Misquoting scientists

[DreadGeekGrrl]

Mr. Roemer:

You take two statements, one by Gould and one by Hawking and
*completely* misunderstanding (either deliberately or not).

Gould's statement is not saying that scientists concede that there is
a soul. He is saying (and I disagree with him on this, by the way)
that *given the terms of the discussion re: souls--that they are non-
corporeal, incapable of detection by any known means, have no
definable or even hypothetically definable physical properties that
can be detected by any conceivable means--there is no way for science
to address them. In the same way that science cannot address the
invisible, all-powerful, Great Red Dragon with 50 hit dice that lives
in my garage. You see, this dragon cannot be seen by anyone that she
does not want to be seen by, can make herself ethereal at will meaning
that I can be leaning up against her while you will pass through her,
draws nourishment from a dimension other than this one and excretes
whatever wastes products she makes into a portable hole that she has
floating just outside of her orifices. She is, therefore,
undetectable and, as such, science can say *nothing* about her. That
does not mean, of course, that there really is an invisible, all-
powerful, 50 hit dice Great Red Dragon living in my garage. However,
you cannot say that there is not because any argument that you could
come up with to attempt to disprove her existence I can counter that
she has already anticipated that line of attack and has
characteristics making her immune to such detection.

The Hawking statement is similar to the Gould statement. Since we can
*never* detect *anything* that occurs before the Planck time (10E-43
seconds) --no emanations because there was nothing TOO emanate nor was
there anyplace for it to emanate through--the question "what was there
before the Big Bang" is a question that is undefinable. Consider it
the physics equivalent of "divide by zero". There is simply no way to
make sense of that statement. Now, AFTER the Planck time there begins
to be a Universe and we can begin to talk about things (in this
instance microwave background radiation) emanating through it.
However, since the 'naked singularity' that WAS the Universe before
the Big Bang had no emanations (as far as I understand inflationary
cosmology) it is *meaningless* to talk about what came before the Big
Bang. Any speculations you wish to make are, of course, mere
speculations not backed up by any coherent physical theory and being
supported by no observations.

Cheers
DGG

[Alan Wostenberg]

Souls are beyond the theoretical scope of science as you understand
that term, just as the twin prime conjecture of mathematics is. It is
hardly scientific to claim all things beyond scope of the quantitative
sciences are irrational -- as irrational as that 50 hit dice Great Red
Dragon disanalogy. For math is one example of a non-scientific
rational method of inquiry. The Roemer video mentioned another:
metaphysical reasoning.

Your science is the study of being disclosed under quantity.
Metaphysics is the study of being as being. And it is quite false to
say souls are "incapable of detection by any known means". Detection
is trivial, once you know what a soul is.

By soul we mean the substantial form of a living body. "Substantial
form" is a basic technical term from philosophy you'll need to study
up on to participate in this method of inquiry. Now if there were no
souls, there'd be no living bodes. But notice living bodies do exist.
It follows souls exist. Probably this what the original poster meant
when he said "biologists must admit souls exist". The interesting
questions are about the nature, not the existence, of the soul. See
http://www.thegreatideas.org/apd-soul.html for example

[Drafterman]

On Jul 18, 11:46 pm, Alan Wostenberg <awo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Souls are beyond the theoretical scope of science as you understand
> that term, just as the twin prime conjecture of mathematics is. It is
> hardly scientific to claim all things beyond scope of the quantitative
> sciences are irrational -- as irrational as that 50 hit dice Great Red
> Dragon disanalogy. For math is one example of a non-scientific
> rational method of inquiry. The Roemer video mentioned another:
> metaphysical reasoning.

Perhaps the soul is outside the scope of science. But if it is so,
then that fact is not established by the mass rote repeitition of this
bare assertion by Christians as a way of trying to get their beliefs
accepted without scrutiny.

>
> Your science is the study of being disclosed under quantity.
> Metaphysics is the study of being as being.  And it is quite false to
> say souls are "incapable of detection by any known means". Detection
> is trivial, once you know what a soul is.
>
> By soul we mean the substantial form of a living body.  "Substantial
> form" is a basic technical term from philosophy you'll need to study
> up on to participate in this method of inquiry. Now if there were no
> souls, there'd be no living bodes. But notice living bodies do exist.
> It follows souls exist. Probably this what the original poster meant
> when he said "biologists must admit souls exist".  The interesting

> questions are about the nature, not the existence, of the soul. Seehttp://www.thegreatideas.org/apd-soul.htmlfor example

> > DGG- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Alan Wostenberg]

By all means scrutinize the nature and existence of the soul. Take
care to use the right tool for the job.

[Drafterman]

On Jul 23, 12:38 am, Alan Wostenberg <awo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> By all means scrutinize the nature and existence of the soul. Take
> care to use the right tool for the job.

I am not aware of any observation or phenomenon that requires me to
posit the existence of a soul in order to explain it.

But it is interesting that, when I accuse you of not backing up your
assertion that a soul exists and is outside the scope of science, you
refuse to back up your assertion that a soul exists and is outside the
scope of science and attempt to place that burden on me.

> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[Alan Wostenberg]

The answer to your first question lies in the third paragraph of my
first reply to original poster.

[Drafterman]

On Jul 24, 1:33 pm, Alan Wostenberg <awo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The answer to your first question lies in the third paragraph of my
> first reply to original poster.

How does pointing out the specific location of your baseless,
unsupported assertion make it not a baseless, unsupported assertion?

[Alan Wostenberg]

The reference was only intended to address your first question "I am
unaware of any observation..."

[Belly Bionic]

Still more misquoting. What a shock. I can't help noticing that you
didn't quote the bit about "any observation or phenomenon that
*requires* (emphasis mine) me to posit the existence of a soul in
order to explain it." Your personal, unsupported observation does not
require a thing from Drafterman or anyone else, no matter how much you
wish it did.

[Drafterman]

On Jul 28, 5:20 pm, Alan Wostenberg <awo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The reference was only intended to address your first question "I am
> unaware of any observation..."

That was a question?

[Alan Wostenberg]

The observation and argument concluding "therefore souls exist" is
spelled out right there in that third paragraph of my initial reply.
It's based on an observation of nature you can make right now.=

[Drafterman]

On Jul 29, 8:03 pm, Alan Wostenberg <awo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The observation and argument concluding "therefore souls exist" is
> spelled out right there in that third paragraph of my initial reply.
> It's based on an observation of nature you can make right now.=

"By soul we mean the substantial form of a living body. "Substantial
form" is a basic technical term from philosophy you'll need to study
up on to participate in this method of inquiry."

This is merely the establishment of a definition. No argument here.

"Now if there were no souls, there'd be no living bodes. But notice
living bodies do exist.
It follows souls exist."

This is an argument, yes, but the first premise "If there were no
souls, there'd be no living bodies" false under the category of "bare
assertion" that I already noted in *my* first reply. As yet you've
done nothing to change this, except repeating it (or repeatedly
referring to it), which I already informed you does not establish it
as truth nor does it make it excempt from scrutiny. Hence, I am
scrutinizing it.

Your provided link does nothing to remedy these problems.

[Alan Wostenberg]

Thanks for taking another look at the first post. It is, as you said,
“an argument”. It is an argument of the form
1. if not p then not q
2. q.
3. therefore, p.

Such an argument is valid if it’s premises follow from it’s
conclusions. It is sound if it’s premises are true.

Now this argument makes only one “bare assertion” as it has but one
premise: q. Do you doubt q? Do you doubt there are living bodies? I
doubt you doubt that! Most likely your difficulty is not with the /
only/ premise in this argument. Very likely it is you think the
conclusion does not follow from the premise. To review:

Let “soul” mean ‘the substantial form of a living body”.

If there were no souls there would be no living bodies.
there are living bodies.
therefore, there are souls.

Clearly in the definition of soul as the substantial form of a living
body, there is some connection between souls and life. Let’s examine
that connection from another angle next time.

[Drafterman]

On Jul 31, 12:18 am, Alan Wostenberg <awo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Thanks for taking another look at the first post. It is, as you said,
> “an argument”. It is an argument of the form
> 1. if not p then not q
> 2. q.
> 3. therefore, p.
>
> Such an argument is valid if it’s premises follow from it’s
> conclusions. It is sound if it’s premises are true.
>
> Now this argument makes only one “bare assertion” as it has but one
> premise: q.  Do you doubt q? Do you doubt there are living bodies? I
> doubt you doubt that!  Most likely your difficulty is not with the /
> only/ premise in this argument.  Very likely it is you think the
> conclusion does not follow from the premise.  To review:
>
> Let “soul” mean ‘the substantial form of a living body”.
>
> If there were no souls there would be no living bodies.
> there are living bodies.
> therefore, there are souls.
>
> Clearly in the definition of soul as the substantial form of a living
> body, there is some connection between souls and life.  Let’s examine
> that connection from another angle next time.

"If p, then q is a premise." I disagree with that premise in this
instance. It is a bare assertion.

Fix it.

> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -

[Drafterman]

Errata

"If not p, then not q" is the premise not "if p then q". Subtle error.

> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>

[Alan Wostenberg]

If we said "if aliens exist then they are not from earth" and somebody
replied "I disagree with this assertion; fix it", what would we make
of this statement? He doesn't know what we mean by "alien". Perhaps he
is thinking of illegal aliens not unearthly ones.

Likewise, when we say "if there were no souls there would be no living
organisms" and somebody replied "I disagree; fix it" what are we to
make of it? He does not know what we mean by soul. For the definition
of the soul as " the form of a / living / organism" just means "if no
soul, no living organism".

A far more reasonable objection, indicating this person grasps the
core term, would be "so plants have souls?"

> ...
>
> read more »

[Drafterman]

On Jul 31, 3:58 pm, Alan Wostenberg <awo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> If we said "if aliens exist then they are not from earth" and somebody
> replied "I disagree with this assertion; fix it", what would we make
> of this statement? He doesn't know what we mean by "alien". Perhaps he
> is thinking of illegal aliens not unearthly ones.

Or we could say that he disagrees that the statement is true. That is
he does not agree that "if aliens exist, then they are not from earth"

In this specific example, that seems nonsensical since the statement
is a tautology, being merely a statement of the definition of the word
alien. In this regard your analogy fails, since this is not the case
with your actual argument.

>
> Likewise, when we say "if there were no souls there would be no living
> organisms" and somebody replied "I disagree; fix it" what are we to
> make of it? He does not know what we mean by soul. For the definition
> of the soul as " the form of a / living / organism" just means "if no
> soul, no living organism".

Or, as before, we could say that I disagree that the statement "if
there were no souls, there would be no living organisms". This case is
significantly different.

"Soul" is not synonymous with "living organism" as "alien" is with
"being not from earth".

And while the definition of soul may contain some reference to living
organisms, definitions of what living organisms are make no reference
to a soul.

And, lastly, a soul is posited as a distinct entity, part of living
organisms.

In this premise you are positing it as a necessary entity, but, as I
said, this is a bare assertion. If it were true, then it would
certainly be included in all definitions of living organisms.

>
> A far more reasonable objection, indicating this person grasps the
> core term, would be "so plants have souls?"

I'd rather you give a reason to show that your premise is generally
true, before getting into specific examples.

[Alan Wostenberg]

If the analogy fails it is not because the soul is ‘posited.. as a
distinct entity.. part of an organism’. For it is not posited, it is
not a distinct entity, and it is not a part of the organism. It is
defined as the form of a living body, just as an alien is defined as a
being not from earth. Other than that we’re making fine progress in
understanding the doctrine of hylomorphism, Watson!

Let’s consider this from a different angle.

We look around, we notice there are living and nonliving physical
things. What is the cause of this observed difference? Let us call
it ‘X factor’.

Now a person might posit that the X factor is a distinct thing part of
the whole thing that supplies life, as a battery is that part of a
cell phone supplying energy. He thinks of organisms as mechanical:
entity A supplies life to entity B.

Another might wonder if X factor isn’t the form of the living thing. X
factor is present throughout the whole thing as gravity is present
throughout the whole earth. As the earth would not have the shape it
does without gravity, so the thing would not be a living thing without
the X factor informing it.

A third might posit the X factor is chemistry (a variant on the first
guy’s mechanical life thesis).

These are good discusisons we can and should have about the nature of
the X factor. But it’s existence?

That there is an X factor we are implacably certain -- for if there
were no X factor there would be no living thing /by definition/. The X
factor is not ‘posited’ any more than it is posited ‘effects have
causes’.

> ...
>
> read more »

[Drafterman]

On Aug 3, 2:14 pm, Alan Wostenberg <awo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> If the analogy fails it is not because the soul is ‘posited.. as a
> distinct entity.. part of an organism’.  For it is not posited, it is
> not a distinct entity, and it is not a part of the organism. It is
> defined as the form of a living body, just as an alien is defined as a
> being not from earth. Other than that we’re making fine progress in
> understanding the doctrine of hylomorphism, Watson!

We're not making progress until you actually back up your baseless
assertions. I'm not sure how you think one baseless assertion can be
fixed by simply rewording it.

[Alan Wostenberg]

Sorry for burying the answer to your central objection in that third
paragraph. In it’s three sentences (reproduced below) I find no
assertions that are baseless.

We look around, we notice there are living and nonliving physical
things. What is the cause of this observed difference? Let us call
it ‘X factor’.

> ...
>
> read more »

[Drafterman]

On Aug 15, 5:10 pm, Alan Wostenberg <awo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Sorry for burying the answer to your central objection in that third
> paragraph. In it’s three sentences (reproduced below) I find no
> assertions that are baseless.
>
> We look around, we notice there are living and nonliving physical
> things.  What is the  cause of this observed difference? Let us call
> it ‘X factor’.

The observed difference is an illusion.

Humans invented the terms "living" and "non-living" and created the
line that distinguishes them. There is nothing inherent in nature that
respects this line. In fact, as we have come to learn more about
nature we have come to discover that our invented definitions need
refining and, in some cases, there are things that defy the
descriptions we have. This is very prominent in the field of biology.
What constitutes different species? Making this judgement is not as
clear cut as simply reading a list of qualifications. There is a
small, but non-zero, element of arbitrariness.

The same comes to living organisms (in fact it is merely a
generalization of the problems with defining species). Virus: living
or not living?

Thus the "difference" is an illusion created by gaps in what otherwise
would be a continuous, unbroken spectrum. Seeing the spectrum requires
awareness of what happens at the microscopic level, which we don't
have with special tools. We make our judgements primarily based on
what we can immediately detect, which includes only the macroscopic
world. Macroscopically there *is* a veery noticeable apparant barrier
between living and non-living. But it is folly to assume that nature
is defined by such impressions.

So... your assertions are baseless.

[Alan Wostenberg]

From the fact that we have difficulties at the boundary of the
category (is a virus alive?) does it follow there is no category and
this is an "illusion" projected by the human mind ignorant of science?
No. From the fact that wholes can be broken into parts and the parts
studied under a microscope, does it follow the category of the whole
(living/nonliving) is illusory? No.

That habit of nominalism, and that habit of reductionism, are ancient
metaphysical doctrines that draw no support from modern science. They
can and should be critically examined with the tools of philosophical
reasoning. Shall we?

> ...
>
> read more »

[Drafterman]

On Aug 19, 9:40 pm, Alan Wostenberg <awo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> From the fact that we have difficulties at the boundary of the
> category (is a virus alive?) does it follow there is no category and
> this is an "illusion" projected by the human mind ignorant of science?
> No. From the fact that wholes can be broken into parts and the parts
> studied under a microscope, does it follow the category of the whole
> (living/nonliving) is illusory? No.
>
> That habit of nominalism, and that habit of reductionism, are ancient
> metaphysical doctrines that draw no support from modern science. They
> can and should be critically examined with the tools of philosophical
> reasoning.  Shall we?

No, we shall not because there is still this unresolved issue of what
the soul is and why we need to posit its existence and forgive me for
not wanting to go down irrelevant tangents.

I never said the category is illusory, I said the boundary is.

Indeed, we can clearly say what is a hill and not a mountain, and what
is a mountain and not a hill, but where is the threshold?

This matters because you are attempting to draw a parallel between
what has a soul and does not have a soul (clear boundary) with what is
living and what is not (no clear boundary).

You either have a soul or you don't. There is a clear boundary here as
this is a simply binary state. If what the soul is necessary to
explain the phenomenon of life, then life too would have a clear
boundary. But it does not. Thus the soul is insufficient to explain
life which only leads to the question: what does it explain, then?

[Alan Wostenberg]

If we call it ‘hill’ and ‘mountain’ though we cannot identify the
clear threshold, would we say the difference is illusory? No! Why then
would we say this of the observed difference between ‘living’ and
‘nonliving’? In each case the cause of the observed difference is in
the thing known, not the knowing subject.

> ...
>
> read more »

[Drafterman]

On Aug 22, 2:03 pm, Alan Wostenberg <awo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> If we call it ‘hill’ and ‘mountain’ though we cannot identify the
> clear threshold, would we say the difference is illusory? No! Why then
> would we say this of the observed difference between ‘living’ and
> ‘nonliving’?  In each case the cause of the observed difference is in
> the thing known, not the knowing subject.

I think I explicitly stated exactly what I was calling illusory. And
it wasn't the difference.

Now, this puts you in what I feel is an ethical bind.

Either you didn't read my reply, which reveals lack of sincerity.
You read it, but - somehow - in the act of responding to it you forgot
this part, which reveals lack of reading comprehension.
You did read it, and remembered I said that, but continued acting like
I said somethnig else, which reveals lack of honesty.

Which is it, so I can respond accordingly?