All science is materialistic

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Who claimed he was infallible??

Boru

Yes, Clarke got some things right, but, at the same time he helped set the stage for the nutty futurism that makes me cringe whenever I come across it.  Such makes for fun TV & movies, but, as I posted elsewhere in my climate thread, it's a gravely dangerous outlook.

In my opinion, physics & chemistry (and, probably, mathematics, also) are like economics, in that they are turning into very mature subjects, a trend that will continue over time; ditto for most other subjects.  Some break-throughs will occur, but they will be fewer & fewer over time; most of which has been discovered is already with us.  Things like controlled quantum computing or nuclear fusion are probably pipe dreams, never to be realized in practice.

Don’t discount serendipity. Investigations that never achieve their intended goals frequently lead to spin-off technologies.

For the record, your use of the phrase ‘they will likely be fewer and fewer over time’ make you sound like a futurist crank.

Boru

[Jehanne]

Yes, Clarke got some things right, but, at the same time he helped set the stage for the nutty futurism that makes me cringe whenever I come across it.  Such makes for fun TV & movies, but, as I posted elsewhere in my climate thread, it's a gravely dangerous outlook.

In my opinion, physics & chemistry (and, probably, mathematics, also) are like economics, in that they are turning into very mature subjects, a trend that will continue over time; ditto for most other subjects.  Some break-throughs will occur, but they will be fewer & fewer over time; most of which has been discovered is already with us.  Things like controlled quantum computing or nuclear fusion are probably pipe dreams, never to be realized in practice.

Don’t discount serendipity. Investigations that never achieve their intended goals frequently lead to spin-off technologies.

For the record, your use of the phrase ‘they will likely be fewer and fewer over time’ make you sound like a futurist crank.

Boru

That is not how futurism is defined:

2) a point of view that finds meaning or fulfillment in the future rather than in the past or present

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/futurism

And, so, I am not a futurist.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Don’t discount serendipity. Investigations that never achieve their intended goals frequently lead to spin-off technologies.

For the record, your use of the phrase ‘they will likely be fewer and fewer over time’ make you sound like a futurist crank.

Boru

That is not how futurism is defined:

2) a point of view that finds meaning or fulfillment in the future rather than in the past or present

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/futurism

And, so, I am not a futurist.

By that definition, neither was Clarke. But, by the primary definition of futurist, you both are:

 one who studies and predicts the future, especially on the basis of current trends

Boru

[Jehanne]

That is not how futurism is defined:


https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/futurism

And, so, I am not a futurist.

By that definition, neither was Clarke. But, by the primary definition of futurist, you both are:

 one who studies and predicts the future, especially on the basis of current trends

Boru

Here is the definition:

1 : one who studies and predicts the future especially on the basis of current trends
2: one who advocates or practices futurism

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/futurist

I do not study and predict (I am not a scholar) the future, and so, I am not a futurist in the sense of #1 and certainly not #2, as I have indicated.

[Jackalope]

“Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."

― Arthur C. Clarke

"Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced."

[polymath257]

And why not? We can still observe patterns in the phenomena, determine when and where the phenomenon occurs, can figure out, potentially how to control the phenomenon, which would make it scientific and perhaps even technology.

Once again, I am not saying this is the actual case. I am saying that science could work with it if it was the case.

This is where we part company and I would simply cite "irreconcilable differences".  If a phenomenon happened (the amputee example) that simply shattered the Conservation Laws (Energy, Momentum, Angular Momentum), I would give up, once any reasonable possibility of fraud had been eliminated.  I doubt that most of our religious friends would be going on about "separate Magisteria" much, either.  Of course, you or anyone else could try to model magic, but, I think that there is going to be a practical problem when you or others try to replicate your results.

But, such is a bridge that no one has yet crossed, and, so, this conversation is purely hypothetical.

I think that the fact that we've been able to model quantum phenomena, which are often inherently probabilistic, suggests that science could, if necessary, deal with magical things that obey detectable patterns.

So, for example, if it was discovered that burning a specific herb while incanting specific words healed amputees, that would be basic data from which science could work to create a testable model. Looking at how the healing was affected by slight changes in pronunciation or rate of burning of the herb or by substituting related herbs would add further information.

Once again, this is clearly NOT what has turned out to be the case in the real world. But neither has the phlogiston theory of heat. Nobody would *return* to those hypotheses at this point, even though there is nothing about the scientific method that, prior to observation and testing, would eliminate those possibilities.

[Jehanne]

This is where we part company and I would simply cite "irreconcilable differences".  If a phenomenon happened (the amputee example) that simply shattered the Conservation Laws (Energy, Momentum, Angular Momentum), I would give up, once any reasonable possibility of fraud had been eliminated.  I doubt that most of our religious friends would be going on about "separate Magisteria" much, either.  Of course, you or anyone else could try to model magic, but, I think that there is going to be a practical problem when you or others try to replicate your results.

But, such is a bridge that no one has yet crossed, and, so, this conversation is purely hypothetical.

I think that the fact that we've been able to model quantum phenomena, which are often inherently probabilistic, suggests that science could, if necessary, deal with magical things that obey detectable patterns.

So, for example, if it was discovered that burning a specific herb while incanting specific words healed amputees, that would be basic data from which science could work to create a testable model. Looking at how the healing was affected by slight changes in pronunciation or rate of burning of the herb or by substituting related herbs would add further information.

Once again, this is clearly NOT what has turned out to be the case in the real world. But neither has the phlogiston theory of heat. Nobody would *return* to those hypotheses at this point, even though there is nothing about the scientific method that, prior to observation and testing, would eliminate those possibilities.

Let's say that only 1 out of 100 or so adult amputees were healed, but only on occasion, after fervent prayers, but yet on other occasions exactly 1000 were healed with no prayers immediately followed by the Earth stopping in its orbit about the Sun with no ill effects whatsoever except that the Earth's rotation immediately switched direction with the Sun rising in the West instead of the East followed by the Moon completely disappearing only to reappear exactly 73 days later, which was followed by a return to complete naturalistic normalcy, except for the fact that all of the observable galaxies in the Universe (save our own) have disappeared from view at all wavelengths of light only to all instaneously reappear exactly 13 years later to the exact second?

Maybe there would be those who would try to "model" this phenomenon, or, perhaps, such would be "proof positive" that electrons and protons have conscious wills. I do not know, except physicalism would have, in my judgment, been thoroughly falsified.

[GrandizerII]

I think that the fact that we've been able to model quantum phenomena, which are often inherently probabilistic, suggests that science could, if necessary, deal with magical things that obey detectable patterns.

So, for example, if it was discovered that burning a specific herb while incanting specific words healed amputees, that would be basic data from which science could work to create a testable model. Looking at how the healing was affected by slight changes in pronunciation or rate of burning of the herb or by substituting related herbs would add further information.

Once again, this is clearly NOT what has turned out to be the case in the real world. But neither has the phlogiston theory of heat. Nobody would *return* to those hypotheses at this point, even though there is nothing about the scientific method that, prior to observation and testing, would eliminate those possibilities.

Let's say that only 1 out of 100 or so adult amputees were healed, but only on occasion, after fervent prayers, but yet on other occasions exactly 1000 were healed with no prayers immediately followed by the Earth stopping in its orbit about the Sun with no ill effects whatsoever except that the Earth's rotation immediately switched direction with the Sun rising in the West instead of the East followed by the Moon completely disappearing only to reappear exactly 73 days later, which was followed by a return to complete naturalistic normalcy, except for the fact that all of the observable galaxies in the Universe (save our own) have disappeared from view at all wavelengths of light only to all instaneously reappear exactly 13 years later to the exact second?

Maybe there would be those who would try to "model" this phenomenon, or, perhaps, such would be "proof positive" that electrons and protons have conscious wills.  I do not know, except physicalism would have, in my judgment, been thoroughly falsified.

It would certainly put physicalism into doubt here, though there will still be explanations that save physicalism in this case. For example, super advanced aliens that are able to trick our eyes using super advanced technology far beyond our comprehension.

[Jehanne]

Let's say that only 1 out of 100 or so adult amputees were healed, but only on occasion, after fervent prayers, but yet on other occasions exactly 1000 were healed with no prayers immediately followed by the Earth stopping in its orbit about the Sun with no ill effects whatsoever except that the Earth's rotation immediately switched direction with the Sun rising in the West instead of the East followed by the Moon completely disappearing only to reappear exactly 73 days later, which was followed by a return to complete naturalistic normalcy, except for the fact that all of the observable galaxies in the Universe (save our own) have disappeared from view at all wavelengths of light only to all instaneously reappear exactly 13 years later to the exact second?

Maybe there would be those who would try to "model" this phenomenon, or, perhaps, such would be "proof positive" that electrons and protons have conscious wills.  I do not know, except physicalism would have, in my judgment, been thoroughly falsified.

It would certainly put physicalism into doubt here, though there will still be explanations that save physicalism in this case. For example, super advanced aliens that are able to trick our eyes using super advanced technology far beyond our comprehension.

Well, then, let's say that after all of this a god, super being, etc., showed-up glowing with white rage and began torturing any doubting physicalists from the inside out until they, willingly or not, changed their minds and publicly recanted physicalism?

[Angrboda]

It would certainly put physicalism into doubt here, though there will still be explanations that save physicalism in this case. For example, super advanced aliens that are able to trick our eyes using super advanced technology far beyond our comprehension.

Well, then, let's say that after all of this a god, super being, etc., showed-up glowing with white rage and began torturing any doubting physicalists from the inside out until they, willingly or not, changed their minds and publicly recanted physicalism?

The Duhem–Quine thesis, also called the Duhem–Quine problem, after Pierre Duhem and Willard Van Orman Quine, is that in science it is impossible to experimentally test a scientific hypothesis in isolation, because an empirical test of the hypothesis requires one or more background assumptions (also called auxiliary assumptions or auxiliary hypotheses): the thesis says that unambiguous scientific falsifications are impossible. In recent decades the set of associated assumptions supporting a thesis sometimes is called a bundle of hypotheses. Although a bundle of hypotheses (i.e. a hypothesis and its background assumptions) as a whole can be tested against the empirical world and be falsified if it fails the test, the Duhem–Quine thesis says it is impossible to isolate a single hypothesis in the bundle, a viewpoint called confirmation holism.

Wikipedia || Duhem-Quine thesis