Path: utzoo!hoptoad!amdcad!decwrl!ucbvax!jade!ig!uwmcsd1!csd4.milw.wisc.edu!markh From: markh@csd4.milw.wisc.edu (Mark William Hopkins) Newsgroups: alt.flame Subject: Re: Christmas Celebration Keywords: Pseudo-science, Convergence Message-ID: <4135@uwmcsd1.UUCP> Date: 11 Jan 88 02:08:46 GMT References: <3445@ihlpl.ATT.COM> <7706@eddie.MIT.EDU> <5409@sol.ARPA> <4079@uwmcsd1.UUCP> <534@gethen.UUCP> Sender: daemon@uwmcsd1.UUCP Reply-To: markh@csd4.milw.wisc.edu (Mark William Hopkins) Distribution: alt.flame Organization: University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee Lines: 164 In article <534@gethen.UUCP> farren@gethen.UUCP (Michael J. Farren) writes: >In article <4079@uwmcsd1.UUCP>, markh@csd4.milw.wisc.edu (Mark William Hopkins) writes: >>In article <512@gethen.UUCP> farren@gethen.UUCP (Michael J. Farren) writes: >>>And here I thought that Mark might be going to give us an example of >>>where science and religion coincide, rather than an example of where >>>pseudo-science and religion happen to touch on the same subjects. >> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >> >> Perhaps you ought to read the journals before hastily coming to such >> conclusions about the nature of these investigations. > >Which journals are you talking about? You can find them in your library (which was what I was assuming you would do.) You're a big boy now. > >>I also believed it >>was pseudo-science until curiousity compelled me to look (which so few ever >>bother to do). That the experiences exist is not in question. > >Oh? Last time I checked, there was CONSIDERABLE question. The question >isn't, by the way, whether or not people believe that they've experienced >these phenomena, but whether or not the phenomena themselves were real >ones. Even Elizabeth Kubler-Ross admits that these are spiritual questions, >not scientific ones. There is no question that people experience these things. I think what you are trying to say is that there is a question of whether these experiences are "all in the head". If you begin to question if the experiences even existed (in reality or even as illusions) you're going to be calling a lot of people liars. Also, Kubler-Ross has designed no experiments to resolve the issue on the nature of these experiences. It is empirical. This much is obvious, though I wouldn't go killing myself over it (PUN, PUN!). > >>But people do experience these experiences. > >Maybe so, maybe not. This says nothing about whether or not this is >scientific evidence, though. Generally, it is not. "Maybe so, maybe not"? Again I think what you are questioning is whether these experiences are real or not. > >> About Pre-Birth experiences, this is something YOU CAN VERIFY OR REFUTE. > >Bull. This is something you can accept or reject, but there is no possible >way to scientifically verify or refute it. Therefore, it isn't science, >and you shouldn't try to maintain that it is. > >> It is time that we realise that when dealing with the sciences of the mind >>or with sciences concerning people, testimony becomes a valid form of evidence >>until something better comes along. > >And as long as this is true, then the 'sciences' you are talking about are >NOT sciences, but only speculation. If, and only if, the testimony of >human beings is not the sole evidence of the existence of a phenomenon, >then it may be possible to start to investigate those phenomena scientifically. >Remember, testimony would have it that astrology is a scientific discipline; I would like to see HOW you can prove Astology using peoples' testimony... WITH THE REQUIREMENT ON CONSISTENCY, THAT YOU OMITTED FROM MY QUOTATION. >at least, a majority of people seem to believe that astrology works. Is this what you think I meant by testimony?! I would never base a theory on peoples' BELIEFS. It would be inconsistent, for one thing. It would have no basis in reality, since peoples' beliefs usually do not (as you are showing us all (I have no beliefs concerning Astrology or Near Death Experiences)). Testimony means something else all toghether. To show you how one would base Astrology on REAL testimony, I'll give you a copy of a simple experiment, that uses nothing more than peoples' self-perception (it is actually something that can be done here and now over the net, given enough participants to ensure statistical validity). >That does NOT mean that it is science! You can't have it any other way. Even the so-called hard sciences rely exclusively on peoples' testimony (testimony concerning experiments that have been performed.) Also, as a Physicist (what did you think I was?), I can tell you that Physics is very more speculative than the research concerning these experiences; especially the theoretical Physics concerning Quantum Gravity, whose speculations are grounded in practically no experiments. at all >> You did not say anything about my examples concerning Quantum Theory or >>Cantor's theory of transfinite Cardinals and Ordinals. I recommend a book by >>Rudy Rucker called "Infinity and the Mind." You do not mean to say that any >>of these are pseudo-sciences do you? > >No, I didn't say anything about them. The difference between them and the >various Pre-Birth and Post-Death experience theories is, simply, that >they, at least, are verifiable by means outside of the vagaries of the >individual human mind. As a Logician (yes, I am also that), I can tell you that this is not true. No Mathematical theory can be employed to prove its own consistency ... unless it is inconsistent. This beautiful knot makes consistency a permanently open issue. In the end, it all depends on faith. So, as far as Mathematics is concerned, there is no means of verification with the strictness you demand. It is not a dead issue, because nobody even knows how far the "tower" of ordinals goes before the ordinals are too large to be sets. It may be that infinite sets do not even exist in the first place (meaning that it may be possible to prove the Axiom of Infinity of set theory inconsistent with the rest of set theory). It all goes back to Mathematical intuition in the end. >Various tenets of Quantam Theory have been >PROVEN true - not by people asserting that they are true, but by >experimentation. The Aspect experiments (which you refer to) did not prove the Copenhagen version of Quantum Theory. It only ruled out the existence of so-called Local Hidden Variables. It left a lot of issues open, particularily about the existance of Global Hidden Variables. I suggest you look in any of the research journals on Quantum Theory. >The same is NOT true of any of the 'research' you describe. > >The reason I describe things like the Near-Death Experience research >as 'pseudo-science' is simply because the proponents of those theories ^^^^^^^^ This is very curious, because THERE ARE NO THEORIES ON NDE's TO DATE. >(along with many, many others), insist that their theories be taken >as truth, You did not read the journals, like I suggested you do. Nobody in the field treats Near Death Experience as having already been proven to occur outside the mind. They haven't gotten past that stage (though I know of an ingenious experiment, using EEG readouts, to set THAT straight too. It relies on the obvious assumption that NOTHING CAN GO ON IN THE MIND WHEN THE BRAIN IS DEAD. That is, the only way for the experiment TO PROVE THE EXISTENCE OF PERCEPTION AFTER BRAIN DEATH is if you assume that PERCEPTION AFTER BRAIN DEATH IS NOT POSSIBLE. Another beautiful knot!, exactly like Goedel's Second Theorem of Incompleteness.) >with no attempt at any methodical justification of them outside ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ where did you get this from ? ...especially when you do not know what NDE research does, or is about. I am curious... TELL me what you think NDE research does. >of the theories themselves. THERE ARE NO THEORIES ON NDE's YET. >This is NOT science. I'm not claiming that >they are, necessarily, invalid observations, but neither am I claiming, >as so many of the proponents of those types of beliefs do, that they are Truth I think you've been hanging aroud with the wrong crowd too long. I know of nobody that insists that these experiences are real; except, of course, those who have actually had the experiences (like my step-mother did). >They are no more Truth than are any other observations of human >behavior. When you get right down to it, they are more religious in >nature than scientific. ALL RELIGIOUS ISSUES ARE, IN THE END, EMPIRICAL. So what's the ultimate difference between religion and science? ... and would you PLEASE, PLEASE stop pandering over this issue until you check to see what you are actually talking about. Go to your library, you're a big boy (who can think for himself) now. It's easier to form your own opinion rather than taking the easy way out (read: by being the devil's advocate).