Science and the nonphysical

This page is a continuation of discussions that began on the Science teaching materials for creationism page.

Wall face...paranormal origin or just an odd physical artifact?

Note: if you came to this page after searching for specific content and now you cannot find that content on the page, expand the four collapsed sections of old discussion and then search the page again.

The paranormal and creationism

Introduction. Earlier discussion at Science and belief introduced the idea that science has problems dealing with attempts to "explain" phenomena in terms of the nonphysical. Further discussion (below, click "expand") continued with the idea that a "spiritual creation of life" is unfairly rejected as an hypothesis by scientists who exclude creationism from the domain of science. Are scientists irrational in their bias against the nonphysical or is the burden of proof on creationists to produce evidence for nonphysical processes before scientists should have to be open to their possible role in scientific explanations? Links between creationism and the paranormal

(13-17 February 2007)

Well, and what has paranormal stuff got to do with creationism? (As an aside, when I said "science is what it is" I was talking about the word "science", to argue that what creationists do cannot be called "science", just as I cannot be called "French", as French as I can feel myself: The word means what it means, not what I (or anybody) want it to mean) --Jorge 00:21, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

"Well, and what has paranormal stuff got to do with creationism?" <-- Just trying to make the point of what originates the problem of the non acceptance of creationism as real science, or it would open political space here for the doctrine of spiritual creation of life be admited as scientific. The point is that the fact physical phenomena is so much easier to handle led science to develop materialistically, and now it would be fair to give the same right for the realm of spiritual (or psychic) phenomena to develop as science (with the same meaning of the word too). Skytel 05:06, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I myself don't accept creationism as a science and had never before thougth of any linkage with spirits. I see the question more simply: science is the practice of the scientific method. If you don't follow it, you're not doing science, you're doing whatever you want to call it, but not science. The scientific method leaves no place for dogmas in the sciences: Every proposition (as "life was created by a supreme being" or "I can read your mind" or "water boils when applied heat at 100º") must be provable whenever, wherever, and by whoever. Science doesn't reject what is not provable this way (rejecting it would be, in fact, dogma), it simply doesn't discuss it. It leaves it to others.

It's the abolition of dogmas what has kicked out, until now at least, the unproven (scientifically) psychic phenomena from science. It's far more easier to study, say, telekinesis, than to achieve to cool helium below its liquefaction temperature in order to be able to study superfluyds. Try yourself.

When some repeatable phenomenom which cannot be explained with present scientific theories is discovered, scientists from all over the world are quick in studying it. It has not to be material; it just has to be repeatable, provable by the scientific method. I wouldn't say time dilation is a material phenomenom, and many people would find it more difficult to believe than any psychic phenomenom. Yet muons reach the surface of the Earth every day to provide a scientific proof of it.

"not to search for it while NOT having any material proof in favor or against it, is TO BELIEVE [...]" <- Not necessarily. There are infinite (not many, infinite) things of which we have not proof (scientific ones) in favor or against. For example, psychic energy (although I don't know what it is), the existence of Jedi's Force, the flying spaghetti monster, Allah and the 99 virgins for each martir, Alleh (which I have just invented) and the 100 virgins solely for me, Alloh, Alluh, Joseph Smith's world of fantasy, Christian afterlife (on which I believe), Christian God (on which I do not necessarily believe), etc. It's just a game of imagination. All things of which we have no proof in favor or against cannot be searched, because they are infinite. It's the opposite: If you select one of those infinite things and go searching for it, it's because you believe in it. It's not the others do not believe in it, they could just don't care until a scientific proof is found.

A common misconception of the present days, due (I agree with the Pope -the present or the former one, I don't remember) to the unbeliveable technological success that science has brought us (if we are communicating this way it's thanks to Quantum Mechanics, for example), is to believe that what isn't science isn't reasonable. To believe that only science deserves the attention of human Reason. That, of course, is not true, and is unfair, since advances in disciplines such as Phylosophy can be as difficult or more to attain than scientific advances.

So yes, it perhaps would be more "fair" for those disciplines to have more people studying them, and for those studying them not to be disregarded as unworthy. But studying something without loyalty to the scientific method (e.g., using dogmas) cannot be called science, the same way playing with three teams cannot be called playing football, and listening to radio cannot be called watching TV. It's just not the meaning of the word.

"TO BELIEVE in matter exclusively, what is weird (to do without FAIR reason) to someone born in a religious culture." <- It's not that weird as you believe: I happen to not believe in matter exclusively, but I am one of a constantly shrinking minority. My self-consciousness, joined with some reasonings, makes me believe in the existence of soul. And science fanatics disregard me too when I speak of it. But, despite my self-consciousness being the one and only thing of which I can be sure (as Descartes was), I understand it cannot be treated scientifically, since I cannot prove the self-consciousness of others, nor others can prove I am self-conscious (see Turing's test).

The Catholic Church learnt decades ago that the slow but firm advance of science (since the adoption of the scientific method) cannot be endured by dogmatic theories. Some hundred years ago, there was no scientific proof to decide wether the Earth or the Sun was the center of the Universe. Based on dogma (and on reason), the Catholic Church said it had to be the Earth. Scientific proofs appeared of what wasn't thougth to be provable (and not because anybody went searching for them; the fact was that the studied movement of celestial bodies became more and more complex if the Earth remained at the center). And the non-scientific Geocentric theory was rebutted.

So the loyalty to the scientific method isn't so a matter of belief or liking, but a way to make only sure steps. Ojects will always describe a parabola when shot. White light will always decompose in colours when passed through a prism. Muons will always be able to reach the surface of the Earth despite their half-life being too short for it. If one of those things stops happening forever, all science will go to hell.

But, on the other hand, the scientific method isn't a way to possibly explain it all. The constant wondering about the cause of things cannot have an end. Each new explanation will always be followed by a "why?". If "a superior being created life" is once accepted as a scientific theory, "Why and how did He did it?", "Are there more beings like Him?", "Who created Him?", etc, will follow. So science will never give us the ultimate cause of things, nor will it teach us how worthy and powerful Love is, for example. For that, we are lucky to have religion. --Jorge 04:03, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

"I myself don't accept creationism as a science and had never before thougth of any linkage with spirits" <- Not that creationism is a science, but scientific. Evolutionism also is just scientific (and so also with the right to be wrong at least in some extend). Of course biology is the parent science of both theories, and BOTH make use of scientific data to make their points. I understand that the resistance to accept creationism that simply is the materialist (or atheist) antecipation that giving credit to it will consequently give credit to the possibility of the existence of God. And as God is spiritual, atheists strategically provide to disbelieve in any kind of spiritual or psychic claim, or even far related nonphysical phenomena.

The desperate care to avoid ticking a single card of this weak barrier is evident: no materialist had ever explained why suddenly try to *disprove* the existence of the spiritual side of life. For many (including myself) it ever stood clear their motives were not on spirit itself, but on priesthood and its morals, tithings and threats. Unfortunately for most nowadays skeptics they have already trapped themselves in the rules of science with which they began to challenge religious dogmas. Now they have to object spirit itself - but there is no sufficient *scientific* data to even doubt spiritual existence. Science has simply nothing to say about, never had, and so skeptics have to find *reasons* for their doubts elsewhere.

"Science doesn't reject what is not provable this way (rejecting it would be, in fact, dogma), it simply doesn't discuss it." <-I see you see it - but skeptics (or your science fanatics) do disscuss, and even ask for direct scientific evidences of the existence of spirit, what is dishonest as they ask already knowing that this is quite impossible. I understand there are means to study superfluids, but no means to study some still unknown energy able to move objects nonphysically. "I wouldn't say time dilation is a material phenomenom, and many people would find it more difficult to believe than any psychic phenomenom"

<- Well well: thats because time is the most psychic fenomena we can deal with. It is the basic natural faculty of our very soul, or consciousness. Time is evident, everybody feel it, or have its intuition, but never had it been proven to exist. You will not remember me the clocks or changes. And no matter how greatly it is evident to be nonphysical, no atheist will quietly allow anyone to call it "spiritual". Thats the POINT. "...the existence of Jedi's Force, the flying spaghetti monster..."

<- Well, I'll not risc to push that much here... :-) "But studying something without loyalty to the scientific method (e.g., using dogmas) cannot be called science," <- Will the scientific method evolve? Was it invented in order to never get changed? Or: Can time be repeated? Is history a science? Can we point some more present and more repeateble fenomena than our thoughts? But can be them really repeated? Could repetition be a fair requirement for consciousness to be scientifically studied? Just because psychogists can stimulate the nervous system repeatedly - does it makes suggestive that mental phenomena is *originated* in the brain? Isn´t that like to find suggestive that the nervous system of the spider is its limbs? Or that life has nothing to do with some imaterial soul because we can stop it with a material bullet? One can manage the light in a room at its window, but is it intelligent to conclude that the window is the source of the light?

Anyway creationists are not waiting for that much - they are just calling attention for the same kind of data, and with the same ground reasonings that evolutionist make use - but to point out ANOTHER hipothesis. Now, if we find it mandatory to censure creationists just because we see their hipothesis are motivated in dogmatic spititualism, then we should also censure evolutionists for seeing their hipothesis are motivated in dogmatic materialism. "I understand it cannot be treated scientifically, since I cannot prove the self-consciousness of others, nor others can prove I am self-conscious (see Turing's test)."

<- With time perception you have the same problem, but that makes not a hindrance for science, does it? With such a criterion you cannot even prove you and someone else are looking to each other. "...the fact was that the studied movement of celestial bodies became more and more complex if the Earth remained at the center"

<- Occham? Just a method to see what hipothesis to consider first. Nature really seem to be economic, but that does not mean WE can tell (through our hiper-advanced science) what degree of complexity corresponds to this economy. "Muons will always be able to reach the surface of the Earth despite their half-life being too short for it. If one of those things stops happening forever, all science will go to hell.".

<- Humans will always tend to search for or interpret information in a way that confirms his preconceptions. This is a psychological law - which in fact explains why materialist psychologists prefer to understand it is a neurological law. However, as there is no sufficient scientific data that endorse this preference, lets give equal attention to the psychic version, because the law will still work exactly in the same way. "Each new explanation will always be followed by a "why?"

<- What will ever tend to biased researches. Unless some GOOD method... "Who created Him?"

<- "What was before time?"... Maybe also not an appropriate question, nevertheless creationists do question really appropriate questions. Skytel 17:20, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

New discussion

Add new comments here:

• ....i've seen this 10 inch circular mass of electron particles observing me saying helloJeannied30 03:46, 22 February 2009 (UTC)m03:46, 22 February 2009 (UTC)Jeannied30m

What are the practical applications of the nonphysical?

Make a power plant that is fueled by the "nonphysical" (14-26 February 2007)

"spiritual (or psychic) phenomena" <-- I'd be thrilled if such things could be reproducibly demonstrated. There has been significant scientific effort put into detecting such things, but the objective evidence to support the existence of such things has not been found. I think there can be a science of creation, but such a science cannot be built on doctrines, revelations or any other unverifiable claims. People are free to believe that their personal conscious experiences provide them with evidence of "spirit" or the "nonphysical" or flying spaghetti monsters. Personal belief in the "nonphysical" or "flying spaghetti monsters" does not provide a foundation for science. Make a power plant that is fueled by the "nonphysical" or provide some other reproducible demonstration of the "nonphysical" and then we can make a science out of it. --JWSchmidt 05:31, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

"There has been significant scientific effort put into detecting such things, but the objective evidence to support the existence of such things has not been found" <- Write down a word and you will HAVE a material proof that you were thinking on it. But how to directly provide an *objective* evidence of what is *subjective*? Can someone capture a radio wave with a fishing rod? Some time in the future (if there will be the INTEREST) science will research how to detect much higher wavelengths than cosmic rays and possibly begin to *interpret* as psychic (or psychologic) most of their patterns and variations. Probably, their main sources will be found around human bodies. "I think there can be a science of creation, but such a science cannot be built on doctrines, revelations or any other unverifiable claims." <- Creationists are exactly verifying those claims - because those claims are the ONLY ones we traditionally have throughout our world cultures that INFORM how all things came to exist. WOW! Why not to investigate them?? The refuse to do it normally has a motivation not easily admittable: because then I may have to follow morals from scriptures and priests - and I hate them. "Make a power plant that is fueled by the "nonphysical"" <- Do you mean a physical power plant?... "or provide some other reproducible demonstration of the "nonphysical" and then we can make a science out of it." <- Our thoughts are not physical - or there was not till today any scientific evidence they are physical. So we may write down or speak them JUST to demonstrate they exist. Skytel 17:20, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

doctrines, revelations <- "Creationists are exactly verifying those claims" <-- using what methods? "Our thoughts are not physical - or there was not till today any scientific evidence they are physical" <-- Yet we already have many physical means to alter thought patterns and a robust theory of how physical brain processes produce thought. Scientists who are interested in thought continue to make progress in their studies using physical approaches. Can the same be said for those who have proposed that thought is non-physical? --JWSchmidt 03:02, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

"...using what methods?" <- repeatable and testable experiments. "Yet we already have many physical means to alter thought patterns" <- Sure, but if we can alter the light in a room by managing the window, could it be scientifically correct to conclude that the window is the creator of the light? "and a robust theory of how physical brain processes produce thought." <- What theory? "Scientists who are interested in thought continue to make progress in their studies using physical approaches. Can the same be said for those who have proposed that thought is non-physical?" <- Yes and for centuries. Only in recent years have neurology been able to stimulate particular areas of the brain in order to manage specific thought or mind effects. However this will be not qualitatively more conclusive than smashing ones head to prove the physical origination of consciousness. Does pricking ones leg makes conclusive that the sensation is in the leg? Thats why managing the brain will never never be conclusive that mind is produced by it, because the logic of the quest will be the same. Nevertheless the problem here isn't that, but WHY one suddenly begin trying to disprove an ALREADY known information, which is that the mind is psychic, or nonphysical. If one was totally ignorant about the sun, we could understand why he would be interested to find out how the light is produced by the window. But if he was INFORMED about the sun, why should he *insist* in the window? Why not follow the advice and look beyond? How MANY yoga or meditation practitioners have reported that mind is something ORIGINALLY not physical. WHY someone prefer to not even begin practicing it? WHY he *insist* that "maybe" spiritual reports are made up by expected results? WHY is he AGAINST even to the slightest possibility of being the mind nonphysical? Many questions to one simple answer that however is not easy to admit, because its reason is not scientifical, but political. Skytel 15:57, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

"ALREADY known information, which is that the mind is psychic, or nonphysical" <-- I'm not sure that "nonphysical" is a coherent concept. What utility arises from the idea that mind is non-physical? I perceive much more progress within standard neuroscience and studies of the physical basis of mind than I do within attempts to demonstrate psychic phenomena. Science is always open to new discoveries, but such discoveries have to involve methods that allow others to independently confirm reported phenomena. I'm not aware of any verifiable evidence to support the analogy between mind/brain and a window with a greater reality beyond. It would be exciting to find such a greater reality and many people have tried and continue to try. Personally, I am very interested in the idea that such efforts can be conducted in a scientific way, but very few people who claim to be interested in "psychic phenomena" seem willing to do the hard work required for valid scientific research. --JWSchmidt 17:00, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

"I'm not sure that "nonphysical" is a coherent concept" <- It is not if you expect it to be coherent with what is physical. "What utility arises from the idea that mind is non-physical?" <- It may be able to survive physical death, what could be useful. "I perceive much more progress within standard neuroscience and studies of the physical basis of mind than I do within attempts to demonstrate psychic phenomena." <- You cannot exceed your own judgment and are the only responsible for its results (which are ALWAYS unavoidable). "I'm not aware of any verifiable evidence to support the analogy between mind/brain and a window with a greater reality beyond." <- Analogies are verifiable by our intelligence. If you refuse to even suppose mind phenomena as possibly existing ALSO beyond the brain, the analogy fails for you. "It would be exciting to find such a greater reality and many people have tried and continue to try." <- 'Many people' normally excludes who prefer not trying by himself. No need to ask why. "very few people who claim to be interested in "psychic phenomena" seem willing to do the hard work required for valid scientific research." <- Not fair to reproach them as "few" while being scientific research not ready to test them. Or should we expect to capture psychic energy with some ultimate encephalography device? Please tell how can nowadays science prove whether psychic reality is a fact or not. Also please respond to what is the robust theory you told before. Or maybe you are ready to scientifically explain WHY should Wikiversity classify creationism as pseudoscience. Skytel 05:22, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I think much of this discussion can be fruitfully continued at learning projects for Science, Protoscience and Pseudoscience. "how can nowadays science prove whether psychic reality is a fact or not" <-- Proof is just an argument that other people accept. Within science, arguments are based upon observations and verifiable evidence. Science is a social process within which observations are first reported then tested, challenged, questioned and occasionally verified by others. In order to be part of the social process of science, claims about psychic phenomena must be reported in detail and then verified and reproduced by others, including skeptics. If your claim is that skeptics cannot independently verify psychic phenomena, then you are removing psychic phenomena from the domain of science. In the case of "creationism", the advocates of creationism have generally not adopted the methods of science. There have been attempts to portray creationism as science without first adopting the methods of science. That combination of actions places most efforts to establish "scientific creationism" under the heading of pseudoscience. There has been some scientific study of claims about the "supernatural" and "intelligent design". I think it is fruitful to categorize such studies as protoscientific. Fields of study such as Exobiology use the scientific method but they are protoscientific until there is evidence that actual data are available, in this case, evidence for life off of Earth. Anyone who wants to study creationism by using the scientific method is free to do so. You just have to participate in the social process of reporting your data and letting skeptics test your data against their own independent observations. When creationists try to take short-cuts and label their theological conclusions as scientific before they have applied the methods of science then they earn the label of being psuedocientific. --JWSchmidt 16:37, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

"In order to be part of the social process of science, claims about psychic phenomena must be reported in detail and then verified and reproduced by others, including skeptics." <- But what I'm saying is that psychic phenomena are NOT part of nowadays science, because there still exist no scientifical provision to even identify its existence - much less to work with it. Skeptics are fully free to believe it doesn't exist, but should not fallaciously use the absence of scientific work about to support their belief. A not found treasure is not the same as a not existing treasure. --Skytel 23:24, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

There are many things that can be imagined and yet are not part of science. There has been scientific work on psychic phenomena. Scientific studies have been done and they did not produce positive results (for example see The mind machine: a mass participation experiment into the possible existence of extra-sensory perception). Until there is objectively verifiable evidence for "psychic phenomena", I am forced to make myself comfortable with the hypothesis that "psychic phenomena" are imagined phenomena with no reality outside of subjective brain-generated experience. This view has so far won by default, but I'd be thrilled to see objective demonstrations for "psychic phenomena" as something existing beyond subjective experience. People are free to continue to search for ways to objectively measure "psychic phenomena", but such a research program is an uphill battle against the history of past failed efforts and continuous steady growth in knowledge of how physical brains account for thought. I'm not impressed by claims that belief determines the outcome of scientific studies. Science has the power to provide evidence that provides a foundation for belief. The history of science is a story of people being forced away from their old beliefs by verifiable evidence. Yes, individual scientists are guided by their personal beliefs in the choice of questions they investigate. Yes, entire "schools of thought" with thousands of adherents can be blinded by their pre-conceived notions. But in the end, all it takes is one person asking the right question and getting reproducible results and the tide will shift; old ideas can be replaced by new ideas, if the data support the new ideas. If you want there to be more scientific study of "psychic phenomena" it is up to you to lead the way in that direction. --JWSchmidt 01:01, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

That is exactly what I am doing, but science should be not something we must cope with as commercial or political competition. Should one establish some creationist scientific party, for maybe one day we had a law to help scientific minorities? Science should be fully fair by itself, just for its aiming to the truth, no matter what. Any and all scientific claim should have GOOD WILL acceptance for FAIR analysis, not needing to pass some inquisition first: this is religious featuring, not scientific. This thread at WV may be exactly a sample of what future will recognize as nowadays kind of inquisition, making hard (quite impossible) to defend minorities from A PRIORI labellings. --Skytel 17:27, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Any claim that supernatural phenomena can be brought within science will by met with skepticism and demands for verifiable evidence. This skepticism about supernatural phenomena is a perfectly natural social phenomenon that arose from a long history of past experience with claims about supernatural phenomena. Anyone who feels that this situation is unfair need only collect and present evidence for supernatural phenomena in a way that allows others to replicate the results. This is the way science works. I'm not sure it is constructive to call the scientific method "inquisition". New discoveries and ideas continually find their way into science. It is not part of the scientific process to keep out new ideas. It can be a long and slow process for new branches of science to become established, but is if verifiable data are there, eventually the data win. Sometimes "minorities" earn the labels that are applied to them. --JWSchmidt 01:07, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

"This skepticism about supernatural phenomena is a perfectly natural social phenomenon that arose from a long history of past experience with claims about supernatural phenomena." <- How many attempts have been necessary for science and technology to reach acceptable levels of insurance? Do those numerous failures constitute any hindrance to get along and strive for the success of its aims? WHY to have a different attitude about psychic phenomena? Why to desist of the hypothesis that our minds are actually (AS SEEM TO BE) of psychic nature just because there are numerous false claims, or because it was just not lab bench proven to be so YET? Remember some argument from ignorance? From where thus came the ideia that it should be given scientific preference to the materialistic version? I am sternly asking for any scientific reason to do so, because if science have such social influence that leads it to disrespect its own method, then this is a recognition of unreliability.

"Anyone who feels that this situation is unfair need only collect and present evidence for supernatural phenomena in a way that allows others to replicate the results." <- For the same curiousness above, the acceptable "way" means: materialistic proof of what is claimed to be not material. Does this makes any sense to you?

"I'm not sure it is constructive to call the scientific method "inquisition"." <- Constructive? Would you construct even more over a known barely founded structure? What about a SCIENCE that without any previous proof starts to ignore the spirit just because it is not material? Well, it never was said to be material! So WHY insisting it must be materially tested in order to SCIENCE admit its existence?? Again, from WHERE came the idea that reality is just and only material, and so the only desirable and worthy to spend the time of scientific research? Why scientists are not searching for ways to study the psychic side of life, AS MUCH? Why, in order to possibly come to do so, science asks first for exactly what only science could discover? Could it be this is some kind of revenge for HOW religious questioned scientists to be accepted (keep alive) in the past? Oh no... :-)

"New discoveries and ideas continually find their way into science." <- ...given they are NOT spiritual...

"Sometimes "minorities" earn the labels that are applied to them." <-You forgot to add: ...according to the scientific method, because it can tell what is true even much before raising any proof about, be it pro or contra. --Skytel 18:15, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

"WHY to have a different attitude about psychic phenomena?" <-- It is informative to compare discoveries of phenomena such as radioactive decay to the lack of progress in demonstrating psychic phenomena. Phenomena that are good topics for scientific study are easily verified. It is only natural to remain skeptical about psychic phenomena and any other claimed phenomena that resist verification. "Why to desist of the hypothesis that our minds are actually (AS SEEM TO BE) of psychic nature" <-- Within science, what counts is that independent observers can function within a community where multiple people can independently verify claims and reproduce results. Study of how brains produce minds allows for scientific progress. "materislistic proof of what is claimed to be not material. Does this makes any sense to you?" <-- I'm not sure that "supernatural" or "non-material" or "non-physical" are coherent concepts. Proof that they are has to come from those who want to make a science to study these kinds of things. "What about a SCIENCE that without any previous proof starts to ignore the spirit just because it is not material?" <-- This seems natural and expected to me. If we lack methods to generate objectively verifiable data for "spirit" then science will turn to more productive topics. "So WHY insisting it must be materialy tested in order to SCIENCE admit its existence??" <-- Nobody has provided methods to produce verifiable data for non-material phenomena. Scientific methods that deal with physical phenomena are all we have. "from WHERE came the ideia that reality is just and only material" <-- The basic idea is that material brains can produce thoughts that are about imagined things. Just because we can imagine supernatural or non-physical phenomena does not mean that such things really exist outside of our imaginations. "Why scientists are not searching for ways to study the psychic side of life, AS MUCH?" <-- Some have tried and not had any luck. Scientists naturally move towards topics of study where progress is made. --JWSchmidt 04:15, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

"It is only natural to remain skeptical about psychic phenomena and any other claimed phenomena that resist verification." <-- This answer simply gets back to what I have questioned. I understand all your other comments in the paragraph do the same, as any reader can attest. Your answers do not explain the scientific reason for giving absolute preference for physical stuff, if not just because they are touchable (easy to deal with) and psychic are not. Remember that physical study DID evidenced energetic phenomena, which are very unlogical to be called "physical", indeed having not been proven to BE physical, but just related to physical activity. In fact, "energy" is alreadly broadly admited as what makes possible any activity. If I call it "divine force", all what science (not some opinion) have been able to do about is to ultimately acknowledge its entirely abstract and unfounded existence, although not admiting such a term for political reasons.

This one is just oportune: "I'm not sure that "supernatural" or "non-material" or "non-physical" are coherent concepts" <- Probably because they SEEM to be not coherent to you (as for quite the whole humanity). That's why these historically raised concepts should be studied (by the scientific method) from their cultural origins, in order to possibly find out how to begin their studies. MUCH useful (practical) information to be found. All if not just trowing them aside every time when finding spiritual vocabulary. "Proof that they are has to come from those who want to make a science to study these kinds of things" <-What brings us exactly to the same problem: Their attempts are badly labeled and letting practically no chance to have attention - how less some good will peer review. --Skytel 15:09, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

"what is the robust theory" <-- If you are interested in how physical brain processes produce thought you need only study the published literature of neurobiology. We have many physical means for modulating the physical brain processes that generate thoughts; these can generally be classified as surgical, chemical and electromagnetic methods. Natural "experiments" also present themselves for study when there are genetic variations in brain structure and when disease processes alter brain structure with resulting alterations in thought patterns. Based on the results obtained from past scientific study of effects thought patterns resulting from physical alterations in brains, neurobiological theory is often capable of predicting the effects of chemicals, surgery and electromagnetic stimuli on thought patterns in human subjects. This robust body of neurobiological theory is used daily to guide medical treatments and also within on-going biomedical research aimed at increasing the depth and scope of such knowledge. --JWSchmidt 17:18, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

This is not robust because, as I already have experience with this issue, I know that a long discussion about would end with the question of what is the *nature* of nuclear and electromagnetic "forces" whose interactions make the chemical bonds that supports nervous activity. The ultimate scientific response to that are concepts that are as abstract and causeless as the spiritual ones praised by religions much time BEFORE. Ancient jewish and hindu traditions tells about subsequent layers of subtle (psychic) energy that overinteract from the most elevated spiritual levels down to the most dense which organizes matter. What could better support them than what science tells about what "force" is? --Skytel 23:24, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

When people want a bridge built or a broken bone mended they can rely on "subtle (psychic) energy" to deal with the problem or they can turn to scientific engineering and medical treatments that have been tested and shown to be effective. I'd rather view the cup of science as half full than half empty. Science is still relatively new and expanding. Maybe after a thousand more years scientific progress will halt, mysteries will still remain, and people will have nothing to turn to but "subtle (psychic) energy". Maybe next week someone will find a way to reproducibly measure "subtle (psychic) energy". Until then, each scientist must make their best estimation of how to make progress in exploring the unknown, and I suspect they will continue moving in the same general direction this week as last week. --JWSchmidt 01:35, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

molecules in time.

Does science arise from evidence or belief?

Is creationism scientific? (19-26 February 2007)

What do you mean when you say "creationism is scientific"?

You keep talking about a resistance to accept creationism. I agree there is a popular resistance to accept it being thaught at school as science, and that part of that resistance bases on atheists (and I would be part of that resistance if I lived in the USA, and am not atheist). But the professional scientific resistance to research creationism isn't a matter of belief, but of area: Scientists know how to do science, creationism isn't. Doing science consists on describing how things happen, not what makes them happen. It consists on using the scientific method, not History's methods nor Theology's methods.

E.g., we know particles are attracted following the law of gravity (among others), but don't care about who/what "commands" them to do it. Maybe Mahoma, maybe Athena and Jesus Christ's daughter, or maybe particles are just pieces of a big cosmic machine. Everyone can have his own explanation on this, but science doesn't care, nor does architecture, nor does computer programming. If you did some research and concluded that God (which one? yours?) invented a law of motion and commanded to all particles to follow it, congrats, you've done science (plus theology). If your conclusion is that God moves each particle individually and that the "apparent" law isn't but His mood for the past millenia, you've done theology, but not science (you cannot predict a thing, for example). Likewise, if you did some research and concluded that Jesus Christ himself, disobeying Budah's orders, sometimes alteres slightly bacterial DNA, so allowing them to evolve, you've done science + theology. If you concluded that God the Mischievous put bones of dinosaurs with feathers underground with the intention of fooling humankind, you've done only theology.

For scientists as proffesionals, as well as for architects, football players, and disk-jockeys, the existence of God (or Allah, or the greek Pantheon, or God and the Devil, etc, etc, etc) is perfectly possible because what they do has nothing to do with its existence or not. They all personally have some belief, and when it's time to work, scientists use the scientific method, architects design with wathever method they use, football players kick the ball the way they were thaught, and disk-jockeys put the music they know people like. Scientists don't care if it is God who is making all things to behave consistently, football players don't care if they are pointing to The Mecca when they kick, and disk-jockeys don't care about what song was sung last Sunday in the local church.

Science doesn't deny the existence of God. And it's not it hasn't been able to deny it: It is it doesn't care. Does He exist? Well. Doesn't He? Well as well. But if He exists (and you would be very lucky if the God that exists happened to be the one in which you believe), if He exists He has put the Earth in orbit around the sun, and He has created mutation. Deniyng mutation is not a matter of approach, or whatever, it is the same as saying the Earth is flat or the centre of the Universe: It is confronting the output of the scientific method, and, as I said, no theory has ever withstood doing it (and anyway it certainly wouldn't be scientific). If He has created mutation, evolution exists (since the other requisite, natural selection, is not even a matter of science, but of Maths - and you're certainly not going to challenge Maths too). So the only way a Creationist explanation of biology can be scientific, is indeed the same only way a non-creationist explanation can be scientific: Following the scientific method. And since, AFAIK, creationists deny evolution...

Science doesn't challenge any dogma for being a dogma. Science provides an explanation of how things work (not why ultimately do they work) which must be true and independent of dogmas. As long as your dogmas don't conflict with science, you can believe them. If they conflict with the output of the scientific method, you should better learn from History (or simply think about why the scientific method is the way it is - hint: it is because that's the only way -beyond Maths- to provide irrefutable statements). Science doesn't say "which is unprovable isn't true", nor "there are not unprovable things" (indeed, Maths have proved unprovability -see Gödel). It is not I see it: It is every scientist in the world sees it, because we know what our jobs are about. Those skeptics who challenge the existence of God arguing "science" don't know what science is about, and are certainly not scientists. But in the same way, if you investigate things assuming dogmas and call it "science", you don't know what science is about, and are not a scientist. Are your results worth teaching at school? Maybe. In science class? No. In Math? No. In Sport? No. In Religion? Yes, that's the place.

The means to study superfluids didn't exist until they were invented by humans. The difficulty is not in executing those means, but in inventing them (it's easy to heat something as much as you want, but to cool something to a temperature arguably never before reached anywhere in the whole history of the universe...). I can tell you a mean to study telekinesis right now: Sit people in front of objects, ask them to move them with their minds, and observe. I bet nobody will be able, so you won't have proofs. Then you can continue trying it, or change focus and go after the Sith, the Spaguetti Monster, or Moby Dick. The Giant Squid actually existed, and since we got the first body scientists began doing research with it. Until then, science didn't care (since nothing scientific could be done).

About time dilation, it happens that it isn't just a matter of human perception: It is an actual slowing down of time. One of the proofs is that very quick particles that should have disintegrated halfway down the atmosphere do reach the surface of the Earth (for them, their time isn't come, and the atmosphere is hence smaller for them -since their speed relative to us is the same as ours relative to them). Call it spiritual, or call it physical, or argue about how to call it with skepics; science doesn't care: It just states it is true. Science never dared to enter what seemed to be such a psycological territory until the Theory of Relativity predicted time dilation (it was a consequence, not a premise, of the theory -the same can be said of the famous E=mc2). Scientists tried to find ways to test it, and it was tested true. It is not somebody decided to study time and everybody respected it because it was not God. What happened was that, to account for a failure in meassuring Earth's absolute speed (the infamous Michelson-Morley's experiment), Einstein said "there's no absolute position nor absolute speed" and "everybody measures the same speed for light". But then, mathematics yielded veeeery strange results if that was true, one of which was time dilation.

"Will the scientific method evolve?" <- Once, in England, pelota (a Vasque sport) rules evolved and tennis was born. Tennis, albeit being waaayy more popular, is not pelota. "Was it invented in order to never get changed?" <- No, it was invented in order to its output never be challenged. It's not some obscure algorithm, it just consists on "are you sure? yes, try yourself and you'll see". That's the reason so many people like it: You can have 100% confidence on its results. Can it evolve? Well, I guess it can if the 100%-confidence thing remains... Although I cannot think of another way.

"Could repetition be a fair requirement for consciousness to be scientifically studied?" <- repetition is a requirement for everything that wants to be scientifically studied. It's not a matter of fairness but of confidence, as I said above. And as "science" isn't but a label (I call it "ciencia", for example), it turns out it is a matter of definition: So can repetition be a fair requirement for something to be studied in a way that requires repetition? Uhm...yeah. Repetition isn't a requirement for anything to be studied. Science is not the only field in which things are studied and research is done. It's popular, it has a reputation (thanks to the scientific method), etc., but it is not unique. You can study things in many ways; scientifically is one; you cannot study everything scientifically. Science doesn't says non-scientific studies are false, nor that they are less worthy. It says they are... non-scientific (and hence deniable).

"they are just calling attention for the same kind of data, and with the same ground reasonings that evolutionist make use - but to point out ANOTHER hipothesis" <- NOW I want to see such hypothesis, and see it not to contradicting existing data. I recall you that mutation is a fact, that natural selection is a fact (indeed a mathematical one), and that evolution is a fact (see w:Evolution as theory and fact). The Theory of Evolution (note it is not a hipothesis but a theory), which is what creationists challenge (because if they challenge the fact of evolution -w:Evolution as theory and fact- then they're not even reasonable), the theory says "as mutation plus natural selection would cause an evolution, and mutation is a fact, and natural selection is a fact, the reason of evolution is mutation joined with natural selection". Note that in Darwin times, AFAIK, mutation was not a fact, and nobody had thought before him that nature did "treat selection" (as we humans had been doing for a long time with our animals), so back then the theory was not as trivial (dare I say childish) as it is today.

I agree with you in that believing everything is in my mind is a bit too "agressive". Furthermore, it is not even scientific, since one cannot make any prediction based on this (so it's unfalsifiable, like believing in the Spaguetti Monster).

I also agree that Occam doesn't give veracity. But you cannot forget that if you assume God is responsible of nature's doings, then if you don't follow Occam, you must admit God is somewhy trying to fool you. Or testing your faith, if you prefer. Then, scaping science to discuss these things, why did He give us our reason? Didn't He intend us to use it?

"Humans will always tend to search for or interpret information in a way that confirms his preconceptions. This is a psychological law" <- I do agree. But consider that scientists are professionals, not kids inventing interpretations or politicians/priests/atheists trying to convince people. Newton studied gravity and (by mathematical derivations) predicted that something with sufficient speed would orbit the planet, never falling. And then he remembered the planets, and the moon, and said "hey! It's gravity doing it". Hundreds of years later, we could finally put things in orbit around the Earth, and no scientist was surprised. With time dilation the same thing happened: Relativity was proved long before time dilation could be directly tested. When we found out that muons moving very quick lived longer than slow muons, nobody was surprised (merely gratified of having finally seen it). If an existing theory explains some new observation, I see very reasonable (in addition of whatever psycological comfort it may cause) to not go searching for another explanation.

Why will asking an additional "why" tend for biased researches? In what way biased?

"how to directly provide an *objective* evidence of what is *subjective*? " <- That's why science cannot study subjective things. They certainly can be studied with rigour by other methods. Not science.

"Some time in the future (if there will be the INTEREST) science will research how to detect [psychic]" <- You cannot ask others to be interested in what you find interesting. Scientists are not servants, they try to bring money home by doing what they like: satisfying their (and others') curiosity. Why the obsession with science, anyway? Why not to do research in non-scientific ways?

"the ONLY ones we traditionaly have troughout our world cultures that INFORM how all things came to exist." Now science has discovered how many things came to exist. The only thing which remains to scriptures is why (as "by whom") they came to exist. Out of science, if one is going to research wether religious traditions are true, why focusing on the Christian branch your fathers thaught you? If you're from the USA and not catholic, that tradition is certainly one of the most recent "traditions" humankind has. And not a very common one, too, if we speak of number of adherents. If you're not intelectually dishonest then it must be because you, by some internal experience, believe that fortunately you are right and near everybody else is wrong (despite many many people having had similar experiences, which led them to think you are wrong). Are you Mormon?

Creationism should be classified as pseudo-science because, as all pseudo-sciences, it tries to convince people that it is scientific while not being. If they didn't, they will happily pass as theology, with no negative-sounding "pseudo" attached. If I have good knowledge of indian magic, but pretend to be a medic despite not being one, I will be labeled as a quack. The negative label is the risk of trying to benefit from the reputation of what I am not. If my purpose wasn't to mislead, but I simply didn't know I was not, I should have known better.

--Jorge 06:01, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Jorge - I would like to reply to all your comments (as you did to mines, thank you) but that would take me three or four days to finish. So maybe it will be good to concentrate in the main point which I understand both can clarify my point and also may lead to some neutrality, or balancing, on what we disagree. The point is over the correctness, or certitude, of science, but if I will miss some comment you think is also important to consider along with this one, please tell. Anyway I intend to comment all of them, eventualy or implicitly.

As you asked me about, I will ask you back trying to make clear what I mean. From the evident broad scientific knowlegde you have demonstrated to have, I cannot see how can you consciously suggest (if not just for rhetorical effect) that science cannot be biased. I'm considering, for example, the personal beliefs of a scientist who may, when considering some set of collected data, have the insight of an explanation that is very similar, or suggestive, of what he had already learned about religion or psychic stuff. Maybe he found something very similar to a serpent biting its tail, or maybe some trinitary function. But, as he only believes in matter, he omits it and elaborates a second explanation that accords to what that scientific study have been using. Even if he was very tempted to at least comment about his insight, he could consider what his (also mainly materialist) fellows might think about him, and maybe also how could it influence his professional standing. And so, some reasonable opoturnity to start a possibly different kind of explanation in that study, which could favour the truth of a spiritual doctrine, is trashed. I am not a scientist myself, but could it be that such kind of situation have NEVER happened to a scientist? I also think in the fringe scientists, who are called by mainstream scientists to be biased themselves, and who pose several different scientific explanations and experiments - could it be that NONE of them had ever presented really important scientific corrections or improvements, anyway getting no attention from the mainstream scientific community, which might be tired of so much crazy pseudoscientists? So, are you really meaning that the scientific method is so perfect that by no imaginable means could it be used in some biased manner? Skytel 01:02, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Just a brief comment before I go to sleep (I'm trying to become diurne again): Have you read The Little Prince? If so, do you remember the Turkish astronomer?--Jorge 03:51, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Good morning and good carnival to you all... Thanks to your link yes, NOW I remember the Turkish astronomer, whose situation is very illustrative of what I have mentioned and more. Possibly, under the load of materialistic drives, the Turkish dictator sold his own culture for a little asteroid. Of course a creationist will hardly become disloyal to his particular set of beliefs in order to be successful in making science. I think some good fringe scientists may also had no success because of that. Good hint. Skytel 13:31, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I've got a particular comment here considering several BIG asteroids... (not on Turkey). But lets take care or JWSchmidt will name next section "Creationism and Little Prince". :-) Skytel 14:15, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I sometimes create new section headings (and even new pages) in order to help organize access to the discussion. My choices are very arbitrary, so please feel free to join in this task and help organize things. --JWSchmidt 16:47, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi Jorge. As I have already replied to some of your last comments I'm posting them for now, but still finding better to discuss possible science biasing first.

"What do you mean when you say "creationism is scientific"?" <- I mean that it is scientific first of all because is carried out by scientists, not theologans. They are mainly biologists and geologists, most of them truly religious, what makes not diference to science, as it does not matter what drives the scientists approach of phenomena, but just if his construct is repeatable/testable.

"E.g., we know particles are attracted following the law of gravity (among others), but don't care about who/what "commands" them to do it. Maybe Mahoma..." The crucial scientific concept that substitutes "spirit" and cannot be avoided is "force". If we ask a physicist what ultimately IS "force", he will end with something equivalent to "rate of change". If he pushes us to quantum physics, it will be "function operator". As both concepts are explanations (that just mean transformation or changing) for the absolute need of "force" to explain energy, or interactions, we so end with pure abstract concepts that are causeless, self-sustained and self-inteligent like "spirits". I understand it is not possible to avoid such problem (as the more abstract the "solution" the worse it is) because, as you have acknowleged, science is not able to discover what phenomena are, but just how phenomena behave. So we cannot *scientifically* tell what matter IS. And if we cannot scientifically define what a phonomenon is, we consequently cannot *scientifically* even assert it exists. Thus, from the scientific point of view, we all may just believe, be in matter, be in spirit. Or in both, like myself and many many others. To choose one of them alone demands quite an impossible sufficient explanation.

"Science doesn't deny the existence of God. And it's not it hasn't been able to deny it: It is it doesn't care." <- It should not care, indeed, but unfortunately its present methodology cannot prevent its developers (the scientists) to choose what kind of conjecture they prefer to found on any explanatory or working model. And, as science happened to develop outside religious occupations, the materialistic conjecture was given preference, naturally inforced by the economic needs.

"Are your results worth teaching at school? Maybe. In science class? No. In Math? No. In Sport? No. In Religion? Yes, that's the place." <- The problem here is in fact political. Simply there is a movement of religious people WANTING religion to be (also) scientific! As deep as possible. Personaly I do not find this necessary, but they have the right, as they CAN be (and already ARE being) scientific in the form of creationism. Creationism is a scientific movement (possibly the beginnging of a strong scientific school) with all the right to stay right beside the evolutionist school, to compete with it. Creationists are using scientific arguments, scientific revisions, scientific experiments and conclusions. There are sites abounded with such scientific works. And it doesn't matter if their spiritual conjectures are right or not: the way science developed, it suffices that history will tell which school will succeed better. So the only "reason" I'm seing for evolutionists to be resisting them (as here in WV) is because they come praying and shaking their scriptures, what remembers the turkish astronomer in the story of the... ahm, you know what one.

"The means to study superfluids didn't exist until they were invented by humans. The difficulty is not in executing those means, but in inventing them..." <- I hope I myself will invent how to study psychic energy, as I frequently think about. But of course much more (real) scientists are demanded to search for a way, in order to eventually (during my own life please) find out the answer. THE problem, you know, is finding nowadays university scholars WANTING it and finding safe to even speak about it. Unfortunately, they seem to don't give a single though on it. "I can tell you a mean to study telekinesis right now: Sit people in front of objects, ask them to move them with their minds, and observe." <- Boy... :-) - this would be like putting me to raise a lifting competition weight bar. It would prove once for all there is no such thing as muscle contraction.

"About time dilation, it happens that it isn't just a matter of human perception: It is an actual slowing down of time." <- I understand that if time is really just psychic (to ALL beings), no matter how many relations we find in its phenomena there will be no reason to conclude it is objective, or not subjective. Of course I cannot *objectively* prove to you it is not objective.

Coming soon: evolution of the scientific method and more... Skytel 21:12, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

So continuing...

"Can it (the scientific method) evolve? Well, I guess it can if the 100%-confidence thing remains... Although I cannot think of another way." <- In Wikipedia article scientific method we see under history section that the last considered advancement of the scientific method was by Karl Popper, being who introduced the importance of falsifiability. Now in article falsifiability we find further advancements by Thomas Kuhn and others, who criticize how scientists resist changing their paradigm (without what science does not truly develop), how falsification can get biased because of that, how it is socialy influenced and succeeding by merely being pragmatic. What means that, for example, if there possibly exists some physiological function importantly related to psychic phenomena, but which is not even indirectly related with biomedical research, it will hardly be discovered. So, what next advancements will emerge for the real progress of scientific production? I would specially ask what kind of improvement could favor some little less "democratic" policy about WHAT should be the AIMS of scientific *observation* to begin with?

"repetition is a requirement for everything that wants to be scientifically studied. It's not a matter of fairness but of confidence, as I said above." <- Couldn't repetition be just a primitive scientific provision that will remain till human intellect becomes better developed? I think much will be discovered simply through deeper *observational* ability, somehow likewise nowadays we gather scientific knowledge from the mainly descriptive sciences. "I call it "ciencia", for example." <- Oh, as myself either... :-) "Science doesn't says non-scientific studies are false, nor that they are less worthy. It says they are... non-scientific (and hence deniable)." <- If I understood well, I think this approach is what makes "non-scientic" studies to remain "non-scientific". Certainly we should always recognize what science is still not ABLE to say anything about, but not label it as definitely "non-scientific".

"NOW I want to see such hypothesis, and see it not to contradicting existing data." <- But they *contradict*. Although creationists have been working on a multidisciplinary fashion, they could be regarded as an internal (and awkward) trend in the evolutionist school that DECIDED to search scientific evidence which *corrects* some evolutionist claims. Besides conceptual/logical revision in many scientific areas, in biology/geology ones they had a major focus relating to carbon-14 radiometric datation, but others are getting more and more attention, like what shows this abstract at ICR, and which is very unlikely to be demonstrated as being not genuinely scientific. "I recall you that mutation is a fact, that natural selection is a fact (indeed a mathematical one), and that evolution is a fact" <- As there are fanatics about several scientific fields, there are them also in creationism, and only these dare to absolutely deny evolution and natural selection. What serious creationism do is to revise the data or reasonings that were used to reach conclusions, and add new researches. They do it *scientifically*, as other ICR articles can also demonstrate. OF COURSE, new trends tend to be resisted by main scholars in any scientific field, but we do not see those being censored with the label of "pseudoscientific" just because of that. So it is important to bear in mind that creationism is NOT a new science, but just new TRENDS in already existing sciences.

"scaping science to discuss these things, why did He give us our reason? Didn't He intend us to use it?" <- I understand we must follow the razor, but not obtusely assuming we can know WHEN some of our economic theorical constructs meets the divine economic standards. Probably, for some good scientists in the past it appeared to be more economical if atoms were just single tiny balls. But, well, God certainly always expect us to use our reason *intelligently*.

"If an existing theory explains some new observation, I see very reasonable (in addition of whatever psycological comfort it may cause) to not go searching for another explanation." <- Sorry, but I don't find this reasonable. An erroneous ideia can be useful (practical) till someday we find out it was not that fantastic. We should expect for this. Even today (in its first stages) science already expects to be continuously self-correcting.

"Why will asking an additional "why" tend for biased researches?" <- Because of the mentioned psychological law. We tend to try finding answers from our own personal point of view. Scientists have no support in the present stage of the scientific method to help them being not tendentious. If we understand they in fact search according to previous scientific attainments (not personal ones), this would be particularly alike religious that think according to previous dogmatic determinations (not personal ones).

"That's why science cannot study subjective things. They certainly can be studied with rigour by other methods. Not science." <- Well, here the meanings of "objective/subjective" may become confusing. Any study must have an object, what is its subject of study. Psychology studies subjective "things", which are its subject objects. Indeed, what matters here is to accept, or not, subjective subjects as able to be objectively studied... Please excuse me if this is wrong in english.

"Why the obsession with science, anyway? Why not to do research in non-scientific ways?" <- I'm not obsessed, althought you may not intended to say it. But creationsts are obsessed, or at least almost that. I find they WANT it so much because science have been used by skeptics (including secondary teachers) to ADVOCATE against religious truths with relative success, instilling doubts in inocent religious youths that also suffers the influence of the materialistic media (which supports science). Personally I understand it would suffice to teach them (at home/church) HOW science just cannot say anything against religion. But, if they prefer, they have the right to get in science and strive to succeed as well.

"Now science has discovered how many things came to exist. The only thing which remains to scriptures is why (as "by whom") they came to exist." <- As the primitive men experienced the phenomenon of the rain, they certainly observed HOW it comes to happen: by "falling from heavy clouds". That was surely a correct "how" about the rain, and they may have been satisfied with just that. But, obviously, that was not ALL the "how" possible to be known about rain phenomena. Likewise, nowadays most scientists proudly think to totally know "how" many things comes to happen, without even considering that there MAY exist much more to be known in their "how", that might be easily discovered IF they just were a little more humble to search for MORE.

"...despite many many people having had similar experiences, which led them to think you are wrong). Are you Mormon?"<- No, but I could be. I believe (for more unplausible it can appear to be) that all religious traditions are interconected and show different aspects of the same spiritual reality. It is a matter of good will (faith) and much study to find out how apparently imcompatible doctrines are in fact very related.

"If I have good knowledge of indian magic, but pretend to be a medic despite not being one, I will be labeled as a quack."<- Certainly: you would still be labeled as a quack even if you did wonderfull healings. Of course your knowledge, then, even thought much strange, should suffice to grant you an honorifical medical title, despite in fact that could represent a cultural denigration to you.

"Creationism should be classified as pseudo-science because, as all pseudo-sciences, it tries to convince people that it is scientific while not being." <- I hope to have shown why creationism is actualy scientific. Wikipedia article creationism also provide general information about, showing its universality (not just christian), its consequent different quests, how it is criticized even by religious (in what I include myself), and how they have clear scientifical goals. This webpage [1] also summarizes their scientific standpoints in many areas, all referencing to specific scientifical works.

If even so anyone will still support creationism to be pseudoscientific, I invite him/her to present objective reasons for that, besides just plain personal concerns. --Skytel 04:29, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

In my experience, the "scientifical works" cited at on this webpage are typical of sources cited by creationists. These sources do not include detailed scientific reports of data that can be subjected to testing and replication by other investigators. By claiming that such collections of sources provide a scientific foundation for creationism, creationists are only continuing their attempts to pass themselves off as practicing science without actually having joined in the scientific process of submitting their data for critical evaluation by other independent observers. --JWSchmidt 17:31, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me, but my experience in this field is exactly the contrary of yours. As we must leave factual support for those consulting this thread, I invite you to show any lack of normal scientific information in the *disponible* works at ICR. But lets put clearly that this discussion is NOT about whether creationism is right or wrong. Any new *scientific* trend can succeed or not. The question here is if creationism posits its standpoints *scientifically*, what I'm absolutely sure it does. --Skytel 17:53, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

New discussion group?

discussion group for articles published by creationists (26 Feb. - 4 March)

I would participate in a Wikiversity discussion group for peer-reviewed articles published by creationists.....articles that report data documenting supernatural creation events. Maybe we could start a search for such articles with this list. I'm not sure what "the *disponible* works at ICR" means. Have any of the articles on their list of research papers been submitted to a science journal and subjected to peer review? --JWSchmidt 21:28, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

This format of peer-reviewing is unfair and intellectualy dishonest. As it acknowledges only "credible" peers, how to expect sufficient reviews from those previously against the new claim, as acknowledging it could drive them to change their beliefs and life styles? Or, as an alternative, what possible kind of "really neutral" peers would you expect to find?

Remember the link you posted above named The mind machine: a mass participation experiment into the possible existence of extra-sensory perception?. It is also just an abstract, which full text is available for purchase. Would you (or 'the peers') purchase some of the creationsts full texts to analyze them? Anyway we can see just by the abstract how scientifically tendentious it is. Of course the full text would bring score graphics featuring very few high scores, that would be subsequently *leveled down* by averaging them with the vast majority of low scores. OF COURSE, the correct (honest) procedure would be exactly detecting those very few high scores participants and test THEM APART, then again taking the best among these, and so on. I almost can hear skeptics replying: hey, this way it would be not fair... --Skytel 17:24, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

You can set up experiments testing for "psychic phenomena" according to many different protocols. There is no shortage of people who claim to have "psychic" abilities. Pick the best "psychic" and describe a verifiable way to collect data from that individual using controlled tests. I suppose some people think the conventional scientific community is corrupt and that there is a conspiracy that prevents evidence for "psychics" and supernatural events from being published. There are journals that operate outside the scientific mainstream such as iscid that could be mined by a Wikiversity discussion group looking for published evidence of creation events that cannot be explained by conventional science. --JWSchmidt 02:06, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

"I suppose some people think the conventional scientific community is corrupt and that there is a conspiracy that prevents evidence for "psychics" and supernatural events from being published." <- If there was run some really correct psychic experiment which results was statistically strikingly favorable to the psychic hypothesis, I can tell you what would be the response of mainstream scientists. They would answer like this: 'OK, we recognize the favorable results, BUT - that does not prove that it was BECAUSE OF anything related to psychic activity. We just cannot tell how did it happen, YET!'. Do you agree that this would be their response? Or do you find they would consequently begin to practice meditation and go to the church, or what else? --Skytel 02:02, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

"Creationists are using scientific arguments, scientific revisions, scientific experiments and conclusions. There are sites abounded with such scientific works." <-- In analogy with The $1 million challenge, maybe what we could do here at Wikiversity is create the "Skytel Prize" for scientific creationism. We could nominate, select and review published articles reporting data about supernatural creations and each year select the prize winning article. --JWSchmidt 18:30, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

"In analogy with The $1 million challenge, maybe what we could do here at Wikiversity is create the "Skytel Prize"" <- I would not allow putting my name in such similar prize because I'm honest. The $1 million challenge makes use of the "one million fallacy", named thanks to its existence, but what I would call "the buncodebunker fallacy". It uses a magic trick method to deceive the public opinion, which is to disguise the impossibility of a future proof with the possibility of a future prize. The credibility of the prize *does not* imply in the credibility of the proof. The FACT is that, if one day some authentic psychic passes the testing conditions, wins the prize and the press asks the buncodebunker if psychic phenomena was finaly proven to exist, he will answer: "NO. Science is not able to tell this, but only that it couldn't find out whether the alleged psychic made a good trick or not!" Previously HIDING this crucial information is what deceives the public opinion, as the buncodebunker never expected neither said his testing will be able to prove authenticity. --Skytel 17:53, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

We could start a Wikiversity discussion group for peer-reviewed articles about any type of supernatural or psychic phenomena.....such a group could be open to articles that report data documenting any type of supernatural or psychic events. --JWSchmidt 21:37, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

"such a group could be open to articles..." Why should I believe they could be "open" just because of moving the discussion? Please, bring them here and I can present creationists links again. They could discuss psychic stuff here as a secondary supporting factor, as we have been doing. I understand moving this aspect of the discussion to elsewhere would prejudice the logic of the thread and raise suspicion over the seriousness of Wikiversity project. --Skytel 17:24, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't really care if such a discussion takes place here or on another page. Is there a scientific article that presents verifiable evidence for psychic or supernatural phenomena? --JWSchmidt 02:22, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

"I don't really care if such a discussion takes place here or on another page." <- Well, maybe future searchers at this thread will see your careless as an (hopefully not) attempt to deflect this issue from straightforward analysis. "Is there a scientific article that presents verifiable evidence for psychic or supernatural phenomena?" <- THE GREAT problem for eventual articles is that NO evidence, no matter how striking they could be, would ever be accepted as "proof" by the materialistic scientific community. Simply put (again, sorry), science is still just not ABLE to find out WHAT phenomena ARE. Does not know what spirit IS, and does not know what matter IS.

I would participate in a WIDE ALLIED WIKI CONJUNCT OPERATION discussion forum for scientific defense of the existence of such a "matter" thing. If you can call there more than one claimer, please call me... --Skytel 02:02, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Please, where is the original link to this "Science teaching materials for creationism" section? This section ideed copies the discussion at Colloquium page, but I couldn't find how one would see from there (or elsewhere) that the discussion is continuing in this section. Thank you. --Skytel 20:12, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

There are links to this page from Science teaching materials for creationism#Continuing Discussion, Topic:Philosophy of Science#See also, What is science?#See also, etc. For a complete list of links to this page, use the What links here link in the toolbox at the edge of this page. --JWSchmidt 21:00, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, thank you very much. Good links. --Skytel 01:24, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I think this will be a good idea under a "What is Science" project. In it we would teach what Science and the Scientific Method are, and let people present specific cases to be evaluated. By specific I mean no "creationism" but "paper X accesible in this link". The better examples, of course, would be "scientifical" papers discussing areas normally treated as "non scientific", and papers from well stablished areas of science that fail to be scientific (e.g., by not stating the exact way to repeat whatever experiments they have done). --Jorge 02:50, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Science beliefs under NPOV

What I hope to have evidenced in order to help this discussion's topic, is that materialist science is not able to prove the existence of anything, including its own object - matter itself - what makes it basically a matter of faith, or belief.

In fact, the worldly bivalent reasoning that came to be reduced into the foundations of logic, named "the axioms", are ultimately as self-evident, self-sustainable and self-reliable, as gods. Their devotees usualy don't bother questioning about being its essentiality perhaps nothing but mere intellectual limitation, despite being this exactly what they argument against the essentiality of some "ontological first cause" concept. Their consequent redutionist appraising lead them to also nothing but likewise ontological limitation, when they inescapably end explaining the essence of matter/energy with plain almighty abstract concepts.

Although many science advocates admit it has to be based in beliefs (like any human activity), they immediately remark them as "more probable" to be true then other's beliefs. Well, this just makes them one more group among all those others who plead the same - for what they present as the "reasons" of their probabilistic excelence, is exactly what they believe in.

So materialist scientists have full right to be in the same engagement, BUT, in a place like Wikiversity, which main distinction is a bright civilizing NPOV policy, there should exist NO winners, and NO predilections. All faithful here should have the same rights. So, as creationism is a faithful movement that WANTS to participate in the scientific work, thus ALSO making use of scientific supporting beliefs and raised methods, they have the right to do so AND to be so accepted, at least here. --Skytel 01:44, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Creationist teaching materials

This seems a contentious issue, which to me centres around the following points:

• Scientists rejected the Creationist Theory for two reasons:
  • It originated in religions that offer no proof other than personal observation (all cats produce cats, all dogs: dogs, etc.).
  • Darwin proposed an Evolutionary Theory that excluded any religious sentiment by postulating mutation and natural selection.

• Both the Evolutionary and Creationist theories confine themselves to biological life, not science in general.

• Both theories examine the same evidence and arrive at different conclusions:
  • Where the Evolutionist sees a common ancestor, the Creationist sees a common design.
  • Where the Evolutionist sees appendages evolving through species, the Creationist sees variation in design.
  • Where the Evolutionist sees mutation and natural selection, the Creationist sees invariant reproduction.

• The Evolution theory explains morality, faith, and truth as a consequence of evolving intelligence, while Creation theory concludes they are inherent to the design. However, Evolutionists provide no reason for these to exist in intelligence and allow they can be engineered to suit humanist goals, while Creationists conclude it is to acknowledge the Creator and should not be tampered with.

• Both the Evolution and Creation Theory regards Life as a product of biological construction. Neither theories explain what Life is, whether it exists independently of the body, or why it is so rare in the universe.

• Only humans question their social order, other creatures do not question their own behaviour or try to change it. This separates intelligence into three areas:
  • the natural ability to make descisions based on our five senses,
  • deciding whether an action is acceptable or not, and
  • discovering the meaning to Life.

In the discussions here, I get the sense of an unspoken objection, veiled in technical jargon. The crux is simply that the Evolution Theory was postulated to separate belief systems from scientific enquiry and that's its prime function. It must resist all other theories that suggest otherwise. So it stands or falls based on whether Life was created, not on scientific evidence, however overwhelming it is.

Assuming that Evolution actually describes our existence, then clearly we have no Creator, so our belief in one must come from Evolution itself, and since it is scientifically verifiable, it legitimises all ideas, all thoughts, all theories which ever have and ever could be entertained. There is no other possible way we can get ideas except through the evolutionary process. Therefore, there must be a scientific explanation to moral, ethical, and religious beliefs as evolutionary products, and hence, they are all scientific and worthy of study. But accepting that the Creation Theory is a product of Evolution creates a paradox for Evolution because it rejects the notion that religions have any scientific basis, while Evolution itself actually produced them.

As the following discussions reveal, people put their trust in whatever does what they promise. Physics is evidently trustworthy, and the scientific method has produced amazing techologies, so it too is trustworthy. Not much else seems to match science in delivering the goods, so it is understandable people don't want to invest their time and effort in something they perceive as less worthwhile. (PeterMG 03:01, 6 May 2007 (UTC))

So I'm back into the discussion... Perhaps I'll never be able to stop... Of course scientists view all the cultural products of humankind as ultimately caused by the evolution of life on Earth. Yes, Art can be studied as a science if you mean studying the brain processes that produce it. That doesn't make Art "scientific", if you use the meaning of "scientific" I use (this one). Of course you're using another meaning, so the discussion is pointless: We both agree.

Historians of Art do not study Physics, and nobody goes telling them to do it because Physics is worthy of study, too. And nobody says they perceive Physics as less worthy. Science is not synonim with "studying everything" nor with "worthy", and nobody's said so. It's just an area with a good reputation, that's all. Some people disregard areas out of science? Well yes, but that's not a reason to go asking scientists to focus on topics they don't grasp nor probably like.

You're confused, there's no paradox. I can claim without any scientific basis that I have magical powers. There's no scientific basis in the claim because I've completely made it up. But the fact that I claimed it, is indeed undeniable, and scientific if you like. If in the future we can understand the chaotic dynamics of human interaction, behavior, and creativity, maybe we could explain scientifically why and how did Tolkien produce his fictional universe. The possibility of doing it doesn't make its universe to have scientific basis. There are no elves. And there is no Flying Spaghetti Monster. Leaving the analogies, it is absurd to say science rejects the possibility of people having religions.

"The crux is simply that the Evolution Theory was postulated to separate belief systems from scientific enquiry and that's its prime function." <- This is false or at least arguable in some ways. The first is from Historical perspective: Galileo was there far before Darwin. Galileo (Copernico, if you prefer) did separate belief systems from scientific enquiry. The mess is with Darwin because it's more difficult to defend Geocentrism than to convince people who haven't studied the Theory that Evolution is flawed. The second is that the guy died 125 years ago, along with his contemporaries, so your statement implies there must be some secret cabal running for more than 125 years preventing people to discover Evolution has no strong scientific basis. Nonsense.

"Assuming that Evolution actually describes our existence, then clearly we have no Creator," <- This is false, too. What is clear is that if we have a Creator, it didn't create everything the way your (or my) particular religion's scriptures state. The problem of Science with Creationism is their statement that the Theory of Evolution is wrong, not their statement that there is a Creator. The existence or not of an ultimate Creator is outside the scope of science, as is already explained in this page. No scientific theory can prove nor disprove it.--Jorge 14:07, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Maybe I'm falling into technicalities, but you should know that natural selection was not postulated, but derived. Mutation was indeed postulated, by Darwin, but it's been explained by genetics and observed so many times it is no more a postulate. The biological similarities among species may have been what made Darwin think of a common ancestor, but it is by no way one of the facts in which the theory is scientifically based. As you well point, they could be explained by having a common design. Mutation and natural selection aren't conclusions of anything; they are plain facts.

About the reason of the existence of morality etc. in intelligent beings, the creationist explanation is reasonable, but not scientific. It could as well be false. There's no scientific explanation for its existence (as yet), but no scientist cares, because science doesn't base its claims on them explaining the whole universe, nor in them being intuitive. It bases them on the scientific method. Quantum Mechanics is the more confusing and unbelievable shit science has produced, but that doesn't change the results of the experimental data that confirm it.

I, as scientist, reject the Creationist Theory, and couldn't care less about whether it originated in religious circles for rejecting it. Scientists have scientific arguments to reject it. It is Creationists who reject science because its theories go against their belief, not the other way around. --Jorge 14:42, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

"About the reason of the existence of morality etc. in intelligent beings, the creationist explanation is reasonable, but not scientific. It could as well be false. There's no scientific explanation for its existence (as yet), but no scientist cares" <-- The book "Consilience" by Edward Wilson discusses the biological origins of morality. Wilson is a scientist who "cares" about such things and he makes the argument that there can easily be a scientific study of morality as a biologically-based cultural phenomenon. --JWSchmidt 16:28, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

(Only to point that I didn't mean a scientific explanation doesn't interest any scientific, but that not having one doesn't worry anybody because that's no reason to reject the other theories). Btw, good link, I hadn't heard anything about it. --Jorge 10:03, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the link, I had a gut feel about it, but never heard of it either. --PeterMG 16:25, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

"Yes, Art can be studied as a science if you mean studying the brain processes that produce it. That doesn't make Art "scientific"" <-- By your argument, studying the biological processes that produce Evolution does not make Evolution scientific. You seem to be arguing semantics here.

"You're confused, there's no paradox. I can claim without any scientific basis that I have magical powers. There's no scientific basis in the claim because I've completely made it up." <-- Perhaps my point was unclear. Evolution itself produced the idea God made humanity, while simultaneously denying it, that's the paradox.

"your statement implies there must be some secret cabal running for more than 125 years preventing people to discover Evolution has no strong scientific basis. Nonsense." <-- That's not what I wrote nor implied. The fact is Darwin's Evolution Theory excludes any religious sentiment and similar theories do the same today. The Scientific Method has undergone several revisions to include Evolution Theory as scientific, while simultaneously rejecting other theories that use the same body of evidence.

"Assuming that Evolution actually describes our existence, then clearly we have no Creator," <- This is false, too. What is clear is that if we have a Creator, it didn't create everything the way your (or my) particular religion's scriptures state. <-- Evolution asserts we humans are the consequence of mutation and natural selection, not the direct or indirect product of a Creator. To do so would admit a religious sentiment which it denies.

"The existence or not of an ultimate Creator is outside the scope of science, as is already explained in this page. No scientific theory can prove nor disprove it." <-- That depends on God, not on scientists. The question is, "Who is God?" You're assuming that created things do not identify the creator.

"It is Creationists who reject science because its theories go against their belief, not the other way around." "The problem of Science with Creationism is their statement that the Theory of Evolution is wrong" <-- This is my point that both look at the same evidence and draw different conclusions. In any case, the question is whether it passes the Scientific Method test, not what theories it contradicts.

I admit pushing the envelope by including intelligence in the Evolution Theory because AFAIK only the physical (mutation and natural selection) are taught in schools and the rest is ignored. My focus, however, was to provide a framework for contributors to work on, or flesh out, rather than engage in fruitless debate.

What I propose is that this topic provide material for both atheists and theists to study regarding Creationism in its religious context. This approach differs from Creationist propaganda because it covers the subject in more detail as a belief, rather than a science. Discussion centres around the causes of Creationist thinking as opposed to its repsonse to Evolution. The purpose is to identify the basis of Creationism, beyond, "The Bible says so here, here, and here" response. --PeterMG 16:25, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

The causes of Creationist thinking

I have some doubts that this approach can "provide material for both atheists and theists to study" since in my experience, creationists seldom want to subject their beliefs to an objective analysis. --JWSchmidt 04:54, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree, which is partly why I think it should be done, although the science section may not be the best place to do it. Perhaps a project on 'Creation using the scientific method', to explore the issues might be more suitable. For example, constructing a hypothesis and testing it against known data. PeterMG 21:18, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I made a similar suggestion above in #New discussion group?, but it is not clear that this is what creationists are interested in. There is a broader phenomenon of Junk science and it might be constructive to deal with that as a whole. I think most "creation science" is junk science, but I think there can be a valid form of "creation science" that is worth sketching on a Wikiversity page in Category:Science.....I just do not see that leading where the biblical creationists want to go. --JWSchmidt 22:25, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

"it is not clear that this is what creationists are interested in" <-- You are correct, wherever evolution is taught, there is where creationists want creationism taught. Since, they argue, both cover the same evidence, they should both be regarded the same. The issue is that Evolution is accepted as scientific while Creationism isn't. So, creationists want Creationism listed under science because Evolution is, and the 'scientific method' objection is just a legal loop-hole to refuse. Given the above analysis is partly true, exactly what policies could Wikiversity adopt without escalating the politics? I think it is important to establish context and then content. PeterMG 07:34, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I have had some significant experiences trying to teach science to creationists, not to convince them of the truth, just so that they have the knowledge, and it has never worked out well. I'd be happy to discuss it if anyone wants, but just my 2 cents. If someone holds a "belief", it isn't likely to change.PalMD 00:59, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

In many cases, creationists can benefit from education about the nature of science. Maybe at What is science? we should make some learning projects that explore the historical origins of some sciences such as chemistry and astronomy. For both chemistry and astronomy there were protoscientific phases of development during which reliable scientific methods were found and pre-scientific myths were sorted from the science. --JWSchmidt 14:50, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Back at high school I had a Natural Sciences' teacher who once assigned us to collect the information of the colours of the eyes of our families' members, so we could check wether it was a hereditary trait or not. When we brought our data to class, he asked us to cross out all the information we hadn't seen with our proper eyes (e.g., I had phoned my uncle to ask him about his and my cousins' eyes). We were very dissatisfied with the measure, because it meant trashing half our work or more, and it meant we probably wouldn't be able to extract any conclusion. He simply told us: "This is Science, and in Science you don't trust anyone." It was a very simple lesson, and it opened many of our minds about the nature of Science and the Scientific Method. What I want to say with this is that it is not so hard to explain... to non-fanatic children at least <:) --Jorge 20:21, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

• Another good science lesson can come from popcorn. This is best done as part of teaching conservation of mass. Have people weigh some popcorn and then have them pop it. Have them weight the popped corn, and watch the fun begin. Many people are tempted to fudge their results because they believe that mass should have been conserved during cooking. They forget that corn pops because steam is made and water vapor escapes into the air. Its a good way to get people to think about paying attention to the data rather than what they believe the answer should be. --JWSchmidt 21:32, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

See also

• Science
• Protoscience
• Pseudoscience
• Science as Religion - the Science as Religion learning project.
• Einstein's Theory of Gravity as religion