I have had experiances that were beyond any rational explanation that I could provide (although I am sure there was a rational explanation for them). Should I then just disregard those experiances and say they were arbitrary, as I cannot prove, or disprove they happened?
I would never disregard a perception simply because of a certain belief. If it happened, it happened. The first thing to decide is whether it really did happen (i.e. decide it was not an illusion, such as a strange reflection which was misinterpreted as something actual) and then you can take up the issue of what in fact it was, and why it happened.
I see 3 problems with reports of the supernatural: 1) I tend to doubt the nature of the experiences themselves and 2) I doubt that the cause is supernatural, and 3) the notion itself is contradictory.
An example of #1 would be that I suspect that at least some of the reports of supernatural events are misinterpretations of what was percieved (some also may be outright lies). Some of the things I have heard of seem to happen on the “edge” of perception, such as in dim light, in unusual conditions, etc. and may have simply been perception itself. Your perceptual system has a certain amount of “noise” in it (for example, vague patches of light or afterimages that you can see if close your eyes), and this could be misinterpreted.
An example of #2 would be that whereas a psychic might say that a cool wind was a spirit, I would say it’s a cool wind.
By #3 I mean that “supernatural” refers to events or things whose cause is beyond nature. Strictly speaking that is not possible. A is A. A thing has a nature and it can only act according to it. If a “supernatural” event really happened, then by definition it is not supernatural, and there is a natural explanation for it.
Redfarmer wrote: “However, what philosophy tells us about psychics and ghosts is that, epistemologically, they are arbitrary concepts. That is, there has been no evidence presented either for or against them (you can’t present evidence against something which has no evidence for it in the first place). As arbitrary concepts, they are neither true nor false and there is no further need to contemplate them unless you are presented with evidence.”
I think this is the essence of Antony Flew’s “Theology and Falsification”, which I read eons ago. What suprised me was that the guy has just changed his mind:
This is why I am confused: You claim there is no evidence for, or against ghosts, or psychics, but where is this comming from?
Usually, some person’s desire to find a loophole in the Law of Identity.
I have had experiances that were beyond any rational explanation that I could provide (although I am sure there was a rational explanation for them). Should I then just disregard those experiances and say they were arbitrary, as I cannot prove, or disprove they happened?
The experience was not arbitrary if it really happened. The explanation offered, however, i.e., the positing of a cause, may be arbitrary.
I don’t know if I am being clear, but let’s say I hear voices in my living room, and there is a transparent human shaped figure floating around to go with those voices. Are you going to tell me that because you don’t believe this can exist, my perceptual experiance was therefore false, and I was making it up?
All you can say is SOMETHING caused the voices and the transparent apparition, but you shouldn’t go any further than the evidence you actually have in saying what that something is or might be. With further evidence you might determine it was your neighbor pulling a trick on you with a holographic projector, a hallucination caused by something you ingested, a vivid dream, etc.
As an infidel once pointed out, “I won’t be responsible for anything I say, once my brain has softened.” An alternative explanation, is that Flew is perpetrating a hoax, which fact he will presently reveal, to show how easily religious people are taken in. (It’s been done before!). A third explanation is that some of Flew’s bad premises have finally caught up with him; he was far from being an Objectivist.
Softening of the brain is a real possibility. His “powerful” argument for the existence of a supernatural spook, is just a rehash of the tired old Argument from Design. As one of Flew’s former colleagues comments:
“They assert that a complex system can only arise out of something with high intelligence. Although complexity is difficult to define, we can reasonably expect a highly intelligent entity to be highly complex. Thus, it can only have arisen out of something even more intelligent and complex, in infinite regress … Fortunately, we can avoid an infinite regress. We can just stop at the world … As we know from both everyday experience and sophisticated scientific observations, complex systems develop from simpler systems all the time in nature—with not even low intelligence required. A mist of water vapor can freeze into a snowflake. Winds can carve out great cathedrals in rock. Brontosaurs can evolve from bacteria.”
What jedymaster was trying to say is that a scientist is no more qualified to make a statement about philosophy than a philosopher about science. There may be exceptions but, for the most part, a specialist must stick to his own field.
If that’s not what you’re trying to say, then why don’t you explain it? There’s obviously at least two people who didn’t understand it…
I think it’s clear enough that anyone reading it should be able to understand. If there is some confusion with what I said, I would be willing to answer specific questions.
I will explain why I disagree with your attempt to paraphrase what I said:
What jedymaster was trying to say is that a scientist is no more qualified to make a statement about philosophy than a philosopher about science. There may be exceptions but, for the most part, a specialist must stick to his own field.
This seems to imply that philosophy and science are two completely separate fields–I stated that they were hierarchically related. Specifically, I said that philosophy is more fundamental than science in a hierarchical chain. As a result, it is perfectly reasonable for a philosopher to comment on a scientific statement if it contradicts a valid philosophical principle (or to verify that it is philosophically sound).
What you said, at least how I read it, makes it appear that philosophy and science are unrelated–perhaps even that only specialists should talk about them. It makes it sound as if the two fields do not need to be properly integrated (compartmentalization) and ignores the hierarchy relating them. I didn’t make any of these assertions (or allusions to them) in my original post, so I just wanted to make it clear that I didn’t agree with your paraphrase.
Please don’t misunderstand me by taking my comments here to be hostile. I’m not accusing you of compartmentalization or intentionally misrepresenting what I wrote. I am just trying to explain why I disagree with your paraphrase so my point doesn’t get confused or distorted.
OK, that makes sense when you explain it. I wasn’t accusing you of being hostile. It was just frustrating when you posted a simple, “I don’t agree” without a qualifier.
Now that you explain it that way, I agree totally but I don’t think your previous post completely communicated all of those ideas. I can see, though, where I wasn’t completely clear, too. I concede to your explanation.