Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Why science can’t study the supernatural – A physicist’s view

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email
boo
Oh please, let us guess just this once: You were going to say ... Boo! Right?

From Rob Sheldon

Why can’t the paranormal and spiritual realms be subject to scientific analysis? The materialist says “Because they don’t exist.” and therefore all signals are spurious and a waste of resources.

The intelligent design theorist says “coherence is not just a sign of extra dimensions, but a sign of front-loaded purpose”. Therefore the paranormal might not be “spooky action-at-a-distance” but a design feature of simultaneous causation. If A is correlated to B, it may be that A doesn’t cause B, or B cause A, but previous design C causes both A and B such that they are correlated.

Lipstick and breast cancer are correlated, but neither causes the other.

But if we look at the meta-studies, if we ask, what is the benefit of studying the paranormal versus ignoring it? We find the curious phenomenon that the Enlightenment advanced precisely where it ignored the paranormal. Thus it would seem that studying the paranormal wasn’t merely a distraction, but a degradation of science.

Stanley Jaki argues in “The Savior of Science” and several of his other books, that bad metaphysics, such as looking for paranormal effects, waylaid the nascent scientific progress of the Greeks, the Babylonians, the Persians, the Caliphate and even the Jewish Kabbala. Only the severe discipline of the Enlightenment materialism could negotiate the shoals of bad metaphysics.

I’ve come to a similar answer, though phrased a little differently. Inasmuch as the paranormal and spiritism are “personal”, possessing the characteristics of contingent personality, then it is dangerous to study them as a machine. This is like BF Skinner studying humans as if they were a computer program.

Economists can tell you the danger of doing this. Not only does this give the wrong answer, but it even gives the wrong questions. What makes people people, and what makes the divine divine is precisely the personal, and therefore science does a disservice to theology when it reduces the personal to machinery. But worse, it invites the ghost into the machine.

More precisely, the Bible condemns even the exploration of the occult, because of its parasitic relationship to persons.

We all understand computer viruses. And thanks to global warmists, we are beginning to understand the power of positive feedback and what money does to our science models. But we have yet to understand what psychology does to common sense, or what evolutionary biology does to our sanity.

Inasmuch as the paranormal is personal, it is forbidden for the same reason that the occult is forbidden–it infects our mind.

Thoughts? – UD News

Comments
Hi aiguy, I have told you that "intelligence" in this case refers to agency and all livng organisms would fall into that category. And as Meyer has written all computer stuff can be traced back to us. I have also told you that if it is ever demonstrated that blind and undirected processes can produce a living organism from non-living matter then ID's claim that agency is something other than nature is nicely refuted.Joe
February 11, 2012
February
02
Feb
11
11
2012
02:44 PM
2
02
44
PM
PDT
Eugene,
What about animal agents? Have you just forgotten about them or do you think animals are unintelligent?
Whether or not animals are "intelligent" depends entirely on how you define "intelligent" rather than on our views about animals, of course. If ID ever bothered to publish a canonical, technical definition of this ill-defined word, there would actually be a fact of the matter. I would say all living organisms are intelligent and all natural (non-man-made) intelligent things are living organisms. The only exception to this would be computer systems, which can also be intelligent (i.e. they can learn, solve novel problems, generate plans, etc).aiguy_again
February 11, 2012
February
02
Feb
11
11
2012
02:39 PM
2
02
39
PM
PDT
Unless this changes, ID will never actually be able to support its hypothesis that non-human agents exist.
What about animal agents? Have you just forgotten about them or do you think animals are unintelligent?Eugene S
February 11, 2012
February
02
Feb
11
11
2012
01:36 PM
1
01
36
PM
PDT
The scientific evidence for ghosts is very poor,
I disagree and would love to have any scientist stay a night at any of a short list of places.
and since ID needs to demonstrate the possibility of non-human agency in order to support its hypothesis
No, all we need to do that is the evidence and the knowledge that something caused it to be the way it is. As for abiogenesis I am saying that all you have to do to refute my/ ID's claim is demonstrate that a living organism can arise from non-living matter via blind and undirected processes.Joe
February 11, 2012
February
02
Feb
11
11
2012
11:15 AM
11
11
15
AM
PDT
Hi Joe, The scientific evidence for ghosts is very poor, and since ID needs to demonstrate the possibility of non-human agency in order to support its hypothesis, it would behoove ID to invest in paranormal research. But not only does ID fail to engage any such research, ID proponents (like Dembski and O'Leary) actually deny that paranormal research has anything to do with ID! Unless this changes, ID will never actually be able to support its hypothesis that non-human agents exist. As far as abiogenesis research providing evidence that living things are not reducible to matter/energy: Are you making the point that since we don't understand how to produce a living thing, then it must be the case that something other than matter/energy is involved?aiguy_again
February 11, 2012
February
02
Feb
11
11
2012
11:08 AM
11
11
08
AM
PDT
I don’t quite see how “life” can be rightly termed an “entity”, nor how anything resembling life can be present without energy or matter.
Oh well, geez, someone named "Bydand" can't quite see- that is the best scientific refution EVER! I am doomed.
I’m also interested in knowing how “information” can persist and be “processed” without matter or energy – the one to record it, the other to transmit it.
Did I say that?
Sorry, Joe – once you take away matter and energy, you have NOTHING.
Good luck finding evidence to support that.
“Information is information, neither matter nor energy. Any materialism which disregards this, will not survive one day.”- Norbert Weiner
Joe
February 11, 2012
February
02
Feb
11
11
2012
06:11 AM
6
06
11
AM
PDT
I wasn’t making a cosmological argument for the origin of matter-energy-space-time.
I was.
I was talking specifically about living organisms.
You can't do that until you can demonstrate how they arose from non-living matter via blind and undirected processes. And my mask is slipping because YOU keep moving the goalposts? My position about the second law has ALWAYS pertained to the OoL- ALWAYS. My claim has NOTHING to do with what living organisms do. Yet here you are still pushing the strawman.Joe
February 11, 2012
February
02
Feb
11
11
2012
06:05 AM
6
06
05
AM
PDT
Hi aiguy:
You’ve said that ID claimed that mind was not reducible to matter. I’ve asked you what evidence you have for this, and you have replied that there is evidence for ghosts.
AGAIN, that is incorrect. As I said the evidence for ghosts means there is evidence for non-human agency. The evidence that a living organism is not reducible to matter and energy is in abiogenesis research.Joe
February 11, 2012
February
02
Feb
11
11
2012
06:01 AM
6
06
01
AM
PDT
I don't quite see how "life" can be rightly termed an "entity", nor how anything resembling life can be present without energy or matter. I'm also interested in knowing how "information" can persist and be "processed" without matter or energy - the one to record it, the other to transmit it. Sorry, Joe - once you take away matter and energy, you have NOTHING.Bydand
February 10, 2012
February
02
Feb
10
10
2012
02:25 PM
2
02
25
PM
PDT
Joe, You've said that ID claimed that mind was not reducible to matter. I've asked you what evidence you have for this, and you have replied that there is evidence for ghosts. Things like ghosts are called "paranormal" phenomena. Therefore, ID's claims are based on evidence from paranormal research.aiguy_again
February 10, 2012
February
02
Feb
10
10
2012
08:34 AM
8
08
34
AM
PDT
8.1.1.3.13 Elizabeth, It is no use repeating that somebody's claims are not supported until one actually learns what the opponent is actually saying. I use the definitions provided by Abel in "The first gene". Please refer to the book for explanations and nomenclature.Eugene S
February 10, 2012
February
02
Feb
10
10
2012
07:12 AM
7
07
12
AM
PDT
Chas: I addressed matter. I addressed energy. Joe: No, you haven’t. To address those you have to explain how those came to be and you haven’t done that.
Moving the goalposts much, Joe? I wasn't making a cosmological argument for the origin of matter-energy-space-time. I was addressing the question of the media through which biological entities manifest themselves. Life runs itself, with (as far as we can tell) no thermodynamic exceptions. But it is not a perpetual motion machine. Incoming energy keeps it spinning.
Chas: I explained how Life does not violate the second law of thermodynamics. Joe: You have NOT explained how the OoL from non-living matter via blind and undirected processes does not violate the second law.
I was talking specifically about living organisms. This is neither a cosmological question, nor an 'OOL' one, but about the energetic relations of individual organisms. Their lives are conducted ENTIRELY within the rule of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Clearly, this principle would also govern the OOL - we cannot expect ANY reaction to take place against its thermodynamic gradient without the input of energy. But I was talking of trees, and bacteria, and you, and pizzas - things already living, or recently so, begat by things also living. Not about "First Life".
You are a misguided liar.
Misguided I certainly may be, but liar I am not. I make honest attempts to address the science behind your blithering. If I do so incomprehensibly, that is a problem, but I am being honest. So far, in this subthread, you have called me a liar on several occasions, and a "spaz", and a wanker. Water off a duck's back really, but your mask's slipping, Joseph.Chas D
February 10, 2012
February
02
Feb
10
10
2012
04:51 AM
4
04
51
AM
PDT
I addressed matter. I addressed energy.
No, you haven't. To address those you have to explain how those came to be and you haven't done that.
I explained how Life does not violate the second law of thermodynamics.
You have NOT explained how the OoL from non-living matter via blind and undirected processes does not violate the second law. You are a misguided liar.Joe
February 10, 2012
February
02
Feb
10
10
2012
04:21 AM
4
04
21
AM
PDT
Hi aiguy:
Any evidence (for mind transcending physical cause) that you might be referring to would be from paranormal research.
That's what you say, but who are you?
Since you’ve already agreed that ID is predicated on the truth of paranormal claims,
Nope, you are confused. Also ID is NOT about the designer. ID is about the design and the design is not paranormal. IOW you are really confused.Joe
February 10, 2012
February
02
Feb
10
10
2012
04:16 AM
4
04
16
AM
PDT
I read it all and it doesn’t have anything to do with the question “Are living organisms reducible to matter and energy?” The trouble is you say stuff that is irrelevant and you think it is relevant.
I addressed matter. I addressed energy. I addressed the 'informatic' principle that underlies the ordering of matter and energy into supposedly thermodynamically improbable configurations. I explained how Life does not violate the second law of thermodynamics. How can all that NOT have anything to do with the question “Are living organisms reducible to matter and energy?. You have babbled vaguely about the additional components Information (as though it was something you could eat and turn into other information), and Life. As I said in my post, Life IS matter, energy and an 'organising principle' that derives entirely from the chemical properties of certain remarkable molecules and their interactions - ie matter and energy. That's the biological viewpoint. You may subscribe to some woolly notions about biological information occupying some realm outside of the physical, but that seems unsupported. Unless you are proferring some kind of supernatural essence that has to keep operating in order for organisms to stay alive - ie, individual organisms don't just 'run themselves' - then I don't see what else is on offer.Chas D
February 10, 2012
February
02
Feb
10
10
2012
01:31 AM
1
01
31
AM
PDT
Any evidence (for mind transcending physical cause) that you might be referring to would be from paranormal research. Given that paranormal research has not been pursued with much funding or enthusiasm by either ID enthusiasts or mainstream science, the evidence for paranormal phenomena is presently at best controversial and at worst nonexistent. Since you've already agreed that ID is predicated on the truth of paranormal claims, one would think you'd be arguing for starting an ID research program to try and scientifically support the claim that mind can operate outside of brains. But you don't. And even worse, other ID proponents actively argue against this sort of research. Sounds to me like ID really doesn't want to submit its claims to scientific testing after all.aiguy_again
February 9, 2012
February
02
Feb
9
09
2012
05:26 PM
5
05
26
PM
PDT
I said IF the evidence leads us to the metaphysical, then so be it. Others have said that same thing- eg Scott Minnich.Joe
February 9, 2012
February
02
Feb
9
09
2012
05:10 PM
5
05
10
PM
PDT
I didn't say the evidence leads us to the metaphysical - it doesn't. I said there is no empirical evidence, which means the question remains in philosophical (metaphysical) debate rather than the realm of the scientific. If you disagree, then you are referring to paranormal research. Yet ID proponents (like the recent O'Leary post, linked above) refuse to consider any evidence for paranormal phenomena! Sounds like a bit of a bind for ID pretending to be scientific :-)aiguy_again
February 9, 2012
February
02
Feb
9
09
2012
04:51 PM
4
04
51
PM
PDT
However, this position is based solely on metaphysical assumptions, since at present it can neither be verified nor falsified by appeal to empirical evidence.
I disagree and I say you are making a bald assertion. And I also say if the evidence leads us to the metaphysical then so be it.Joe
February 9, 2012
February
02
Feb
9
09
2012
04:46 PM
4
04
46
PM
PDT
Nothing to get as it didn't have anything to do with what Berlinski said. And Berlinski talks about the second law-> that is how it is relevant to the subthread.Joe
February 9, 2012
February
02
Feb
9
09
2012
04:44 PM
4
04
44
PM
PDT
I read it all and it doesn't have anything to do with the question “Are living organisms reducible to matter and energy?” The trouble is you say stuff that is irrelevant and you think it is relevant.Joe
February 9, 2012
February
02
Feb
9
09
2012
04:41 PM
4
04
41
PM
PDT
Yes, it has to be due to heritable variation. The variation doesn’t have to be “random”.
If it is directed by some built-in response then it can hardly be called "natural". The variation for natural selection has to be by chance. Why would I listen to Noble if I want to know what Dawkins says? Does the lecture contain any evidence that blind and undirected chemical processes can construct new, useful multi-protein configurations? How about any evidence from developmental biology/ evo-devo that would support the claim of mammals having a fish for an ancestor? I started listening to it but didn't find it compelling enough to get through it. And it didn't strike me as good discussion material. Let me try it again...Joe
February 9, 2012
February
02
Feb
9
09
2012
04:13 PM
4
04
13
PM
PDT
I agree that many people regard as not improbable the proposition that life arose from inanimate chemicals and then became more and more diverse until the present day. But that is exactly the bone of contention, isn’t it? I would argue that first, it is on its face highly improbable, and second, there is no actual evidence for its claimed probability. No one has even a viable theory of how life could have arisen initially in any way that is remotely probable,
Well, there are several potentially viable theories.
and there is no evidence that Darwinian processes can have produced any macro-evolutionary change without repeatedly overcoming impossibly huge probabilistic barriers.
Well, I'd disagree, I think, but it depends of course on what you call "macro-evolutionary change" and what you count as a "natural" process.
Secondly, the Second Law does apply to open systems. That is precisely his point. The mathematics of the Second Law can be paraphrased as, “The amount of thermodynamic order in an open system cannot increase faster than that which is imported across the boundary of the system.” So I’ll repeat my original point. ID implies that the only phenomenon capable of violating the Second Law of Thermodynamics is intelligence. This has major implications for the nature of intelligence.
Well, it would if true, but it isn't true. Intelligence can't violate the 2LoT. Nothing can. Unless, as I suggested upthread, you are suggesting that supernatural intelligence can. In which case, of course, we have no precedent, because natural intelligence can't.Elizabeth Liddle
February 9, 2012
February
02
Feb
9
09
2012
03:43 PM
3
03
43
PM
PDT
Sorry! And did I respond already and forget, or did I just miss it? Things do get lost here, I find. Did you like it?Elizabeth Liddle
February 9, 2012
February
02
Feb
9
09
2012
03:20 PM
3
03
20
PM
PDT
I keep recommending that lecture, but haven’t had any feedback on it from anyone here! I’d be interested in your reaction.
Liz, I've fed back twice! I know these things can get lost in the cross-talk, though ...Chas D
February 9, 2012
February
02
Feb
9
09
2012
03:14 PM
3
03
14
PM
PDT
It had absolutely nothing to do with what Berlinski said.
Of course it did - you just didn't get it. Anyway, what did the Berlinski quote have to do with the OP or the thermodynamic subthread? You throw in something OT and then complain about non-sequiturs?Chas D
February 9, 2012
February
02
Feb
9
09
2012
03:12 PM
3
03
12
PM
PDT
Joe,
It is safe to stay the position of Intelligent Design is that living organisms are not reducible to matter, energy, chance and necessity.
I completely agree with you - that is indeed the position of Intelligent Design. However, this position is based solely on metaphysical assumptions, since at present it can neither be verified nor falsified by appeal to empirical evidence. Since ID is predicated upon this claim, it means all of ID is utterly dependent upon the truth of an ancient metaphysical claim that cannot be demonstrated. But scientific paranormal research has the potential of changing all this! If ID was serious about being a science instead of a religion, it would actively pursue some evidence - any good evidence - that human thought transcends physical cause. Unfortunately, here is Ms. ID News arguing against the study paranormal phenomena! https://uncommondescent.com/physics/why-science-cant-study-the-supernatural-a-physicists-view/ Go figure.aiguy_again
February 9, 2012
February
02
Feb
9
09
2012
03:10 PM
3
03
10
PM
PDT
So tell us what does ““Living organisms order disordered chemistry”- have to do with the question “Are living organisms reducible to matter and energy?”
It was the first sentence of a longer piece on that very topic at 19.1.1.4. A brief look at the energy-matter relations of living organisms, and the relationship between their informational and thermodynamic constraints. Care to move on to sentence 2 now? We'll allow you to digest that, then move on to 3 in a little while. The trouble is, when you read so slowly, you lose track of the argument. Try and read it all together.Chas D
February 9, 2012
February
02
Feb
9
09
2012
03:08 PM
3
03
08
PM
PDT
VJ, Yes, I would oppose psychic research, and perhaps for the reasons you mentioned, but here's my way of saying it. Long-range correlations are a fine thing to research, but you are right, they don't give causality. To assume causality is to make a decision as to whether we are looking at a machine or a person. That is, if I were to say, "Obama's education in Indonesia caused him to become President" you would treat this as an interesting thesis that could never be proven. If I were to say, "the double slits caused the photon to produce an interference pattern" you would think this hypothesis could be proven true or false. Which of these two objectives is psychic research purporting to be? If you think it is anything like the 2nd one, then I argue you are making the Margaret Mead error. Even if, like some have tried to convince the military, a psychic with 60% success is a big advantage over a 50% chance, I would argue that the moment you rely on the psychic, you will see that success rate plummet below 50%. Why? Because the psychic knows that you are relying on her. And therefore the result is never objective, never even probabilistic, it is personal. Even Ahitophel, whose psychic powers were reported to be nearly divine, could not figure out whether he should support David or Absalom. He could give advice to others, but he could not advise himself. Why? Recursion. He couldn't imagine anyone not listening to him, so when he was undermined, he hung himself--again, unable to imagine others showing him the mercy he could not himself provide. And I think the military came to the same conclusion, probably more than once, that despite a psychic's better than average abilities, they are never able to deliver when it mattered. Which, as I have repeatedly suggested, is the characteristic of (unreliable) persons, not of things, and therefore requires the person-toolset not the science-toolset to properly utilize. E.g., psychic research comes under the scrutiny of Proverbs, not of Science.Robert Sheldon
February 9, 2012
February
02
Feb
9
09
2012
03:07 PM
3
03
07
PM
PDT
Yes, it has to be due to heritable variation. The variation doesn't have to be "random". I don't think "The Selfish Gene" is a great book tbh. But if you are going to re-read it, I do suggest you also either listen to that Denis Noble lecture or read Noble's very short book, The Music of Life which is an excellent counter-weight. I keep recommending that lecture, but haven't had any feedback on it from anyone here! I'd be interested in your reaction.Elizabeth Liddle
February 9, 2012
February
02
Feb
9
09
2012
03:04 PM
3
03
04
PM
PDT
1 2 3 6

Leave a Reply