a NATURAL” explanation, OR I am hallucinating right now.

 

[Rive]

I tried my best with this challenge but I think the consensus was no matter what, if it happens then it is natural.

Mind you, this 'natural' is not the same 'natural' as 'known laws and workings of the universe, together with our expectations'.

 

[sophiecentaur]

These are the guys we would have to convince magic/supernatural is real.

Perhaps you should replace the 'we' with a non-specific 'one', cos you can't include me in the we. For me, it doesn't have to be real - just part of the evolution of human nature.

A quote from that paper:
"There are still many questions worth pursuing, not least the question of why biological scientists are even less likely to be religious than physical scientists."
Is it really surprising? It's got to be a left brain / right brain thing. Very little that Physical Scientists do involves any conflict between belief and non-belief in god etc. so they can tread both paths quite happily. Many Biologists are right up against situations where there is a perceived conflict (and the unanswerable why question). Not too surprisingly, they have thought about the problem more and, so, would have strong opinions.

 

[hutchphd]

I've had a lot of professors who absolutely didn't want God to exist. They hated the concept of God practically judging from their sentiments.

Steven Weinberg once famously said, "With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil - that takes religion"
Seems reason enough hate the concept...

.

 

[pinball1970]

Perhaps you should replace the 'we' with a non-specific 'one', cos you can't include me in the we. For me, it doesn't have to be real - just part of the evolution of human nature.

A quote from that paper:
"There are still many questions worth pursuing, not least the question of why biological scientists are even less likely to be religious than physical scientists."
Is it really surprising? It's got to be a left brain / right brain thing. Very little that Physical Scientists do involves any conflict between belief and non-belief in god etc. so they can tread both paths quite happily. Many Biologists are right up against situations where there is a perceived conflict (and the unanswerable why question). Not too surprisingly, they have thought about the problem more and, so, would have strong opinions.

You guys not been challenged on prime mover? Something from nothing? Fine tuning? Young earth? Flat earth?

Plenty of potential for magic in that lot.

 

[sophiecentaur]

Plenty of potential for magic in that lot.

The failure to produce a bit of proof / evidence is enough to put most of those to bed.
"Prime mover" is more difficult. But there is no evidence of any interaction we could be having with such an entity. Apart from the 'fact' of our perceived existence, a PM is irrelevant. If and when we have contact with some other conscious individuals, we could change our minds (after an initial PANIC!.)

Magic and religion would seem to be no more than artefacts to enable humans to manipulate other humans - just the same as being bigger and stronger can make you a leader.

 

[valenumr]

I'll reiterate that science is Socratic. It doesn't claim to know anything. It doesn't have feelings or desires (beyond the human desire for understanding, perhaps). Theories are models built from (hopefully) self consistent axioms that work well to describe what we observe. One lesson we have learned is that sound theories must be falsifiable. On the easy side of falsification, the axioms are provably inconsistent, or they they don't match observed reality. On the more difficult side, one can't make up willy-nilly axioms that are impossible to prove or disprove, such as a prime motive. Or Russell's teapot. Another hand-in-hand aspect is that sound theories make testable, repeatable predictions. One should be able to model a problem with the theory, conduct an experiment, and measure how well the theory matches the experiment. Humankind has gotten really good at this, but, sure, we still have unanswered questions. We know better than to ascribe magic to these questions.

 

[sophiecentaur]

I'll reiterate that science is Socratic. It doesn't claim to know anything.

That's correct as far as it goes but Scientists are human and only do something approaching Science when they join the Scientists' Club. Then they try to obey the rules (for non-Socratic reasons, like being accepted and praised or because they have had some success with a subject). Inside them there is always a human mind at work with a human nature. If there were ever truly Socratic they wouldn't fight so hard for their particular paradigm. All our scientific heroes were human, which is why some of them take religion and some take to anti-religion so fiercely.
I was wondering if this is going off topic but we are in the lounge so I guess it's ok.

One magical belief that we tend to have is that Maths is actually the answer. We don't know that; we just believe it.

 

[valenumr]

That's correct as far as it goes but Scientists are human and only do something approaching Science when they join the Scientists' Club. Then they try to obey the rules (for non-Socratic reasons, like being accepted and praised or because they have had some success with a subject). Inside them there is always a human mind at work with a human nature. If there were ever truly Socratic they wouldn't fight so hard for their particular paradigm. All our scientific heroes were human, which is why some of them take religion and some take to anti-religion so fiercely.
I was wondering if this is going off topic but we are in the lounge so I guess it's ok.

One magical belief that we tend to have is that Maths is actually the answer. We don't know that; we just believe it.

I don't understand what point you are advocating. It is really easy to sperate scientific thinking and approach from things like philosophy and religion. Science is pretty well defined. Interpretation or meaning really shouldn't come into play. Those concepts are usually roadblocks. In my humble opinion, "why?" is not the question, only "how?". Certainly there is some underlying notion to make everything have a "reason", but that is human nature.

 

[sophiecentaur]

It is really easy to sperate scientific thinking and approach from things like philosophy and religion.

I would not agree. The devil is in the detail, here. While 'Scientists' carry out scientific discussion, that doesn't guarantee that their personal thinking is so disciplined. My evidence is the fact that there have been such hard demarkation lines between pairs of schools of thought about much of Science. If people could actually bring themselves to be totally rational then there would be very few of these conflicts.

In the back of all our thought processes is a 'flaw' (not a quality judgement, you understand and 'it doesn't mean you're a bad person') and that's where all of us have a bit of susceptibility to magic. But that is no proof or disproof of a god; it's just the way we all work.

 

[valenumr]

Suspect. I would argue that proper scientific thinking precludes personal subjectivity. From a very callous point of view, there is no place for it. I see more often personal philosophy injected into scientific discussion. But don't forget that scientists are humans. They have beliefs and opinions. A good scientist won't let that get in the way.

 

[sophiecentaur]

A good scientist won't let that get in the way

I would put that a different way. 'A competent Scientist will always attempt not to let it get in the way' but never succeed completely. The best tools we have for this are Maths and Logic but they are not the only factors in our decisions and they can only be used too respond to models and ideas that we concoct within our human minds.
These discussions take us to the very edge of understanding ourselves. We can never get there completely but does that really matter? Should we feel that we have failed? I don't think so; we can just accept our limitations with good grace.

 

[hutchphd]

The best tools we have for this are Maths and Logic but they are not the only factors in our decisions and they can only be used too respond to models and ideas that we concoct within our human minds.

Yes and in these sorts of discussions it is sometime useful to consider predicates. I often rely on Feynman's wry socialogical definition::

Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts

and recall the evolution of science from the predicate natural philosopy. These two ideas, IMHO, are sufficient to direct us (with some help from Sextus Empiricus and Isaac Newton) to modern Physics and its handmaiden, mathematics. We have all reaped the astonishing benefits of this serendipity

But don't forget that scientists are humans. They have beliefs and opinions. A good scientist won't let that get in the way.

I would turn this on its head. The most terrifying aspect of the past decade is forgetting that we as humans individually are scientists.
Given some expert proclamation, fearful humans seem perfectly happy to accept that the sky is red. The pipeline is full.
Having sown the wind we shall now reap the whirlwind and I have become the fearful human.

/

 

[pinball1970]

Mind you, this 'natural' is not the same 'natural' as 'known laws and workings of the universe, together with our expectations'.

The failure to produce a bit of proof / evidence is enough to put most of those to bed.
"Prime mover" is more difficult. But there is no evidence of any interaction we could be having with such an entity. Apart from the 'fact' of our perceived existence, a PM is irrelevant. If and when we have contact with some other conscious individuals, we could change our minds (after an initial PANIC!.)

Magic and religion would seem to be no more than artefacts to enable humans to manipulate other humans - just the same as being bigger and stronger can make you a leader.

Scientists are a tricky bunch to convince of anything let alone magic, regular people however are little more accessible to these things.
I found some examples from my own back ground (western/catholic) of claimed supernatural events.
Both “miracles” are disputed, I think of the two, the Fatima event is more interesting because it involved 1000s of people from different backgrounds.
We were taught these things in school as fact but not every teacher was convincing or convinced from memory.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracle_of_the_Sun (Children of Fatima)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Our_Lady_of_Lourdes

In terms of scientists not only being not convinced but aggressively opposed to such things, you can understand why reading the below.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2002/aug/04/religion.world

Sean Carroll, Lawrence Krauss, Steven Weinberg, Steve Jones, Stephen Hawking and of course Richard Dawkins have all spoken out on this sort of thing.

James Randi is linked to a discussion below on magic and fraudulent claims - pay wall is £29 so I do not know the detail but I have read articles on him exposing “magic/miracles”
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24301874/

 

[Rive]

They have beliefs and opinions. A good scientist won't let that get in the way.

One belief I often run across is that 'natural' is what we supposedly know, expect and got used to already.

So, although it would take quite some sweat to convince me of magic, given the history of the subject: it's equally difficult to accept this kind of 'lesser natural' as a hard limitation, other than a kind of 'so far it is so'.

 

[pinball1970]

One belief I often run across is that 'natural' is what we supposedly know, expect and got used to already.

So, although it would take quite some sweat to convince me of magic, given the history of the subject: it's equally difficult to accept this kind of 'lesser natural' as a hard limitation, other than a kind of 'so far it is so'.

Natural for me is simply an existence and process without the need for divine/magical intervention.
So the big ones to consider: origin of the universe and everything in it; the eventual fate of the universe; abiogenesis and evolution of life on earth.
I know a bit about the last part and next to nothing about the first three parts but however that all works, I now believe it to be a natural process.

 

[Rive]

Natural for me is simply an existence and process without the need for divine/magical intervention.

For an anthill, my intervention with the bug repellent might seem 'divine', but regardless their opinion it's still natural.

I have the feeling that this 'magic is natural' thing had not been properly explained. From my point of view 'magic' is just the failure of our sense of 'natural': accepting that/if any 'magic' actually happening is natural is about correcting (expanding) that sense.

 

[Buzz Bloom]

magic means the manipulation of supernatural forces and supernatural means outside the natural world. Science is a methodology for describing the natural world. Therefore, if the methods of science can describe a phenomenon it is no longer supernatural and not magic

Suppose the methods of science are delayed in finding a clear and repeatable/reproducible meaningful understanding of a phenomenon? During this period of delay, perhaps a very long delay, is such a phenomenon correctly designated as "magic"?

 

[sophiecentaur]

Suppose the methods of science are delayed in finding a clear and repeatable/reproducible meaningful understanding of a phenomenon? During this period of delay, perhaps a very long delay, is such a phenomenon correctly designated as "magic"?

The designation would be by the local 'magic / religion authority' or the local Science authority who may have a strong faith that claims there is no such thing as magic / miracles.
Thing is you just can't rely on witnesses. Evidence can only be relied on when supported by a lot of repeatable measurements but people just don't want hard evidence. Seeing is believing and the camera does not lie.
They want magic.

 

[Buzz Bloom]

Hi @sophiecentaur:

My previous post was about my lack of confidence about what BWV said. Some people believe that magic exists as phenomena unexplainable by science, and others do not share this view. Those that do not may include some that like to use "magic" as a metaphor. It seems likely that attempts to nail down a consensus about what "magic" means are doomed to failure.

Regards,
Buzz

 

[Jarvis323]

Some people believe that magic exists as phenomena unexplainable by science,

It's important to realize that, technically, nothing is fully explainable by science. Science is just able to give us approximate understandings and predictions. So if unexplainable by science is the criterion, then in the most precise description, literally everything is magic by definition.

Even if you lower the bar, and say that things which are approximately explainable by science aren't magic, then you would still have to accept that everything that isn't magic is made up of things which are magic.

It pretty much boils down to that either everything is magic, or nothing is magic, there isn't really much room for anything in between.

 

[sophiecentaur]

literally everything is magic by definition

I think Magic would have to involve someone making something happen by a means that's unexplainable by Science. The idea of an agency has to be there as well as 'ignorance' about the mechanism. Also, real magic would need to be repeatable, which is where miracles and aliens etc. all have failed so far.

 

[Jarvis323]

I think Magic would have to involve someone making something happen by a means that's unexplainable by Science.

I agree within a certain limited context. We can try to precisely define what we mean by magic in the limited context, but even then we have to make a subjective choice. I guess the best one is based on historical usages of the word, or what people tend think we mean by the word magic. But then if we try to extend the meaning to an absolute global context, without leading to an inconsistency, we end up having to say that either everything is magic or nothing is, IMO.

 

[Jarvis323]

Suspect. I would argue that proper scientific thinking precludes personal subjectivity. From a very callous point of view, there is no place for it. I see more often personal philosophy injected into scientific discussion. But don't forget that scientists are humans. They have beliefs and opinions. A good scientist won't let that get in the way.

I wouldn't fully agree. Science is guided by philosophical thinking because we have to choose what to work on. If science is reduced to just filling in gaps in what we can predict, without considering what is important or interesting to us, then we could just as well spend most of our efforts working on problems that nobody cares about and nobody benefits from, and we could use models that nobody understands or tries to understand.

The role of science in satisfying curiosity or benefiting the world is formalized only through philosophy.

Besides giving direction and reason to science, philosophy is used to justify how we think science should be done.

 

[Buzz Bloom]

It's important to realize that, technically, nothing is fully explainable by science.

Hi @Jarvis323:

I agree with your post above. I will try to correct my statement as follows.
Some people believe that magic exists as phenomena not even tentatively explainable by science...
Scinece does create explanations, but not with complete confidence. The more frequently evidence re-confirms an explanation, the greater that the confidence is correct, but the confidence never reaches 100%.

 

[PeroK]

Dislexia, Gulf war syndrome, ME have had similar scrutiny and CI is only a few years old.

Shouldn't that be dyslexia?

 

[pinball1970]

Shouldn't that be dyslexia?

Yes. I feel foolish now.

 

[berkeman]

Thread closed temporarily for Moderation...

After a Mentor discussion, the thread will remain closed.