The Naked Scientists
  • Login
  • Register
  • Podcasts
      • The Naked Scientists
      • eLife
      • Naked Genetics
      • Naked Astronomy
      • In short
      • Naked Neuroscience
      • Ask! The Naked Scientists
      • Question of the Week
      • Archive
      • Video
      • SUBSCRIBE to our Podcasts
  • Articles
      • Science News
      • Features
      • Interviews
      • Answers to Science Questions
  • Get Naked
      • Donate
      • Do an Experiment
      • Science Forum
      • Ask a Question
  • About
      • Meet the team
      • Our Sponsors
      • Site Map
      • Contact us

User menu

  • Login
  • Register
  • Home
  • Help
  • Search
  • Tags
  • Member Map
  • Recent Topics
  • Login
  • Register
  1. Naked Science Forum
  2. General Science
  3. General Science
  4. Is my philosophical theory correct?
« previous next »
  • Print
Pages: [1]   Go Down

Is my philosophical theory correct?

  • 10 Replies
  • 3037 Views
  • 0 Tags

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline thedoc (OP)

  • Forum Admin
  • Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 510
  • Activity:
    0%
  • Thanked: 17 times
    • View Profile
Is my philosophical theory correct?
« on: 13/12/2016 18:53:05 »
Lee Wardell asked the Naked Scientists:
   
Hi naked scientist, love your program. I listen every week, I study philosophy as a hobby & have written an argument which I would like you to check if it is valid.

The argument is in syllogism form & is intended to challenge the claim that some people are certain they have observed an apparition of some kind including ghosts, spirits, demons, souls, angels & voices of the dead etc etc. I have named the argument 'Casper's Refutation' (Don't laugh!).

The argument is as follows;

X = The Mind
Y = Reality
Z = Something that is observed in reality but does not exist in reality and is not produced by the mind.

No human has a complete understanding of how 'X' works.

No human has a complete understanding of what 'Y' is.

Humans need to have a complete understanding of how 'X' works and what 'Y' is before they can define what 'Z' is.

No human can claim to be certain of observing a 'Z'.

So my question is; Is the argument valid or is it meaningless, or is it as John Cleese would say "Stating the bleeding obvious".

Thank you.
What do you think?
« Last Edit: 13/12/2016 18:53:05 by _system »
Logged
 



Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • ********
  • 10852
  • Activity:
    100%
  • Thanked: 632 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: Is my philosophical theory correct?
« Reply #1 on: 13/12/2016 20:44:24 »
If Z doesn't exist in reality it can't be observed in reality
Logged
helping to stem the tide of ignorance
 

Offline Tinker-Bell

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • 31
  • Activity:
    0%
  • Thanked: 3 times
  • Always Tinkering!
    • View Profile
Re: Is my philosophical theory correct?
« Reply #2 on: 13/12/2016 21:18:20 »
Quote from: thedoc on 13/12/2016 18:53:05

X = The Mind
Y = Reality
Z = Something that is observed in reality but does not exist in reality and is not produced by the mind.

No human has a complete understanding of how 'X' works.

No human has a complete understanding of what 'Y' is.

Humans need to have a complete understanding of how 'X' works and what 'Y' is before they can define what 'Z' is.

No human can claim to be certain of observing a 'Z'.

What do you think?


Einstein answered your question best:

“Any [person] who reads too much and uses [their] own brain too little falls into lazy habits of thinking.” - Albert Einstein

Since I understand ALL that YOU say NO human can understand, plus, I'm in possession of quite a few Ghosts, like the Ghosted Russian Imperial FAMILY, the Ghosts of Congress, the Ghost of Kinsale, Ireland, and OTHERS, besides also being a Ghost myself personally and in MANY different ways, so I guess I'm not human then?  :D

Does that make me God?  :o

“If you can easily see the PERSONAL flaws in others, drink more Vodka and their flaws will disappear; if not, change Vodka's and try-try-try again-and-again until success is had. The trick is to NEVER-EVER give-up trying to become better than you were or can be!” - Dick Van Dyke (aka: Martini Proverb)

Ribbit  :P

Ps: Maybe I should have called myself Casper instead of Tinker-Bell, since I'm ALSO Casper, besides also being the Easter Bunny as well. Whereas Tink plays into me being a Tinker, as well as me being turned into Peter Pan by the Children's Home (Orphanage) I ended-up at when I was 4 AND the bassackwards nature of this Calculus perverted world.  ;)

* Hope.jpg (228.52 kB, 800x600 - viewed 182 times.)

* Einstein Fairy Tales.jpg (133.69 kB, 736x1173 - viewed 155 times.)

* Einstein Fool.jpg (44.1 kB, 400x300 - viewed 172 times.)
« Last Edit: 13/12/2016 21:32:56 by Tinker-Bell »
Logged
"Order, via Control, breeds Chaos; whereas Control, via Order, isn't Control." (Open/Closed System Law of Order/Control) - Old Toad Proverb (requoting EINSTEIN)
 

Offline tkadm30

  • Naked Science Forum King!
  • ******
  • 2439
  • Activity:
    0%
  • Thanked: 34 times
  • Breaking the box...
    • View Profile
    • IsotopeResearch
Re: Is my philosophical theory correct?
« Reply #3 on: 13/12/2016 22:19:15 »
Quote from: alancalverd on 13/12/2016 20:44:24
If Z doesn't exist in reality it can't be observed in reality

I disagree. You can observe mentally anything you can think of. Observation is not just a physical process but also a mental activity.
Logged
Not all who wander are lost...
 

Offline Tinker-Bell

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • 31
  • Activity:
    0%
  • Thanked: 3 times
  • Always Tinkering!
    • View Profile
Re: Is my philosophical theory correct?
« Reply #4 on: 13/12/2016 23:01:13 »
Quote from: tkadm30 on 13/12/2016 22:19:15
Quote from: alancalverd on 13/12/2016 20:44:24
If Z doesn't exist in reality it can't be observed in reality

I disagree. You can observe mentally anything you can think of. Observation is not just a physical process but also a mental activity.


"The MINIMUM it takes for ANYTHING to EXIST is for you to SIMPLY think it, therefore, be extremely careful what you think and say." (Open System Law of Existence) - Old Toad Proverb

"Say as little as you have to until you have to and when you do have to speak, be meticulous with your choice of werds and how you say them." - Zeroth Rule of Law/Life

Ribbit  :D

* Happiness.jpg (85.46 kB, 796x515 - viewed 190 times.)
« Last Edit: 13/12/2016 23:08:02 by Tinker-Bell »
Logged
"Order, via Control, breeds Chaos; whereas Control, via Order, isn't Control." (Open/Closed System Law of Order/Control) - Old Toad Proverb (requoting EINSTEIN)
 
The following users thanked this post: tkadm30



Offline snorkfort

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • 40
  • Activity:
    0%
  • Thanked: 1 times
    • View Profile
Re: Is my philosophical theory correct?
« Reply #5 on: 14/12/2016 02:41:00 »
Philosophical argument not required. Superstitious and supernatural nonsense can be dismissed out of hand simply by recognising that the people who believe in these things have lower intelligence and lower analytical thinking (critical thinking) ability than those who don't.

Reference 1: The relation between intelligence and religiosity: a meta-analysis
(google it)

Reference 2: Paranormal psychic believers and skeptics: a large-scale test of the cognitive differences hypothesis
 (google it)

Conclusion: we don't need to waste any more time and resources studying or discussing what stupid people believe.
« Last Edit: 14/12/2016 02:43:06 by snorkfort »
Logged
 

Offline tkadm30

  • Naked Science Forum King!
  • ******
  • 2439
  • Activity:
    0%
  • Thanked: 34 times
  • Breaking the box...
    • View Profile
    • IsotopeResearch
Re: Is my philosophical theory correct?
« Reply #6 on: 14/12/2016 10:46:48 »
Quote from: snorkfort on 14/12/2016 02:41:00
Superstitious and supernatural nonsense

It's called parapsychology. (google it)



Logged
Not all who wander are lost...
 

Offline snorkfort

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • 40
  • Activity:
    0%
  • Thanked: 1 times
    • View Profile
Re: Is my philosophical theory correct?
« Reply #7 on: 14/12/2016 21:45:56 »
Quote from: tkadm30 on 14/12/2016 10:46:48
Quote from: snorkfort on 14/12/2016 02:41:00
Superstitious and supernatural nonsense

It's called parapsychology. (google it)

No, parapsychology is the pseudoscientific STUDY of superstitious and supernatural nonsense.
(google it, or check dictionary)
Logged
 

Offline tkadm30

  • Naked Science Forum King!
  • ******
  • 2439
  • Activity:
    0%
  • Thanked: 34 times
  • Breaking the box...
    • View Profile
    • IsotopeResearch
Re: Is my philosophical theory correct?
« Reply #8 on: 14/12/2016 22:06:47 »
Quote from: snorkfort on 14/12/2016 21:45:56
No, parapsychology is the pseudoscientific STUDY of superstitious and supernatural nonsense.
(google it, or check dictionary)

Yeah right. Pretending extrasensory perceptions (ESP), near-death experiences (NDE) and experimental parapsychology are nonsense is a evidence that you're either uneducated or disinformed. I suggest you quit the offending rants on people intelligence who study in this domain. 
Logged
Not all who wander are lost...
 



Offline snorkfort

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • 40
  • Activity:
    0%
  • Thanked: 1 times
    • View Profile
Re: Is my philosophical theory correct?
« Reply #9 on: 14/12/2016 23:08:00 »
Quote from: tkadm30 on 14/12/2016 22:06:47
Quote from: snorkfort on 14/12/2016 21:45:56
No, parapsychology is the pseudoscientific STUDY of superstitious and supernatural nonsense.
(google it, or check dictionary)

Yeah right. Pretending extrasensory perceptions (ESP), near-death experiences (NDE) and experimental parapsychology are nonsense is a evidence that you're either uneducated or disinformed. I suggest you quit the offending rants on people intelligence who study in this domain.

The references I posted provide data about the intelligence/analytical abilities of the people who BELIEVE these things, not the people who study these things.
Logged
 

Offline Brad Watson

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • 56
  • Activity:
    0%
  • Thanked: 1 times
    • View Profile
Re: Is my philosophical theory correct?
« Reply #10 on: 15/12/2016 01:54:03 »
Quote from: thedoc on 13/12/2016 18:53:05
Z = Something that is observed in reality but does not exist in reality and is not produced by the mind...
What do you think?
You've got a BIG contradiction there, therefore, no logic can come from it.
Logged
 



  • Print
Pages: [1]   Go Up
« previous next »
Tags:
 

Similar topics (5)

What is your opinion about the "Big Rip Theory?"

Started by Joe L. OganBoard Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology

Replies: 2
Views: 4855
Last post 28/11/2009 20:39:38
by Soul Surfer
How valid is the "build your resistance theory"?

Started by Johann Mahne Board Cells, Microbes & Viruses

Replies: 3
Views: 4409
Last post 29/10/2011 19:18:45
by Geezer
Is the most profound quest in all of physics the "Theory of Everything"?

Started by Alan McDougallBoard Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology

Replies: 8
Views: 5612
Last post 18/08/2019 09:02:00
by Hayseed
How does Hawking's radiation helps in figuring out "the theory of everything"?

Started by Dr AmruthaBoard Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology

Replies: 43
Views: 12594
Last post 13/06/2016 11:00:07
by LarryLee Booth
MOVED: New Theory: How electromagnetic radiation change from inverse cubic to inverse square

Started by Colin2BBoard Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology

Replies: 0
Views: 716
Last post 28/10/2019 22:43:40
by Colin2B
There was an error while thanking
Thanking...
  • SMF 2.0.15 | SMF © 2017, Simple Machines
    Privacy Policy
    SMFAds for Free Forums
  • Naked Science Forum ©

Page created in 0.139 seconds with 61 queries.

  • Podcasts
  • Articles
  • Get Naked
  • About
  • Contact us
  • Advertise
  • Privacy Policy
  • Subscribe to newsletter
  • We love feedback

Follow us

cambridge_logo_footer.png

©The Naked Scientists® 2000–2017 | The Naked Scientists® and Naked Science® are registered trademarks created by Dr Chris Smith. Information presented on this website is the opinion of the individual contributors and does not reflect the general views of the administrators, editors, moderators, sponsors, Cambridge University or the public at large.