Have a blissful day.

From the tone of your reply I gather that any offense I may caused to you has blown over, and I am glad for that. I feel like you made an earnest attempt to explain your position (thanks again) and I don't mean to kick a dead horse, but I still don't get it. It seemed as if you were seeking inclusion of rocks, volcanoes, and such into the ranks of the living (or, near-living?). While some might find nobility in that, it seems to me that it would be counterproductive to what I perceive to be your motive. Vegan, meaning you don't hurt animals; I applaud your conviction. And you love mountains and rocks too; again, laudable. But if you managed to convince someone that a big mossy stone holds the same biological value as a dog, what does that mean for the dog? You already apparently have enough trouble convincing folks that "dogs are people too" without having to contend with "rocks are dogs too."

The rest of what you said I get. There are definitely some differences of opinion among different folks about what among nature deserves respect, and there is definitely some baggage. But it should not be allowed to water down the science. The science is the only concrete thing any of us have to fall back on. Science doesn't (or, isn't supposed to) have baggage. The philosophical quandaries like, "why is it ok to commit genocide on mosquitoes but not kittens?" and "why is it ok to pee on a tree but not a horse?" and "why is it a crime to kill an unborn sea turtle but not an unborn human" are all important issues that science can't help us with, and appealing to science or trying to bend it to support a philosophical viewpoint is folly indeed.

And that is exactly the exception I take with the quoted sections of the biology textbook in the OP. It was utter nonsense, scientifically speaking. Maybe it had merit in some other book, but not in that one.

Can we agree that mountains are important and valuable (more important and more valuable than a lot of the humans that are allowed to walk over them) without trying to classify them with a taxonomic rank?

Here is a bit of contested evidence on the topic, specifically the part about suitable environments for life.

I find it very interesting that life can spring from nothing more than minerals, heat and water. Look what is happening here: a volcano is literally spewing out the basic ingredients for life. So, if we can agree the volcano, deep sea vent or whatever, brought the basic ingredients together... does it not beg the question: why did the volcano (and by extension, Earth) do it in the first place? I'm finding it increasingly hard to believe that the transition happened at the location of the vent etc. when the chemistry shows the process didn't start there.

 

Here is a bit of contested evidence on the topic, specifically the part about suitable environments for life.

I find it very interesting that life can spring from nothing more than minerals, heat and water. Look what is happening here: a volcano is literally spewing out the basic ingredients for life. So, if we can agree the volcano, deep sea vent or whatever, brought the basic ingredients together... does it not beg the question: why did the volcano (and by extension, Earth) do it in the first place? I'm finding it increasingly hard to believe that the transition happened at the location of the vent etc. when the chemistry shows the process didn't start there.

The reducing agents in the volcanic gasses (or even simple cast iron/elemental iron or steel) can act as "food" to living microorganisms. The iron and/or SO2 gas, methane, ammonia is not alive. The microbes that evolved from primordial soup to use it as food are alive. These may be the earliest organisms in earth and had to get nourished from non-tradional energy sources and non-photosynthetic processes as those are rather complex - but- these organisms still have a few genes on DNA or RNA strands. They replicate/grow and die or go dormant if you take away their food source or dry them out or otherwise damage their cell membranes.

 

Here is a bit of contested evidence on the topic, specifically the part about suitable environments for life.

I find it very interesting that life can spring from nothing more than minerals, heat and water. Look what is happening here: a volcano is literally spewing out the basic ingredients for life. So, if we can agree the volcano, deep sea vent or whatever, brought the basic ingredients together... does it not beg the question: why did the volcano (and by extension, Earth) do it in the first place? I'm finding it increasingly hard to believe that the transition happened at the location of the vent etc. when the chemistry shows the process didn't start there.

I can't ascribe motive to a volcano and I can't say I believe that "life can spring from nothing more than minerals, heat and water." Abiogenesis is a hypothesis, and you're right, it's contested (as well it should be).

I don't know where life came from and I don't have any belief, theory or hypothesis about it. In my estimation abiogenesis is about as likely as the divine creation explanation. But more likely than either of those, is that it was imported and we're all aliens. But if that's the case, where did alien life come from? I know, just kicking the can; same question as "ok, but where did God come from?" It seems every available explanation requires some amount of blind faith, of which I am in short supply. So I am content to say "I don't know" and "sure, we'll just go with what you said for the sake of discussion."

Fortunately we don't need to know where life came from in order to know what it is.

 

The reducing agents in the volcanic gasses (or even simple cast iron/elemental iron or steel) can act as "food" to living microorganisms. The iron and/or SO2 gas is not alive. The microbes that evolved to use it as food are alive.

 

Fortunately we don't need to know where life came from in order to know what it is.

There are a few things that cannot exactly be described but everyone knows it when they see it.

 

There are a few things that cannot exactly be described but everyone knows it when they see it.

Indeed.

 

I can't ascribe motive to a volcano and I can't say I believe that "life can spring from nothing more than minerals, heat and water." Abiogenesis is a hypothesis, and you're right, it's contested (as well it should be).

I don't know where life came from and I don't have any belief, theory or hypothesis about it. In my estimation abiogenesis is about as likely as the divine creation explanation. But more likely than either of those, is that it was imported and we're all aliens. But if that's the case, where did alien life come from? I know, just kicking the can; same question as "ok, but where did God come from?" It seems every available explanation requires some amount of blind faith, of which I am in short supply. So I am content to say "I don't know" and "sure, we'll just go with what you said for the sake of discussion."

Fortunately we don't need to know where life came from in order to know what it is.

I don't have much of an opinion either way as so much of this is based on conjecture. I am strongly compelled to think there are deeper things at work as the rabbit hole of every facet of science is endless. Nothing of the supernatural non-sense... I am talking about the true way Nature operates which is as I like to say, 'infinitely complex'.

Lately and completely independent of this conversation, I have been analyzing Nature is a new way. An example are the recent revelations provided by the James Web Space Telescope. We know now that the universe as far as we can see is jam packed with stars. It might as well be infinite from a computational perspective. One bizarre idea that crossed my mind is it possible that we ourselves are a cell inside a massive host!? Difficult to prove yes, but what has already been proven is each of us are host to millions of organisms at this very moment! Incredible stuff if you ask me and very difficult to disprove from where I am standing...

 

One bizarre idea that crossed my mind is it possible that we ourselves are a cell inside a massive host!? Difficult to prove yes, but what has already been proven is each of us are host to millions of organisms at this very moment! Incredible stuff if you ask me and very difficult to disprove from where I am standing...

There are plenty of theories. One, we are all just part of a simulation. Another, the growing fractal that our solar system is like a nucleus with 8 (or 9) electrons around it in another being's much larger universe. All kinds of fun can be had in a philosophy class.

 

I don't have much of an opinion either way as so much of this is based on conjecture. I am strongly compelled to think there are deeper things at work as the rabbit hole of every facet of science is endless. Nothing of the supernatural non-sense... I am talking about the true way Nature operates which is as I like to say, 'infinitely complex'.

Lately and completely independent of this conversation, I have been analyzing nature is a new way. An example are the recent revelations provided by the James Web Space Telescope. We know now that the universe as far as we can see is jam packed with stars. It might as well be infinite from a computational perspective. One bizarre idea that crossed my mind is it possible that we ourselves are a cell inside a massive host!? Difficult to prove yes, but what has already been proven is each of us are host to millions of organisms at this very moment! Incredible stuff if you ask me and very difficult to disprove from where I am standing...

That's the 2nd time you've used the words "difficult to disprove" and I'd just like to point out that the burden of proof is on whoever is making a claim and there's no such things as burden of disproof.

And with that, I think I've scratched my last remaining debate itch and I'm with you on contemplating infinite universe (I actually find that among the more plausible theories) and universes inside universes. Enjoy this scene from the classic Men in Black movie:

 

There are a few things that cannot exactly be described but everyone knows it when they see it.

Hence the banning of Nabokov’s “Lolita”, which is not even erotic in my opinion, but the judge “knew” it was pornographic.

 

This whole thread could be ended if only LowQ would share what he really knows, instead of being cryptic. From what I've got from it so far is the old saying " put your money in land, because they aren't making any more of it". is wrong. there is an argument that it multiplies miraculously.

 

I could be very specific, even extremely specific in some instances.
And as careful observation would show,
there are certain rules about Life that are never broken,
therefore making the postulates that I would present universally applicable, and repeatable.

But as soon as I outline any such theory,
and the reasons why it is universally workable, and Useful,
here come the nay-sayers ..........
PROVE-IT, I WANT EVIDENCE, PROVE-IT, EVERYBODY-KNOWS, blah-blah,blah, etc.

As I outlined earlier, and in various other Threads,
there is "something similar to" "The-Force" (from Star-Wars), that animates everything.
It is NOT made up of Matter-Energy-Space and Time as we normally recognize these things.
Therefore, it can not be "proven" in the conventional sense.
It follows a particular set of rules.
And, since few people have any idea of what the rules are,
and the rules appear to be a complete abstraction, ( at first ),
it is very difficult for most of the population to wrap their heads around it.

Add to this, that many people have an extreme aversion to
the possibility of having anyone even come close to thinking that
they're "Crazy" or a "Lunatic", or
a Tin-Foil-Hat-Wearing "Conspiracy-Theorist", or a "Religious-Nut-Case", etc., etc..
All of this type of name-calling equates to ........
You are wrong, and wrong equals death, ( to some degree or another, or lack of survival potential ).
People who do this live in a miserable, semi-permanent state, of FEAR, and they think that it's normal.

Well, I've been called all of the above, and more, and I really, really, don't care, at all,
because I refuse to live in fear of the "opinion" of others,
who may be, and usually are in actual fact, completely clueless themselves,
and simply repeatedly regurgitate
"Well-Everybody-Knows-that ........." with complete conviction.

To add complexity to the situation,
all sources of information on this subject have been actively subjected to
very intentional demonization FOR THOUSANDS OF YEARS.
This provides plenty of ammunition for the clueless nay-sayers, and keeps humanity in the dark.

So, generally speaking, I avoid pushing this information on anyone,
pushing it usually accomplishes nothing positive.
But, I will throw out some food for thought, on occasion,
just to see if there may be someone out there who is interested in
discovering the actual reasons WHY things work the way that they do.

It is possible to understand Life,
but it can't be summed-up in a couple of paragraphs.
Figuring-out Life has been a part-time pre-occupation of mine for my entire life.

I don't "Believe" anything,
I have only greater or lesser probabilities that something is true or false.
Some probabilities can be quite important and valuable,
others, not so much, but they may be interesting none the less.

Some subjects, for me, have gone from being mere probabilities,
to being extremely strong probabilities,
and it's not unusual for me to speak of these particular subjects as observable facts,
although, I seldom think of anything as being an absolute,
because there's always the possibility of a "Plot-Twist" that I didn't see coming.
The more I learn, the deeper, and more twisted, the Plot becomes,
but the basic premise almost always remains constant.

It's always entertaining to drop truth-bombs on people,
but it's usually not the best approach to actually helping someone gain a better understanding,
so I usually wait for someone to ask a sincere question.
Unfortunately, some people just can't get past their initial incredulity, and so, never get any further.

And then there's the people who think they already have everything completely figured-out.

It's a big mess, but variety is the spice of Life.
Sometimes I appreciate that there are so many completely clueless people,
because it makes me look smart by comparison.
What makes me actually smart,
is that I have a vague clue about just how much I don't know,
and the dumb people think they have it all figured-out,
until something bites them in the rear-end,
and then they blame it on something or someone else.
"Believing" that You are "Right" is a survival-mechanism for clueless people,
knowing that You must learn something from your mistakes,
and, possibly also learning from observing others mistakes, is actual survival.

If I start dropping Truth-Bombs, the nay-sayers,
rather than trying to actually gain a new perspective on Life,
will instead work towards getting the Thread locked or deleted.
So, it's a tough decision.
Anybody got my back ?
.
.
.

 

Knowledge without evidence is indistinguishable from nonsense. Just my opinion, others may disagree.

 

Evidence is recognized only because of personal experience,
and is your personal evaluation of the value of a particular piece of knowledge,
when that knowledge is applied under certain particular circumstances.

Evidence has nothing to do with what some "Authority-figure" says is true or valuable.

The ability to "recognize" Evidence is achieved when ..........
Having the benefit of a piece of knowledge,
or the option to use one piece of knowledge, vs,
some different, new piece of knowledge, which you did not possess previously,
results in the perception of,
a superior, or more valuable, end result, than was previously experienced,
in similar circumstances,
without the application of that new piece of knowledge to guide the particular actions taken.

In other words ............
If You don't "try-out" a new piece of information, FOR YOURSELF, in your own way,
You will never know whether or not the information has value, to You, or anyone else.

You can take someone else's opinion, and call it your own,
because You "believe" that that persons opinion is superior to your own opinion,
but there is NO EVIDENCE CREATED just because other people say,
or that person claims to be,
an "Expert" or "Authority" on a particular subject.
It has to be personally put into use by YOU before it has any value.

Evidence is the personally perceived Value of the "Valuable-Final-Product"
which results from the application of certain pieces of knowledge,
in a particular set of circumstances.
( which can also be refraining from the use of certain pieces of knowledge, etc.)

There is "Strong-Evidence" and "Weak-Evidence",
personal experience is required to discern the difference.

Evidence is not an absolute, and is not "Proof" of anything.
"Proof" is quite often just a preponderance of agreed upon "opinions".
In many circumstances supposed "Proof" can be demonstrated to be complete BS.
I give very little credence to anyone's opinion who claims to be
providing "Proof" of something, especially something controversial.
If You will please notice, I have never claimed to be providing "Proof" of anything,
but I may state that a seemingly innocuous, or even very strange, factor, is "Evidence" of a
possibly unfamiliar phenomenon causing a different outcome in some particular situation

Evidence is an "indicator" that YOU BELIEVE was caused by a
certain set of circumstances coming together and creating a particular end result,
but there may be other "unknown" circumstances that may also affect the outcome.

Evidence is a "Clue" to a puzzle or problem,
which may, or may not be,
completely accurate, or applicable, in every circumstance or situation.
.
.
.

 

I apologize for any typos or editing debacles that may be in this post. I have read through but not thoroughly enough to know it is error free. I will return to it an clean it up as necessary but in the meantime if an error makes things confusing please don’t hesitate to ask about it. Thanks.

Well this turned out absurdly long, unexpectedly. But I would be interested in feedback from those of you who are interested enough to read it. The TL;DR is:

• I accept the laws of physics as enumerated by the corpus of work of those employing the scientific method, not on faith but on the inherent mechanisms of the scientific method when and where is it properly applied;

• I reject the supernatural, believing in a purely physical world where the “natural’ is all there is;

• I don’t believe that religion has anything to offer concerning physical laws and any claims by it that contradict the established and consistent laws developed by application of the scientific method are ridiculous on their face;

• I hold that the “faith” required to believe those claims is distinct from the trust needed to progress in scientific inquiry, because, among other things, it is insufficient and verification is always necessary when things don’t align;

• I believe that religion can offer “wisdom” concerning ethics and morality in those cases where the outcomes are beneficial to the adherent and those around them, excluding those things that clearly have deleterious effects but being “revealed truth” are demands for adherence to harmful practices; and,

• I believe that our “selves”, what is like to be us, our experience of the world and the associated quailia, are an emergent property of the physical world and require no resort of the supernatural but I do not believe that even the most detailed description of the physical phenomena that give rise to this “self” can explain it. I believe that we, in our awareness are completely physical at base, but because we are emergent it is not possible to invoke cause and effect as the source of it.

Yes, that was the TL;DR. If you are inclined to respond based only on this I recommend you at least scan the rest because there is a very good chance I addressed what you are going to say. If you do read and comment, thank you; if you don’t, I can’t blame you a bit!

The reason I believe that the laws of physics are substantially the way consensus among researchers enumerate them is on account of the results of applying them. They work, even in ensemble. They have predictive power, and when the predictions are tested they become ever closer to the results obtained as the process of refining them removes error incrementally.

The laws of physics are the most successful set of theories in the history of mankind. They have been shown to properly reflect a world that is otherwise invisible to us until we have the instrumentation to directly observe it—over and over. Something as abstract and unintuitive as quantum mechanics has be applied and resulting in transistors and other solid state devices.

All of the laws of physics are reconciled with all the others, there are no discontinuities that require equivocation. Independent researchers working separately on the laws of physics using the scientific method have never failed to report the same results after the process has been thoroughly exercised.

And when a mystery occurs, it doesn’t become a fetish to be venerated rather it is a gap to be filled by continued application of the same methods and testing of the results against the established laws. There are no substantive disagreements concerning the foundations of physical laws or their content by those actually expert in the application of the scientific method.

When disagreements do arise, they are settled by finding a way to test the competing theories—not by demonstrations of magic, rhetoric, or wars. But, as with all human endeavors, the pursuit of ever more complete physical laws is done by people, and people are not inherently logical, nor honest.

Some people have a need for fame and power which is strong enough to lead them to discard ethical behavior in favor of expediences which run entirely counter to the history and progress of the development of physical laws as the corpus of the scientific world.

Even if they are not so nefarious, some people find themselves in a position that, for their own comfort, provokes them to falsify data, that is to lie for self preservation. This is different from the deliberate cases, though those may be the result of the slippery slope created by the first “small lie”.

Whatever the magnitude or motivation that leads to these cases of fakery it doesn’t take long for the rest of the people pursing the same proofs of theories to detect and expose these fakes. In the past, the general self preservation of people who may have depended on false or simply flawed results had created pockets of confusion.

People in purist of their own self-interest because conspirators without ever explicitly conspiring, each for their own reason but always each to sustain their own income or reputation. This conspiracy of self-interest is almost universally the explanation for what appear to be concerted efforts among many people to deceive or defraud.

Not some grand conspiracy with secret societies and meetings but the simple self-interest of many people isolated from each other except for the connection to the theory that benefits them and they are compelled to preserve. But we are fortunate that today these tacit conspiracies are being ever more often refuted and destroyed.

This has many reasons—new generations with no stake in or fealty to the “old guard”; wider and faster dissemination of papers and particularly datasets as the gatekeeper journals lose ever more power due to pre-press and other self publishing; the assistance of organizations like the Center for Open Science and its OSF (Open Science Framework).

OSF facilitates the process of self-publishing while directly assisting the researchers to organize their research programs. It was founded with a cultural goal of making the resultant datasets open source for anyone to use. In particular for anyone to verify by repeating or failing to repeat the experiment.

This is a big deal because in the past, the datasets were held as proprietary and replication or refutation of results was greatly hampered by a lack of access to them. In the past, journals were loathe to retract a paper for their own self-preserving reasons, and the reputation of peer reviewers (even anonymous peer reviewers because the journal relies on the rigor and correctness of the peer review for its own reputation).

But, though it is really quite a new precedent, it is no longer shocking to hear of a paper being retracted. Mistakes in the method are not usually a good enough reason for this, though the author(s) may prefer to have the paper removed if such flaws are pointed out. It is the case of falsified data that drives this new trend. Though the number of retracted papers is small compared ot the corpus of work produced, the impact is outsized.

Researchers finding themselves in an ever more scrutinizing culture, with increasing pressure ot release datasets alongside the published papers are vulnerable to people outside their tacit cabal who have no axe to grind alongside the authors—though they may be grinding the axe of truth because they aren’t afraid of the impact on themselves but see the impact on the reputation of science.

In this emerging world, even the citizen scientist can make a substantive contribution, and “lesser” members of the scientific community can challenge established figures because the publishing gatekeeper are powerless to prevent dissemination of the unfavorable information, something the mendacious researcher could previously count on in many cases.

So, all this said, I find the nebulous but very substantive “scientific community” and the results of their relentless work and passion, to be the only explanation of the world that is consistent, testable, and subject to constant refinement.

Religion, and religion-like systems have none of this. They are supposed revealed truth. Contradictions are the unknowable will of god, gods, or other forces. Application has resulted in more harm than good—and I do respect many aspects of the moral/ethical aspects of various religions and their value in human relations.

This is because the establishment of these principles is akin to the process that derives the laws of physics. In particular, the development of interpersonal moral laws has many aspects like the pursuit of the physical. They are testable against the the stated goals (albeit in general with less rigor). When applied, they produce something—an interpersonal, and larger social state of affairs that is either lifting people up or not, or even grinding them down.

There are many religious moral rules which offer an excellent platform for a just and compassionate society, while there are certainly others that fit into the “revealed truth“ category and are either useless or harmful. Regrettably even the beneficial rules are, in my experience, “more honoured in the breach than the observance”. Worse, they are often used as bludgeons to oppress the less powerful classes by people in power who wish to maintain that power.

But this aspect of religion is not necessarily tied to the “mysteries” most religions depend upon. The glaring inconsistencies to which the only response is “faith”. Some may find this sufficient and so long as the result is not harmful to them or to others I see no reason to ,militate against them. But this is most unfortunately not the case for a large part of organized religion.

So long as religion seeks to replace the laws of physics, or to exceed them with supernatural, untestable mysteries which give it the imprimatur of an invisible authority, it is a force for damage in the world rather than improvement.. So long as religion is not a living thing, but instead and ossified remnant of what, at the beginning, may well have been a campaign to assert a morality that focused on all people rather than just the powerful, it is a destructive force and has no moral purchase from which to assert its legitimacy.

All of the foregoing apply to things that people refuse to call “religion”, but have the characteristics of revealed truth only accessible directly by an effective priesthood which reveals things as “people have a need to know them”. Some (even some here in this forum I am sure) try to put “science“ into this category but I categorically deny this is the case.

While I was very clear about the pernicious effect of human frailty and amoral or immoral self interest on the honest pursuit of the physical laws and their application, there remains and always will the opportunity for people to actually test the claims of these corpus of this work for themselves. Iti is also the case that in many areas of research there is an expectation of applications, that is technology, and if the claims fail to work in that realm they are self-refuting.

The pursuit of physical truth through the methods of science do not require the faith that religion demands. Instead, there is a requirement to “trust but verify”. It is necessary to use reputation to help guide the direction of research there being an effectively infinite number of directions in which to go. It is also true that this mechanism has an unfortunate failure mode because the medium of research is the human society of scientific researchers.

It is subject, possibly to a lesser extent but subject nonetheless to the same problems that plague a once vital religion that becomes a vehicle for personal power of those in the upper echelons of the hierarchy rather than a difficult, personally dangerous, search for truth. This means that sometimes important directions for research are blocked by the aggregate interests of researcher well established in it.

But, critically, unlike religion there is an inherent quality of verification. Faith cannot be invoked to protect the interests of those who would block the way forward so eventually those directions are pursued and the malignant tumor of a wrong but powerful opinion is resected. There is no such mechanism in religion, and can never be given the untestable nature of its claims.

All of this is coming from a person who believes, unequivocally, in the primacy of human experience as the foundation for a moral life. Increasing justice and compassion in the world, is, in my opinion, the fundamental platform and prime moral imperative for humans. It is something that only we can do. The ”world” doesn’t care about it, only people do. My moral philosophy, in a nutshell can be summarized as “seek to optimize the autonomy of persons, and increase compassion and justice in your domain of influence”. (And as an aside, these activities are equally applicable to one’s self as to others).

But even though I believe that something functionally untestable—human experience, that is, what is is like to be you—is the most important thing in the world, I also believe in a physicalist (not materialist, which is something else) view of the world. I believe that we are all the result of the physical laws and the interaction of the fundamental particles, and that there is nothing else!

I believe that we arise from increasingly complex interactions of matter, but critically as far as I can tell we are an emergent phenomenon of these interactions and can’t be explained by strict cause and effect on account it. That is, we are the result of the actions of the world the physical laws describe but we cannot be explained by them. That is, our internal life, our self-awarenes, the quailia of our worldview—these are all outside the realm of the physical laws to explain, not because the laws are not complete but because this thing that it is like to be us isn’t material.

Don’t misunderatand my position. I am sure that will will get ever closer to a full description of the material structure necessary to have the experience, no external observation, however detailed could explain what is like to the self that is you to be that self. If I am not clearly communicating this, I will add by way of exclusion, even if we can eventually read minds technologically and project what is happening in the brain when experiences are occurring this will not be an explanation of what the experience itself is like.

As an aside, If we ever do get to that point, it would certainly be revelatory of a lot of other hidden things that would greatly increase our understanding of others relative to ourselves. But such a capability would surely violently alter tha shape of human society if it could survive such a shock. Were it to come incrementally, it might not be so destructive but if the breakthrough is a discontinuity, I fear is would tear the very foundation of our interpersonal relationships apart.

So the bottom line is that I disagree with any claims of important but untestable physical laws, the supernatural (I only accept the natural because I believe is subsumes everything that can be), and of experiential “proof” for anything that interacts with the material world (in opposition to my belief in the legitimacy of inner experience about itself.

Without any intent to insult or belittle anyone, resorting to “I am not going to tell you about the secrets because you will just deny them” is passing strange. If the secrets and their proofs can’t stand up to skeptical examination then they fail to be useful things, You can deny the assertions of physical laws all you want, the key is you have to refute them with evidence as compelling as that which gave rise to the. You cant do this, but I can certainly refute the claims of even the existence untestable “things” that can influence the material world yet they themselves do not arise form it.

If I am not allowed ot disagree with them, or even in some cases find them outrageous and needing debunking so others are not mislead, then I see this as a self-refuation. If I am not allowed to pay attention to the man behind the curtain, I have no respect for, or interest in these things other than the refutation of those which are potentially damaging to the naïve.

This, to me, is as close as I have gotten to ”the truth” and I hold the rejection of the supernatural to be a vital prerequisite to finding this truth.

 

Amen. Very well stated. I wish there were more of us.

 

Another excellent write-up by Ya’akov

I would like to expound upon certain concepts contained in his short Book.
( I tend to get long-winded myself, but sometimes it's necessary to explain profound ideas )

The following will be different viewpoints on the previous quotes by Ya'akov
and all will be intended to represent the larger idea or viewpoint being expressed by Ya'akov,
and the quotes will necessarily need to be referred to their context as presented.

It is my sincere wish that there will be ZERO negative connotations assumed by anyone, for any reason.
My intention is merely to present a different slant on many of these concepts,
which quite often are expeditiously referred to the -"Well everybody knows that"- category,
without any further investigation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"" • I accept the laws of physics as enumerated by the corpus of work of those employing the scientific method, not on faith but on the inherent mechanisms of the scientific method when and where is it properly applied; ""
This "sounds" like a perfectly rational statement, and I generally agree with it.
What is not taken into consideration with this statement is the fact that relying on
the particular Corpus of Work that You prefer, or even relying on ALL Works arrived at by
the Scientific-Method ..................
Most people do rely on what they BELIEVE is a "legitimate" source for information which may be
too complex for the average person to be expected to understand.
Or maybe a person simply does not have the time, or logistics,
required to obtain the needed understanding, so the rely on a "Trusted-Authority" for a quick answer.

THIS IS, MOST EMPHATICALLY, HAVING FAITH IN THAT CHOSEN "AUTHORITY".
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are situations where there isn't much choice,
sometimes You simply must have faith in some other entity,
because there is not enough time to personally learn all the details required,
for an adequate understanding, of a dizzying number of seemingly highly complex subjects.

However, that does NOT mean that You MUST ALWAYS rely on these various "Authorities".

Any reasonably intelligent person can independently pursue any given subject
and become quite competent in that field of endeavor.
He might also, in the process, learn of different significant aspects of the subject
which are completely ignored by the "established" "Authorities" on the subject.
This has occurred countless thousands of times throughout History,
and by people with little or no formal education in the subject.

They simply had no "FAITH" in the "Authorities" that existed in their particular Time,
and decided to look in to things for themselves.
And in many instances, we are all very lucky that they did.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"" • I reject the supernatural, believing in a purely physical world where the “natural’ is all there is; ""
I used to think exactly this way,
and my Life was completely miserable,
to the point where I was thinking,
"If things don't get any better than this, then I'm not interested in staying here any longer"
I was not being "dramatic" and I told this to no one else.
But it was a very serious consideration.

A totally ordinary guy stopped by my work-place at the time, in an old beat-up-Van,
and engaged me in a very interesting conversation ........
DOHH, I knew it, he's selling something ............
I was close to broke, so there's no way I intended to by one of his books, ( non-religious in nature),
but he promised me he'd stop by tomorrow and by it back from me if It didn't completely blow my mind.
Well, it did.
I've never had another suicidal thought since. ( roughly ~1985 )

This Book is one of the most vilified, demonized, and slandered works ever written.
So, of course, You have to ask yourself why.
This book offends no one, and provides excellent, very workable answers, to serious Life problems,
so why is it demonized by "The Authorities" on the subjects covered ??????????
Talk about a Rabbit-Hole ..........
I still haven't found my way out of that Rabbit-Hole, it just keeps going and going and going .........

"Supernatural" is still "Natural",
the only reason that it's "Super", is because no one is taught how it works,
so it seems very mysterious and complex.
ELECTRICITY IS SUPERNATURAL TO MOST OF THE WORLD'S POPULATION.
And You work with it every single day.

THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"" • I don’t believe that religion has anything to offer concerning physical laws and any claims by it that contradict the established and consistent laws developed by application of the scientific method are ridiculous on their face; ""

"Organized-Religion", ( as diametrically opposed to the individual study of "Spirituality" ),
is nothing short of an evil "Control-Mechanism" for the gullible masses.

All of the major Religions of the World have been bastardized beyond recognition, even in the Far-East.

You may not realize it just yet,
but everyone, including You, is a small part of "God" ( however that may be described ).
And, You do not need anyone to "interpret" God for You.
If You need a Bible-quote right about now,
the Bible states that
"God created Man in his own image",
OK, fine,
but God is not some old wise dude, with a white beard, sitting on a cloud, up in the sky,
""he"" is not a MAN, ""he"" is not even a material "thing",
but, ""he"" may be some type of odd "Force" or "Conscience", that we have no ready definition for,
and therefore, suppositions, and projection of personal thoughts and Emotions run rampant.
All of this certainly makes things much more noisy and confusing than it should be.

And yet, we are told by many religions that we are a "piece" of this "Non-Thing" .........
and this is demonstrable if You pursue more understanding on this subject.
However, You will always find what You expect,
so if You pursue this demonstration with the intention of proving that no such thing exists,
then that is precisely what You will find.
For You, it will not exist, and that is your privilege, You have Free-Will.

"" • I don’t believe that religion has anything to offer concerning physical laws and any claims by it that contradict the established and consistent laws developed by application of the scientific method are ridiculous on their face; ""
............. continued ...............

"Any claims by it", meaning Religion as a collective, or, in general I suppose,
is an extremely loose statement, and gross generalization.

In my estimation, what You are saying here is ........
anything, that anyone attributes to anything or entity that is not on my approved list of "Authorities",
which may, in my personal estimation, conflict with what I believe to be the position espoused by
said "Authorities", is officially declared BS by me,
with no need for any further discussion, investigation or consideration.
There is no greater truth than the "Authorities" that I believe in .........

Hmmmm, this sounds strangely similar to some religious proselytizers that I've run into.
Very interesting to compare the two to each other.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"" • I believe that our “selves”, what is like to be us,
our experience of the world and the associated quailia,
are an emergent property of the physical world and require no resort of the supernatural
but I do not believe that even the most detailed description of the physical phenomena
that give rise to this “self” can explain it. .......... ""

Well ........ this simply because You are not looking in the right places.

"" ......... I believe that our “selves”, what is like to be us,
our experience of the world and the associated quailia,
are an emergent property of the physical world and require no resort of the supernatural ..........""

Why would You believe such a thing ?
How do You know for a fact that the explanation requires no resort to the Super-Natural ???
and yet you clearly state that an understanding can not be gleaned by using "physical-phenomenon".

What your statements add-up-to,
is that there is not, and never will be,
any viable body of knowledge that will satisfactorily, and fully, explain how Life works.
What a defeatist viewpoint !!!
You've already lost the game before it even gets a chance to start !!!
You refuse to even entertain the idea !!!
Roughly 7/8 of the World's population disagrees with You,
and while this not really "proof" of anything,
it should certainly make You ponder the wisdom of the position You have taken.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"" • I believe that religion can offer “wisdom” concerning ethics and morality ...............""

"My-Hat-is off-to You-Sir" .......
for recognizing that Ethics and Morality ARE MOST EMPHATICALLY, NOT THE SAME THING.
Ethics are values that You personally know to be right or wrong, good or bad, etc..
Morals are usually agreed upon "Rules" of behavior that are normally created by groups,
but may also be in the form of Dictates from a wanna-be "Ruler".

I consider this to be the only saving-grace of "Organized-Religion",
and even this can sometimes be in serious doubt.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

( Edited for clarity, I hope that I retained the intention accurately )
"" The reason I believe that the laws of physics are substantial,
is that the consensus regarding them is derived from the results of applying them.
They have predictive power,
and when the predictions are tested they become ever closer to the results obtained,
as the process of refining them removes error incrementally. ""

This seems to be a very long version of
"Everybody learns by Experience and making Mistakes".
It applies to any and all learning processes.

No learning can possibly take place regarding any subject that is
arbitrarily, and off-handedly, dismissed as being of no value what so ever,
especially when refusing to even grant any legitimacy to the subject as an extant thing.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"" The laws of physics have been the most successful set of theories in the history of mankind.
They have been shown to properly reflect a world that is otherwise invisible to us until we have the instrumentation to directly observe it—over and over. ""

What happens if there is an invisible phenomenon that we
do not have adequate technology to directly observe ?

Oh Hell, I'll just ridicule it, and hope nobody wastes my time discussing it ...............
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"" All of the laws of physics are reconciled with all the others,
there are no discontinuities that require equivocation. ""

It depends on where You look.
I see Scientists making suppositions about an outcome on a semi-regular basis.
They quite often get a marginally acceptable result, for other than stated reasons.
Of course these are exceptions, rather than the rule, but they're not at all "unusual", or unheard of.
And, of course, if any experiment ends in an anomaly, it should be big news, and investigated,
instead it is usually "swept-under-the rug" and denied.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Evidently, I have exceeded the allowed number of characters.
To be continued, it's late.

 

Well I did it again, but if you want a TL;DR look for the bold text and read those paragraphs, it will be close.

Another excellent write-up by Ya’akov

I would like to expound upon certain concepts contained in his short Book.
( I tend to get long-winded myself, but sometimes it's necessary to explain profound ideas )

The following will be different viewpoints on the previous quotes by Ya'akov
and all will be intended to represent the larger idea or viewpoint being expressed by Ya'akov,
and the quotes will necessarily need to be referred to their context as presented.

It is my sincere wish that there will be ZERO negative connotations assumed by anyone, for any reason.
My intention is merely to present a different slant on many of these concepts,
which quite often are expeditiously referred to the -"Well everybody knows that"- category,
without any further investigation.

I've read through your response and I have only there overarching comments.

1) I deny that the trust I described is anything like the faith demanded by religion. Principally because having "faith" in a religious dogma includes accepting things that are mutually exclusive and contradict personal experience. There things are answered by invoking the impossibility of the adherent understanding how to reconcile these contradictions, and whigh no one at all, anywhere who can do so.

On the other hand the "trust" in the corpus of work of hundreds of thousands of individuals who disagree about details and use an adversarial system for deciding what is correct and what is not. This is entirely distinct from the case of religious faith insofar dogma cannot, ultimately, survive.

To defend the indefensible in religious faith all that needs to be done is invoke the "mind of god" or some version of it, which of course, it that context, it is offensive and incredibly arrogant to claim you understand or can contradict. The closest that the scientific community comes to this is, as I laid out previously, when a tacit cabal forms around a once-accepted theory in order to preserve the infrastructure of research groups and publications that relied on it.

This is understandable in terms of human nature, and scientists are no less human than priests, so human frailty is a factor. But unlike religion that will build up an impervious shell around dogma (sadly never a pearl), in scientific research there must be evidence to maintain the dead end blocking progress, and eventually it will be shown false if it is and replaced by a better approximation of the truth. which will also be refined until there are no gaps in it.

So, I don't trust any particular piece of the corpus, rather the whole thing taken as an effort to progressively improve the model we use to understand things. Things like Ohm's Law that were rejected by the "authorities" of the time and only adopted when it was clear that is simply worked. Or going from electricity and magnetism to electromagnetism is an example of how it took an upstart of great merit and brilliance to overcome the gatekeepers who were not inclined to believe it.

But that was in a day when the moral theory of the divine right of kings was taken seriously, and hierarchies were everywhere with the people at higher levels unembarrassed by the idea they were inherently better than those below. Today we have an egalitarian society where it is literally possible for anyone to challenge the status quo with with cogent, repeatable science that works better than a current theory. We have wide access to both the publications and publishing. We have low cost access to technology sufficient to do actual experiments of sufficient precision to demonstrate a new way of understanding the physical world.

I am no Pollyanna. I know that there are still obstacles, but socially and structurally the gatekeepers are losing their grip on the keys to the gate. It is important not to understand me as saying an appeal to the general public concerning some core scientific theory is a useful way to advance—it simply isn't. The general public is not equipped to evaluate such challenges and is easily fooled because of both ignorance and self-interest.

Extracting the debate about the content of science from the research domain necessarily tears any debate free of the necessary integration into the entire picture, it is worse than useless as the thousands of adherents, each joining this challenge for their own reason, and almost universally out of ignorance parrot and pontificate on the supposedly suppressed truth, it is just heat and noise, no light or signal. (thousands may sound like a lot, but the entire weight of the gravitas of this community of "scientific" rebels is negligible as few if any of them are capable of evaluating the scientific merit of a claim).

So, as I said, the rules for arriving at what is called "settled science", and even what might be a candidate for such an appellation are part of the reason I trust, but do not have faith in, the corpus involved in general and integrated over time—not in the form of a holy writ but in the form of something that isn't self contradictory, can be tested, has been tested, and predicts what we actually see in the world.

There is no system that has been more successful at explaining what we see in the world around us that the net result of applied scientific method. There aren't people with the ability to challenge it who have a fundamental disagreement with it. The people who do challenge it en masse are, without intent to insult nor any rancor, ignorant. They are often "not even wrong" as Pauli would say. They are literally too ignorant to know what they don't know, or too arrogant to address gaps in their proposals with more than a hand wave and a "we'll work that out later", in spite of the fact that the current theory does account for it, and everything else the supposedly "improved" theory does.

When faith is brought into science, things break very quickly. It may be the self-interested or star-struck assent to the dominant theory postulated by someone of great stature, even among competent scientists but it is far more prominent among the uneducated with ulterior motives, not so well hidden.

A cogent and present example is the ascendancy of "flat earth" doctrine. No consistent theory that accounts for all or even a large part of, the observed phenomena, accessible to us all, has been brought forward. Instead disconnected and disintegrated "challenges" to the current, very effective theory are foisted on the uninformed and ill-equipped

Challenges to the law of gravity that aren't even internally consistent, claims that all documentary evidence of space is faked, "analysis" of such evidence that simply asserts fakery based on ignorant observations, and more. But why is this the case. What is the motivation for this?

My observation of quite a bit of it has left me with two major causes and one minor, usually inextricably intertwined.

1) The belief that a non-planar earth contradicts religion faith, backed by a partitular interpretation.of religious texts.

2) The mistaken belief that current scientific theory relegates the human race to insignificance, and feeling lost on account of that.

3) The discomfort with the fact that the adherent can't understand, and will almost never understand the complex and interwoven theories and laws of physics, and the desire to find a way to deny that these unattainable things are legitimate, and represent thing are they really are.

As far as number 1 goes, we have a misapplication of faith to science, I believe that stands on its own.

Number 2 is caused by conflating and confusing philosophy and introspective exploration with scientific research. The scientific method has nothing at all to do question of significance. For science to be applicable the question at hand must have certain properties missing in this philosophical investigation. À la Popper, the answer to the question being examined must be falsifiable, that is the hypothesis under investigation must have an experimental way to disprove it, which, when applied can determine if it is a possible answer. Don't look to scientific method or scientists in their professional rôles, as a source for answers here.

But, this feeling of insignificance, and the belief that the Judeo-Christian scriptures in particular offer evidence that humanity is literally at the center of the universe, drives this type of flat earth adherent to accept, on faith, that the current, incredibly elegant, interlocking, and elegant array of scientific theories are wrong—full stop. Rather than being convinced by a new, incompatible theory of comparable predictive power and consistency, it is assumed on faith the corpus of scientific research is just wrong.

This is exacerbated by the willingness to accept conspiracy as the answer to all of the otherwise unanswerable questions about why these alternative explanations don't comport with observation, and the (sometimes willful, sometimes ignorant) assertions that "experiments" "prove" that the current explanation can't be right, offering no alternative explanation, and simply being "not even wrong" lacking any ability to elucidate the subject they claim to address.

But here we see the effect of faith when brought into scientific inquiry. The two are simply incompatible. While some properties of faith are inherent to humans, and so do appear in some form among the humans pursuing scientific investigation, they appear in a different and radically less destructive form. The unwarranted or out-of-scale trust of particular people's opinions about scientific theories is an example.

But even here, there is a mechanism that, if respected, limits the ability to sustain this error. That, of course, is evidence it is wrong. Not assertion, or revelation, or anything but disproving the hypothesis proffered. And, the hypothesis must be falsifiable or it isn't even in the realm of scientific inquiry.

This last bit is completely absent from the context in which "faith" operates. Faith applies only to things that can't be falsified. Faith is a permanent condition, it can't be revoked or modified, it can only be "lost". On the other hand, trust can and is often reevaluated, and because it is rooted not in assertion but in the iterative method of science, error is not a figurative sin. This is in stark contrast to the case of religious faith where the suggestion of error is literally a sin.

At this point I would like to aver that outside the actual ranks of those engaged in scientific inquiry, there are those who, falling to the same, understandable but world-mangling error of faith, do place faith, rather than trust, in "Science" and scientists. These people are no less problematic than religious folks who refuse to properly place the domain of religion with respect to the domain of scientific investigation. Because the person with faith in science will be uncritical of "scientific" prognostication, they fail to question the authority of Science and scientists in domains they aren't authorities in. Even in the milieu of scientific research, not all scientists have the ability to speak authoritatively.

The result is, in effect, a new religion. In previous times "devil worship" have been the alternative to the pervasive and inescapable religious infrastructure dominating society. It as an alternative to something that, when examined, failed to stand up to unfettered inquiry. But, it didn't leave the domain of religion, it just denied the validity of a different practice.

In this way, the "flat farther" (as a catchall for anti-science, global conspiracy adherents) is behaving a lot like the devil worshippers of old. Perceiving the dominance of scientific theories in expelling the world. and (as in 3) feeling abused by it, belittled by it, confused by it, and scared by it—they turn to the functional equivalent of devil worship in our current society—namely science denial and conspiracy theories. These have a chance, they believe, to show that they are not unable to understand what is really going on, that their special place in the universe is being stolen from them, and that their religious faith comports completely with the state of affairs in the physical world.

The frenetic and unfocused attack on Science and scientific theory gives them hope. I can understand this. I think it is many people today feel completely alienated from their own work and life. They want meaning and value. And that is completely legitimate. What is not legitimate, is, what in their ignorance they chose as a way to pursue meaning for their lives and affirmation of their value as humans. This is both sad and troubling.

The fact is, the things they want are best looked for in religion and philosophy. But if you choose a religion that must deny scientific realism or even scientific theory itself to stand, you've chosen very poorly. The real solution is reinterpretation of the religious doctrine in light of scientific discovery, not the converse. There is nothing wrong with dividing the world into human needs and realities that science can't address at all, and the domain of scientific inquiry which us like a door that must be opened to pass through and no amount of denying the door will make it not a barrier. Those who claim the door is not real are welcome to try to cross the threshold but they will find it painful as they collide with door they claim is not there.

The irony of all this is that it has become ascendant thanks to the vehicle of the Internet and the infrastructure of the web. So science deniers happily commiserate about it's invalidity using something that only exists because the theories of science are close enough to reality to make it possible. In the past, technology was empirical, evolving from obvious arrangements of things found in the environment like a stout stick or a sharp rock which was then improved by insight into possible new configurations not found pre-existing, like the sharp rock attached to the stick. Then crafts like making the sharp rock sharper, etc. These crafts passed from generation to generation improving to the limit presented by the materials at hand.

But current technology could never had appeared as man empirical development due solely to iteration. There is no doubt there is both art and craft involved in its practical creation, but without the results of scientific inquiry, the foundation of the technology would be absent. Quantum Mechanics was directly involved in the development of the transistor, for example. And just the field of materials science is responsible for untold thousands of better products that couldn't have arisen from just trying to make things better.

Of course the most ironic example is the need for both a spheroid globe and the appellation of Einstein's Relativity, the pervasive and now completely necessary GPS could not exist. The "flat earther" vehement denier of both, happily uses the satnav in their car or phone never worrying they will drive off the edge of the disk that GPS doesn't account for.

So, no—I flatly deny that my trust in the totality of the system comprising the domain of scientific research is anything like ”faith”. I don’t trust any particular thing or individual, rather the result of the interaction of the many contibutors and ideas integrated over time. This is very different from having faith in an unprovable, untestable eternal truth that by its very nature demands unquestioning fealty and no revison.

2) Your comments about my ignorance concerning religious and ”spiritual” topics is misplaced. In fact, I am extermely well versed in the traditions and content of many religions, as well as eatern and western mystical traditions and their content.

I have, in the past been “religious”. In fact, I spent 15 years as a strictly orthodox Jew, studying and learning in Hebrew and Aramaic. I have learned the kabbalah, as well as the contents of the Torah (the Pentetuch), Nevi’im (prophets), and the Talmud.

I also previously learned about, and practiced, Kundalini Yoga, and studied Taoism and Buddhism. In addition I have read diverse texts from the New Testament (which is much easier for an orthodox Jew to understand than the average person), to the Koran, to the Bhagavad Gita.

I tried to live my live in consonance with the principles and ideals of Judaism, which is very distinct from some of the practices, but I did it very carefully based on the tradition that the mitzvos (required activities of the halacha (Jewish Law).

But, in the end, I found that while I was able to map my moral, ethical, and “spiritual“ ideas onto orthodoxy—because the foundation of it supports them—the infrastructure that has arisen around those principles is not given the emphasis or freedom it needs to grow. And I believed and still do, they are the most important things that we have to attend to.

So, I haven’t been “looking in the wrong place”. I have looked in all the places I have mentioned and others I have not. And, from most of these sources.I was able to take awat things that added to my understanding of the world, and ability to reflect my principles in my actions. I would say I took the wisdom and left the stuff that was “not even wrong”.

I realize that to a religious person this would sound supremely arrogant. I can’t help that, it is what I have experienced and believe. From my point of view it is something everyone has a right, or maybe even a responsibility to do. It is not OK to say ”questions are encouraged” in a tradition when accepting whatever answer you get is mandatory.

I feel that every person has to take responsibility for their own relationship with the world, with others, and with whatever they might class as the “divine”. Some people clearly have a spiritual response to some aspects of science, not in the practice of it but in the revelations it produces. I think of Carl Sagan as one, he saw the supreme beauty of the universe-as-it-is without needing a special place in it.

3) Your assertions about how competent scientists go about research in their respective fields is just not correct. A ”supposition ” is a belief. It does not require and proof, nor logic—its just what someone believes. Anything taken as given by a competent scientist has to be based on previous results.

This doesn’t mean that result is perfect truth, rather that is has shown itself to be a good and useful approximation of what it sets out to describe. This is very different from starting from something you believe for no articulable reason.

Relatedly, two points—

1) If there is something we can‘t sense directly, but interacts with the world we can sense, it is automatically accounted for by the process of science. Take dark matter for example. The awareness of it arose from the error found in calculations that, according to the current understanding, gave consistently incorrect results. It required a reevaluation, not of the formulas which were correct, but of the understanding ot the structure that was expected by the theory. Of course if it doesn’t interact with the sensible world, well then it effectively doesn’t exist or the meaning of “exist” concerning it is very different from the ordinary usage.

On the there hand, if it cannot be sensed indirectly either, then it is not a topic for science, nor can anyone make any credible assertions about whatever it is. If the instrument of detection is, for example, uniquely the brain—well that can be tested but nothing of that nature has ever been fruitful. If the instrument of detection is the “spirit” or “soul” or some other invisible, undetectable, and unmeasurable thing—well then we are back where we started. This reminds me of the proof given in the New Testament that Paul is a Torah scholar: that he said so and he wouln‘t lie.

2) Your assertion that if you mention or expound on something that supports your position you will be ostracized sounds very much like dodging. I am not accusing you of doing so, because I am sure you have experienced adverse reactions when you have tried but I think stems from something about how you do it. If you present something and can’t provide evidence for it that is in some way objective, and it is something extraordinary and in conflict with settled science, you can expect anger from people who care about the truth and have seen so much nonsense, especially in the age of the Internet being passed off as debunking this or that well established scientific theory.

It causes anger because it is doing violence to progress and civilization. Misleading a vulnerable population about the general efficacy and abilities of medical science and practice, for example, causes people to do unsupportable and dangerous things. (I don’t want to argue here about the correctness or incorrectness of any particular belief you have. I am speaking about things that fit a pattern, and that can’t be supported by reproducible research.)

So, I think the burden of proof is on you when you try to go against the bulk of scientific research, all requiring interlocking theories you want to say are just wrong. As the aforementioned Carl Sagan would say, “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” and (not picking on you) it is not forthcoming from the claimants. Claims that even ordinary evidence is being provided and rejected don’t hold up when examined in the light of logic since rejecting th evidence either as unreliable or irrelevant is what would be expected when it is not good evidence. Assertions that it is evidence of prejudice or inability to understand is question begging.

 

 

Another excellent write-up by Ya’akov

I would like to expound upon certain concepts contained in his short Book.
( I tend to get long-winded myself, but sometimes it's necessary to explain profound ideas )

The following will be different viewpoints on the previous quotes by Ya'akov
and all will be intended to represent the larger idea or viewpoint being expressed by Ya'akov,
and the quotes will necessarily need to be referred to their context as presented.

It is my sincere wish that there will be ZERO negative connotations assumed by anyone, for any reason.
My intention is merely to present a different slant on many of these concepts,
which quite often are expeditiously referred to the -"Well everybody knows that"- category,
without any further investigation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"" • I accept the laws of physics as enumerated by the corpus of work of those employing the scientific method, not on faith but on the inherent mechanisms of the scientific method when and where is it properly applied; ""
This "sounds" like a perfectly rational statement, and I generally agree with it.
What is not taken into consideration with this statement is the fact that relying on
the particular Corpus of Work that You prefer, or even relying on ALL Works arrived at by
the Scientific-Method ..................
Most people do rely on what they BELIEVE is a "legitimate" source for information which may be
too complex for the average person to be expected to understand.
Or maybe a person simply does not have the time, or logistics,
required to obtain the needed understanding, so the rely on a "Trusted-Authority" for a quick answer.

THIS IS, MOST EMPHATICALLY, HAVING FAITH IN THAT CHOSEN "AUTHORITY".
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are situations where there isn't much choice,
sometimes You simply must have faith in some other entity,
because there is not enough time to personally learn all the details required,
for an adequate understanding, of a dizzying number of seemingly highly complex subjects.

However, that does NOT mean that You MUST ALWAYS rely on these various "Authorities".

Any reasonably intelligent person can independently pursue any given subject
and become quite competent in that field of endeavor.
He might also, in the process, learn of different significant aspects of the subject
which are completely ignored by the "established" "Authorities" on the subject.
This has occurred countless thousands of times throughout History,
and by people with little or no formal education in the subject.

They simply had no "FAITH" in the "Authorities" that existed in their particular Time,
and decided to look in to things for themselves.
And in many instances, we are all very lucky that they did.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"" • I reject the supernatural, believing in a purely physical world where the “natural’ is all there is; ""
I used to think exactly this way,
and my Life was completely miserable,
to the point where I was thinking,
"If things don't get any better than this, then I'm not interested in staying here any longer"
I was not being "dramatic" and I told this to no one else.
But it was a very serious consideration.

A totally ordinary guy stopped by my work-place at the time, in an old beat-up-Van,
and engaged me in a very interesting conversation ........
DOHH, I knew it, he's selling something ............
I was close to broke, so there's no way I intended to by one of his books, ( non-religious in nature),
but he promised me he'd stop by tomorrow and by it back from me if It didn't completely blow my mind.
Well, it did.
I've never had another suicidal thought since. ( roughly ~1985 )

This Book is one of the most vilified, demonized, and slandered works ever written.
So, of course, You have to ask yourself why.
This book offends no one, and provides excellent, very workable answers, to serious Life problems,
so why is it demonized by "The Authorities" on the subjects covered ??????????
Talk about a Rabbit-Hole ..........
I still haven't found my way out of that Rabbit-Hole, it just keeps going and going and going .........

"Supernatural" is still "Natural",
the only reason that it's "Super", is because no one is taught how it works,
so it seems very mysterious and complex.
ELECTRICITY IS SUPERNATURAL TO MOST OF THE WORLD'S POPULATION.
And You work with it every single day.

THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"" • I don’t believe that religion has anything to offer concerning physical laws and any claims by it that contradict the established and consistent laws developed by application of the scientific method are ridiculous on their face; ""

"Organized-Religion", ( as diametrically opposed to the individual study of "Spirituality" ),
is nothing short of an evil "Control-Mechanism" for the gullible masses.

All of the major Religions of the World have been bastardized beyond recognition, even in the Far-East.

You may not realize it just yet,
but everyone, including You, is a small part of "God" ( however that may be described ).
And, You do not need anyone to "interpret" God for You.
If You need a Bible-quote right about now,
the Bible states that
"God created Man in his own image",
OK, fine,
but God is not some old wise dude, with a white beard, sitting on a cloud, up in the sky,
""he"" is not a MAN, ""he"" is not even a material "thing",
but, ""he"" may be some type of odd "Force" or "Conscience", that we have no ready definition for,
and therefore, suppositions, and projection of personal thoughts and Emotions run rampant.
All of this certainly makes things much more noisy and confusing than it should be.

And yet, we are told by many religions that we are a "piece" of this "Non-Thing" .........
and this is demonstrable if You pursue more understanding on this subject.
However, You will always find what You expect,
so if You pursue this demonstration with the intention of proving that no such thing exists,
then that is precisely what You will find.
For You, it will not exist, and that is your privilege, You have Free-Will.

"" • I don’t believe that religion has anything to offer concerning physical laws and any claims by it that contradict the established and consistent laws developed by application of the scientific method are ridiculous on their face; ""
............. continued ...............

"Any claims by it", meaning Religion as a collective, or, in general I suppose,
is an extremely loose statement, and gross generalization.

In my estimation, what You are saying here is ........
anything, that anyone attributes to anything or entity that is not on my approved list of "Authorities",
which may, in my personal estimation, conflict with what I believe to be the position espoused by
said "Authorities", is officially declared BS by me,
with no need for any further discussion, investigation or consideration.
There is no greater truth than the "Authorities" that I believe in .........

Hmmmm, this sounds strangely similar to some religious proselytizers that I've run into.
Very interesting to compare the two to each other.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"" • I believe that our “selves”, what is like to be us,
our experience of the world and the associated quailia,
are an emergent property of the physical world and require no resort of the supernatural
but I do not believe that even the most detailed description of the physical phenomena
that give rise to this “self” can explain it. .......... ""

Well ........ this simply because You are not looking in the right places.

"" ......... I believe that our “selves”, what is like to be us,
our experience of the world and the associated quailia,
are an emergent property of the physical world and require no resort of the supernatural ..........""

Why would You believe such a thing ?
How do You know for a fact that the explanation requires no resort to the Super-Natural ???
and yet you clearly state that an understanding can not be gleaned by using "physical-phenomenon".

What your statements add-up-to,
is that there is not, and never will be,
any viable body of knowledge that will satisfactorily, and fully, explain how Life works.
What a defeatist viewpoint !!!
You've already lost the game before it even gets a chance to start !!!
You refuse to even entertain the idea !!!
Roughly 7/8 of the World's population disagrees with You,
and while this not really "proof" of anything,
it should certainly make You ponder the wisdom of the position You have taken.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"" • I believe that religion can offer “wisdom” concerning ethics and morality ...............""

"My-Hat-is off-to You-Sir" .......
for recognizing that Ethics and Morality ARE MOST EMPHATICALLY, NOT THE SAME THING.
Ethics are values that You personally know to be right or wrong, good or bad, etc..
Morals are usually agreed upon "Rules" of behavior that are normally created by groups,
but may also be in the form of Dictates from a wanna-be "Ruler".

I consider this to be the only saving-grace of "Organized-Religion",
and even this can sometimes be in serious doubt.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

( Edited for clarity, I hope that I retained the intention accurately )
"" The reason I believe that the laws of physics are substantial,
is that the consensus regarding them is derived from the results of applying them.
They have predictive power,
and when the predictions are tested they become ever closer to the results obtained,
as the process of refining them removes error incrementally. ""

This seems to be a very long version of
"Everybody learns by Experience and making Mistakes".
It applies to any and all learning processes.

No learning can possibly take place regarding any subject that is
arbitrarily, and off-handedly, dismissed as being of no value what so ever,
especially when refusing to even grant any legitimacy to the subject as an extant thing.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"" The laws of physics have been the most successful set of theories in the history of mankind.
They have been shown to properly reflect a world that is otherwise invisible to us until we have the instrumentation to directly observe it—over and over. ""

What happens if there is an invisible phenomenon that we
do not have adequate technology to directly observe ?

Oh Hell, I'll just ridicule it, and hope nobody wastes my time discussing it ...............
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"" All of the laws of physics are reconciled with all the others,
there are no discontinuities that require equivocation. ""

It depends on where You look.
I see Scientists making suppositions about an outcome on a semi-regular basis.
They quite often get a marginally acceptable result, for other than stated reasons.
Of course these are exceptions, rather than the rule, but they're not at all "unusual", or unheard of.
And, of course, if any experiment ends in an anomaly, it should be big news, and investigated,
instead it is usually "swept-under-the rug" and denied.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Evidently, I have exceeded the allowed number of characters.
To be continued, it's late.

LowQCab,

I’m almost discouraged from responding given Ya’akov’s detailed, learned and extensive responses…

But I feel compelled to let you know, your equally impressive posts have increased my understanding and acceptance of your views and position.

Mazel tov