OT - Scientific proof that there is no afterlife!

[Tigbit]

Originally posted by Grandpa Kim:
Hey, Fyron! Are you saying my particles are all wavy? Hmm. That would explain the permanent kink in my neck.

It is theoretically possible to change the frequency of the partical-waves so that two objects can occupy the same space at the same time.

[General Woundwort]

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
What others? Please bring me some pictures from these other dimensions of yours. There is no proof of the existence of other dimensions, only a plethora of hypothesis (no theories, as there is no proof or concrete evidence of them).

If there were a picture, what would it look like? How could you tell?

Seriously, there is of course no direct evidence for hyperdimensions. But the mathematics of cosmology and quantum physics certainly point in that direction. And as for the standard of "direct evidence" itself, we don't have "direct evidence" for a lot of things (sub-atomic particles, "dark matter", etc) that are generally accepted. Heck, what "direct evidence" do I have for you other than these Posts (which are nothing more than electrons in cyberspace and my monitor)?

Yes, and the arguments against are just as well articulated. Good articulation does not make an argument correct, just well articulated.

But articulation betrays some intellectual acumen, does it not? I never accuse Nietzsche of being a dummy - nor Russell or other atheists. So the mere acceptance of theistic beliefs is no indication of stupidity either.

Reality just happens to support the arguments against supernatural reality a bit better, as there is no concrete evidence of these supernatural realities.

Again, "concrete evidence". What qualifies as "concrete evidence"? What is the tip-over point where naturalism can no longer be applied?

All humans are reasoning beings, meaning they have the capability to utilize rational thought, reason, logic, etc. I never said all humans exercise these abilities, just that they have them.

My point exactly.

[Tigbit]

Just a few words on "proof".

There is a common misconception about science and it's purpose. Science is viewed as a small group of elite setting out to prove one idea or another. This is incorrect.

The purpose of science is to "explain" phenomenon, to describe how it works or to simply provide useful predictions that may one day better the human condition and/or understanding of our universe.

A hypothesis is a guess, a theory is and explanation and a law is a theory that has withstood the test of time.

Science starts with a question. "Why does this do that?" It then forms a hypothesis (a guess). Then it tests this guess and either the guess is correct, in which case they move on to the next step, or they formulate a new hypothesis based on their findings. After a seemingly correct guess then they form a theory based on the data collected. This theory is tested and tested over and over again in an attempt to "disprove" it. Science never trys to "prove", for to do that is to ignore evidence contrary to the theory. The only way to form an "acurate" (not correct) theory is to try to disprove it and to encourage others to disprove it. Only by doing this can science be confident that they are successfully predicting outcomes or explaining prosesses.

[ August 18, 2003, 02:48: Message edited by: Tigbit ]

[Fyron]

If there were a picture, what would it look like? How could you tell?

Never said I could tell. Ah, sarcasm. Gotta love it.

Seriously, there is of course no direct evidence for hyperdimensions. But the mathematics of cosmology and quantum physics certainly point in that direction. And as for the standard of "direct evidence" itself, we don't have "direct evidence" for a lot of things (sub-atomic particles, "dark matter", etc) that are generally accepted. Heck, what "direct evidence" do I have for you other than these Posts (which are nothing more than electrons in cyberspace and my monitor)?

Please note that I NEVER used the term "direct evidence". It means something entirely different than "concrete evidence." There are plenty of examples of "concrete evidence" that rely on "indirect evidence," such as the evidence for nearly everything you mentioned. We have tons of indirect evidence of things like electrons, but no direct evidence.

But articulation betrays some intellectual acumen, does it not?

Einstein argued against the wave-like nature of particles of matter, insisting that only energy waves had particle-like properties. He was a smart guy, right? Well... being smart most assuredly does not automatically make you right (or even give you any more "rightness" than not being smart).

I never accuse Nietzsche of being a dummy - nor Russell or other atheists. So the mere acceptance of theistic beliefs is no indication of stupidity either.

Good thing I never implied such a thing.

Again, "concrete evidence". What qualifies as "concrete evidence"?

It varies depending on what is being discussed. Also, see above.

What is the tip-over point where naturalism can no longer be applied?

There is none.

[Fyron]

Originally posted by Tigbit:
Just a few words on "proof".

There is a common misconception about science and it's purpose. Science is viewed as a small group of elite setting out to prove one idea or another. This is incorrect.

The purpose of science is to "explain" phenomenon, to describe how it works or to simply provide useful predictions that may one day better the human condition and/or understanding of our universe.

A hypothesis is a guess, a theory is and explanation and a law is a theory that has withstood the test of time.

Science starts with a question. "Why does this do that?" It then forms a hypothesis (a guess). Then it tests this guess and either the guess is correct, in which case they move on to the next step, or they formulate a new hypothesis based on their findings. After a seemingly correct guess then they form a theory based on the data collected. This theory is tested and tested over and over again in an attempt to "disprove" it. Science never trys to "prove", for to do that is to ignore evidence contrary to the theory. The only way to form an "acurate" (not correct) theory is to try to disprove it and to encourage others to disprove it. Only by doing this can science be confident that they are successfully predicting outcomes or explaining prosesses.

I seem to have missed the point of making this post.

[Tigbit]

concrete evidence is evidence that can be tested. If it cannot be tested it is not concrete. Thus mathematical evidence is concrete evidence because it can be tested.

[General Woundwort]

Originally posted by Tigbit:
concrete evidence is evidence that can be tested. If it cannot be tested it is not concrete. Thus mathematical evidence is concrete evidence because it can be tested.

Does historical evidence qualify? Or eyewitness testimony?