What is the difference between pseudo science and metaphysics

[Underseer]

I see a lot of Christian apologists who passionately argue against all of science as a means of knowing the truth because methodological naturalism requires all scientists to be atheist, therefore all of science is false, therefore creationism is true.

Isn't the case that methodological naturalism, the viewpoint if not the term itself, was advocated by some, maybe just a few, Christian thinkers at some point in time... back in the Middle Ages?

Yes. That's exactly right. Yet somehow, a very large number of Christian apologists have decided that methodological naturalism is purely the result of a vast atheist conspiracy against Christianity. Even after you correct them about the difference between methodological and metaphysical naturalism and point out that methodological naturalism came from Christian scientists, they still insist that those Christian scientists were part of a vast atheist conspiracy.

I'm sure you could find some perfectly respectable Christian thinkers, still alive today, who would also insist on methodological naturalism. Well, at least for most phenomena. I think the emphasis was originally not to overdo God and therefore to limit reaching for the God-did-it explanation only when trully spiritual matters were in play.

However, I guess the creation of the universe does qualify as a trully momentous event with spiritual import! But you could maybe cut a deal. If you could present the creation of the universe as some pretty routine event with many such creations occurring pretty much all the time like, say, soap bubbles in your bath. Then the need to reach for God-did-it disappears, at least from the point of view of those Christian thinkers who do support a healthy dose of methodological naturalism.

The deal then would be for you to admit that science could not possibly answer the question of the creation of the whole of the physical reality, pretty much leaving the issue to a few fearless but deranged minds.

[...]

The problem with that is we already have some minor evidence of other universes, so the assumption that there will be no evidence to collect regarding the origin of the universe is probably a bad assumption.

 

[Speakpigeon]

The problem with that is we already have some minor evidence of other universes, so the assumption that there will be no evidence to collect regarding the origin of the universe is probably a bad assumption.

Yes, though I don't know the details, I understand that scientists have been pursuing this line of enquiry for a while now. That's why I suggested that the creation of our universe should be regarded as a routine event, one among many such events, like "soap bubbles in a bath".

My obvious point then was that the search for the origin of reality could not, ever, find the same felicitous denouement. Is that what you really wanted to disagree about?
EB

 

[fromderinside]

The problem with that is we already have some minor evidence of other universes, so the assumption that there will be no evidence to collect regarding the origin of the universe is probably a bad assumption.

Yes, though I don't know the details, I understand that scientists have been pursuing this line of enquiry for a while now. That's why I suggested that the creation of our universe should be regarded as a routine event, one among many such events, like "soap bubbles in a bath".

My obvious point then was that the search for the origin of reality could not, ever, find the same felicitous denouement. Is that what you really wanted to disagree about?
EB

Whoa. There's a lot of exclusion there. First I need to know what you mean by 'the same' in your statement. Do you mean like Underseer's comment 'there will be no evidence' or do you mean something less like 'there will be no universally agreed to evidence' which is what I took when you wrote 'should be regarded as a routine event, one among many...'. Maybe you are implying reality is particular to one describing it. Or do you mean when you say 'no same appropriate wrap up' you mean something else. Please be clear and precise.

 

[Speakpigeon]

First I need to know what you mean by 'the same' in your statement.

I mean the same...

Do you mean like Underseer's comment 'there will be no evidence'

I don't recall that Underseer said anything like 'there will be no evidence'.

Quite obviously, by "the same", I was referring to the felicitous denouement that scientists may be about to achieve with regard to the creation of the universe as being just one among many such routine events.

or do you mean something less like 'there will be no universally agreed to evidence' which is what I took when you wrote 'should be regarded as a routine event, one among many...'.

It is very, very unlikely that any evidence could possibly be universally agreed to.

I guess I could rephrase by saying that I think that most reasonable people would at some point probably agree to regard the creation of the universe as a routine event provided this view becomes mainstream science.

Maybe you are implying reality is particular to one describing it.

No, I take the notion of reality to mean to refer to something independent of our description of it, independent of any description of it.

Or do you mean when you say 'no same appropriate wrap up' you mean something else.

I certainly don't recall saying "no same appropriate wrap up".

Please be clear and precise.

I am.
EB

 

[fromderinside]

I mean the same...

I asked for your meaning of the same. You repetition of you statement is not a definition of your statement

Do you mean like Underseer's comment 'there will be no evidence'

I don't recall that Underseer said anything like 'there will be no evidence'.

First you point is not true.

The problem with that is we already have some minor evidence of other universes, so the assumption that there will be no evidence to collect regarding the origin of the universe is probably a bad assumption.

or do you mean something less li

ke 'there will be no universally agreed to evidence' which is what I took when you wrote 'should be regarded as a routine event, one among many...'.

It is very, very unlikely that any evidence could possibly be universally agreed to.

I guess I could rephrase by saying that I think that most reasonable people would at some point probably agree to regard the creation of the universe as a routine event provided this view becomes mainstream science.

So this would be, in your view 'the same'?

Maybe you are implying reality is particular to one describing it.

No, I take the notion of reality to mean to refer to something independent of our description of it, independent of any description of it.

Basic philosophy if one has an absolutist view of things I guess. Most of us come to an understanding, an agreement, of what is reality otherwise we wind up entertaining Berkeley in our dreams. Sure everyone understands one's reality isn't reality, but ,one also understands there needs be a common reality else we couldn't, among other things, evolve.

Or do you mean when you say 'no same appropriate wrap up' you mean something else.

I certainly don't recall saying "no same appropriate wrap up".

Really? Felicitous certainly can be interpreted as well suited or appropriate, and denouement is nicely framed by bringing together or wrap up.

Please be clear and precise.

I am.
EB

Obviously, as illustrated above, you are not.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Please be clear and precise.

I am.

Obviously, as illustrated above, you are not.

So, basically, you're saying that you don't understand the following:

Yes, though I don't know the details, I understand that scientists have been pursuing this line of enquiry for a while now. That's why I suggested that the creation of our universe should be regarded as a routine event, one among many such events, like "soap bubbles in a bath".

My obvious point then was that the search for the origin of reality could not, ever, find the same felicitous denouement. Is that what you really wanted to disagree about?

Specifically, you are telling us you didn't understand that my expression "the same felicitous denouement" straightforwardly referred to the passage immediately above, i.e. "scientists have been pursuing ... soap bubbles in a bath"?!?!
EB

 

[abaddon]

We have two different forums here, and I am not sure which one is about what.

Some bookstores have a section called “Metaphysics” where they lump together books on “energetic healing”, ESP and UFOs with how-to books on paganism and Hermetic magic. That could create confusion about what they mean by metaphysics.

 

[fromderinside]

Speakpigeon if your felicitous denouement comment refers to your understanding of underseer's text you quoted you missed his point.

Underseer's comment specifically referred to observations other than to the big bang suggesting there are ways to get at, empirically, what caused the big bang and our universe's definition. If the Big Bang is from a class of similar events - creation of our universe should be regarded as a routine event, one among many such events, like "soap bubbles in a bath" - then we are not limited to examining from our antecedents from within the bang, but we are also, theoretically, able to examine these other similar events and their interactions with our genesis and existence. We are looking at a system of which our universe is an integral part. If such is the case, theoretically, one should be able to specify in equations the big bang and from that the equations of us.

The is why I wondered what you meant by 'the same'. So you see I do understand underseer's comments and your comments arising from them would be satisfied if you provided your meaning for 'the same'.

Its a simple thing. However, if you insist on this walkabout, it is not worth my time walking along.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Speakpigeon if your felicitous denouement comment refers to your understanding of underseer's text you quoted you missed his point.

I just told you what it referred to, i.e. my line that "scientists have been pursuing ... soap bubbles in a bath". What is it you could possibly fail to understand in that?

I’m also pretty sure I understood the part I’m interested in, in what he has said, well enough to render my answer appropriate. But, I guess I can always retrace my reasoning just for ya’:

First, I wanted to react to Underseer’s line that “the assumption that there will be no evidence to collect regarding the origin of the universe is probably a bad assumption”. I wanted to react to because it left some room to see this line as a mistaken suggestion that the assumption in question may be one I was making. So, I rushed to express my acceptance that scientists could well be capable of collecting some evidence regarding the origin of the universe and no problem there. However, here you have to be careful about what I did. I wasn’t responding to what Underseer had thought, or what he had tried to imply. Rather, I was taking contingency measures by shooting down one possible implication of my own interpretation of what he had said, that's why the word "same" referred to my own comment. Now, if my interpretation was wrong, as you seem to suggest, then there was nothing to shoot down and I don’t need to care whether I understood him properly. Unless, perhaps, you could explain why I should care.

There was, however, another issue. The beginning of his line was “The problem with that is we already have some minor evidence of other universes”. I already said I was Ok with the assertion that scientists may already have evidence of other universes, so that’s not the issue. The issue was that he said he saw a problem. Now, this problem could only be with what I had said, specifically that “The deal then would be for you to admit that science could not possibly answer the question of the creation of the whole of the physical reality”. But if so then I couldn’t understand his reasoning that there was a problem, so I had to find out if he could be a bit more forthcoming, but first I had to make clear that I accepted the possibility of collecting evidence on the origin of the universe .

Well, at this point he hasn’t responded so I have to assume that my concern about the implication of what he had said was not founded or possibly that he has temporarily left for another universe and cannot reply just yet. So, we just have to wait, if only you could be quiet.

Underseer's comment specifically referred to observations other than to the big bang suggesting there are ways to get at, empirically, what caused the big bang and our universe's definition. If the Big Bang is from a class of similar events - creation of our universe should be regarded as a routine event, one among many such events, like "soap bubbles in a bath" - then we are not limited to examining from our antecedents from within the bang, but we are also, theoretically, able to examine these other similar events and their interactions with our genesis and existence. We are looking at a system of which our universe is an integral part. If such is the case, theoretically, one should be able to specify in equations the big bang and from that the equations of us.

I'm not sure what you point is here... Was that to show you understood Underseer?

The is why I wondered what you meant by 'the same'.

I still don't see why you needed to wonder about that given that what I meant was pretty straightforward and still, you keep going on about it! Beats me.

So you see I do understand underseer's comments

I don't remember suggesting otherwise so I still don't know what it's got to do with your "wondering".

and your comments arising from them would be satisfied if you provided your meaning for 'the same'.

I don't see the connection. Me, I think that my comment could only find an answer if Underseer ever got to reply.

Its a simple thing. However, if you insist on this walkabout, it is not worth my time walking along.

But I still don't understand what you have been on about!
EB

 

[fromderinside]

All that wasted reasoning about something (soap bubbles) that is not central to underseer's reference. See: Astronomers find first evidence of other universes (in abnormalities in microwave signals of our own universe) http://www.technologyreview.com/view/421999/astronomers-find-first-evidence-of-other-universes/

The points here are that two theories about other universes permitted observers to analyze signals from our own early universe suggesting interaction with other universes. Yes, one of the theories is a soap buble theory. But the evidence is abnormality in our own universe's signals. Such leads to the theoretical possibility, by observing such interactions and possibly other signals we will soon have capability to observe from for other universes more directly, to observe origins of our universe as part of a system (as I pointed out in my last post).

So not only did you miss underseer's point you missed mine as well. It all came about all because you apparently didn't bother to examiner underseer's reference. References are important for one to come to proper understandings. From probable sloth you have walked through all of this as a defense of an wrong understanding. Its not about soap bubble theory. It is because of soap bubble theory we now have observations of between universe interactions and we have pathways to more substantial evidence in the future.

 

[Speakpigeon]

All that wasted reasoning about something (soap bubbles) <snip>

I didn't reason about "soap bubbles".

All that wasted reasoning about something (soap bubbles) that is not central to underseer's reference.

I didn't suggest it was.

The points here are <snip>

I wasn't interested in Underseer's main point to start with. I was only interested in the possibility that he had misconstrued one of my point. Your interpretation is all wrong.

So not only did you miss underseer's point you missed mine as well. It all came about all because you apparently didn't bother to examiner underseer's reference. References are important for one to come to proper understandings. From probable sloth you have walked through all of this as a defense of an wrong understanding. Its not about soap bubble theory. It is because of soap bubble theory we now have observations of between universe interactions and we have pathways to more substantial evidence in the future.

So instead of trying to understand my patient explanations you prefer to ignore them altogether and go on about me missing points that, in fact, I never was interested in.
EB

 

[fromderinside]

RE: a previous post. http://talkfreethought.org/showthre...-and-metaphysics&p=50968&viewfull=1#post50968

QED!