[What Came Before]

That's not what I read. I was simply highlighting an easy lever for someone to dissemble your position in this Bakkerian exercise.

Also, you were clear; I bowed out early for that reason. Perhaps, if you'd like us to provide a foil in the form of your actual argument, you will need to at least sketch those dimensions, as well. We can't argue one of your positions for you, if we don't know more information.

[What Came Before]

We can't argue one of your positions for you, if we don't know more information.

To be honest, I must confess that I'm not quite understanding your usage of "dissemble".

I'm looking for arguments against, not for. I'm afraid that I'm missing something.

Edit: If it helps: there's no "real" argument beneath this 'surface' one. Perhaps that's the key here.

[What Came Before]

Just to note, I've only paid cursory notice to this thread in general and the back and forth between yourself and Callan.

You are arguing against a position you already hold as part of your explanatory style: that is, causality & science?

Causality as you've encountered it seems to you an indigestible distinction?

It would seem Callan and Soterion share your usual perspective yet aren't tackling that position as you'd like or, at least, not so well as you think you are tackling the other half within the debate you've set up here.

You hope to strengthen the security of an existing perspective by playing your own Devil's Advocate? Certain to be respected in some measure, excepting that you aren't finding the counter you are incognizant of?

EDIT: Also, you were correct, Bakker User - I meant that first dissemble as disassemble, though the second one stands. Minor nitpick.

[What Came Before]

Interesting. Keeping it on your terms:

but science, in my opinion, is focused on determining correlation, not causation

This line suggests that all causal statements should be considered non-scientific; that is, once a "scientist" extrapolates results or develops a theory, they necessarily stray outside the realm of science - because "science isn't about determining causation". Would you abide by that assessment?

Speaking semantically and logically, this is correct.  The formulation of theory rests on an absolutization of correlative phenomena that isn't proven merely by observing said phenomena.  However, causal statements should be assessed based on the wealth or paucity of correlative evidence.

We can say that an affirmative causal statement is, in and of itself, unscientific; but we can claim that it is supported by scientific experimentation.

After enough experimental trials communicate the same, or similar, results, we find a plausible basis on which to assume that such results will continue.

Without causality, there is certainly no plausible basis.

Again, would you accept the notion that "assum[ing]...such results will continue" is unscientific?

Yes to the second statement, but I take issue with your criticism of plausibility.  I'll try my best to express what I mean here.  I intend "plausible" as distinct from "probable."  There can be no probability in such an assessment.  Here I'm following the work of Quentin Meillassoux; that is, probability requires a totalization of all possible combinations.  We have no reason to assume that there is a totality of physical outcomes.

Plausible acceptance, however, can be achieved because it is unscientific.  Repetition and observation are scientific; from them we can arrive at plausible acceptance, but this plausibility is no longer scientific.

"The following conditions yielded the same results 9 out of 10 times; thus, it is likely that these conditions will continue to yield such results (however, it is not imperative that these conditions yield such results)."

Without causality, it is imperative that these conditions have no relation to these "results".

Correct; but science rests purely in the repetition and observation of experiments, as I perceive it.  Even if science disproved causality, it would still prove beneficial for human use simply by providing us with the ability to plausibly assume certain results, even if it does not guarantee them.

I need to hear how you make irreconcilable this

once a "scientist" extrapolates results or develops a theory, they necessarily stray outside the realm of science

with

but science, in my opinion, is focused on determining correlation, not causation

Science provides the foundation for accepting a theory, or assumption, as plausible.  Our causal assumptions aren't scientific in and of themselves; but evidence of correlation, based on scientific research, allow us to make unscientific judgments.

I simply can't see how one can remove causation from science's ambit without accepting that science is incapable of prediction and generalization. which really REQUIRE causality in at least some extent.

I mean, it certainly seems to me that science ascribes - that is, causally links - phenomena to physical, non-supernatural causes, in its current form. It certainly seems to me that science seeks to correlate to predict and generalize.

I really need to see whether you reject my initial formulation, and if so how you make compatible the apparent functions and claims of modern science with what I'm treating as your core line:

but science, in my opinion, is focused on determining correlation, not causation

 :?:

EDIT: And, isn't that really the point of correlating in the first place - to discern where the causation lies, and so better yoke it to human purposes? After all, any system can invoke correlation - for instance, I can correlate my post with yours. And it is my conception of science that a scientific approach would attempt to investigate the correlations between my posts and yours, both past and future, to discover whether there is some causation at work between them. I simply can't conceive of science as removed from making causal assessments.

I want to ask first if my former comments have answered your questions; I apologize if not, and I'll try again if you continue to specify your concerns.

Finally, I don't object to the charge that science is ultimately geared toward "human purposes."  I simply think that science rests entirely within the realm of experimentation: repetition, and observation.  The judgments we make, which might be criticized as being irrational, acausal, unscientific, and anthropocentric, ultimately fall outside the realm of science, although science provides the evidence by which arrive at our judgments.  Those whose judgments lack scientific support warrant more scrutiny than those that don't.

[What Came Before]

The way I know english, 'would' and 'must' mean pretty much the same thing here.

Hmm... your trouble seems to be with syntax. Read the full sentence again.

Dude, this doesn't say much about your open mindedness. Despite the way people can clearly end up using language in different ways and even that language is made up, you don't think you could be wrong, or your usage could be particular. It's just that it's entirely up to me to read it again and again.

If you think language is a one sided affair, in your own perspective you're going to be right at the end of this, simply from lumping the other guy with all the work and him giving up because of that.

Perhaps you could reread what you wrote as well.

So even if there were a way for science to disprove causality, it would essentially be disproving itself.

And your reply:

I don't know why you think science - the act of scientific investigation - is trying to prove itself to begin with? Perhaps because you've lined it up next to religion?

I never said that science is trying to disprove itself.

You just quoted me saying 'proved' - then you turn that into 'disprove'.

Slow down and acknowledge some reading errors on your side of the discussion.

It's a simple error - can you acknowledge it, or must no concession be made to me and nothing relinquished? I'm guessing a lack of responce to this question and moving the subject on. Which means no concession.

You're ignoring 'if' as a qualifying statement.

The way I speak English, "if" is a predicating word, just like "assuming".

Well, you can keep arguing that science essentially says if you buy a ticket, you'll win. It's not true, though that is what every religion operates from.

I don't want to misinterpret you here, so please rephrase that without abstraction.

By your reading of english, if I say 'If I buy a lottery ticket, then my numbers come up, then I have won the lottery' you'll read me as saying that just by buying a lottery ticket, I'll win the lottery.

It wont help this conversation between us to just stick with that method of reading.

It's use is that it will admit it is of no use. This is the humility of science. Tell me of a religion that has a process by which it'll admit itself useless?

"Humility" of science? Why should I value humility over correctness? This sort of statement does nothing for me. I could care less how 'nice' or 'good' or 'moral' or what-have-you any one abstraction appears to you.

You've said science and religion are the same (you'll now say you never said that). So tell me which religion will admit itself useless?

BUT - I note that you tacitly admit my very point: 

it will admit it is of no use

So you agree that without causality, science can not function properly.

What, then, are you arguing for? That I should maintain a sacred faith in Science, which with strong hand and outstretched arm has theoretically lifted our People up out of the Land of Ignorance, in which we lived as slaves, and brought us into the Land of Reason, a place flowing with milk and honey, in which we shall live for ever and ever and become as numerous as are the grains of sand in the Sea, most Blessed among Species, so long as we keep our Covenant with Science?

Like alot of athiests, it sounds like you're looking for an under the counter god. Alternatively, I have no idea why you bring up 'sacred faith'.


Note to self: 'Under the counter god' would be a wicked book title. It's mine, folks! All mine! Time stamped and everything! :twisted:

[What Came Before]

Hmmm...

I'm reminded of this video for some reason. At the heart of your words flexes the cold of scrutiny.

Measure is unceasing...

You are arguing against a position you already hold as part of your explanatory style: that is, causality & science?

I would be lying if I were to disclaim an implicit belief in the strength of causality. My default loyalty was at one point unqueestionably with science, I suppose.

Causality as you've encountered it seems to you an indigestible distinction?

Indigestible assumption, I would say.

It would seem Callan and Soterion share your usual perspective

I'm unsure, in quite a few senses.

You hope to strengthen the security of an existing perspective by playing your own Devil's Advocate?

I'm not sure that I am, actually. Then again... on reflection, perhaps I've set this up in such a way that, "no matter who wins, I win". That is, I'm no longer certain of which side I hold the preference for.

you aren't finding the counter you are incognizant of?

Nothing I hadn't thought of or can't think of a way around - yet.
*************
Soterion, you make this both easier and more difficult by introducing a novel conception of what science is and does...

Easier because it keeps some problems and introduces others; harder because I need to switch quite a few mental gears, and track guage, etc...

I'll need to visit a few more points and questions. But my impression is that your definition of science much reduces it - if not in terms of prestige, then certainly in terms of usual scope.

However, causal statements should be assessed based on the wealth or paucity of correlative evidence.

But it always rests upon the assumption of causality. So even defining science this way and removing it from the causal picture, all that "evidence" suddenly isn't worth very much.

We can say that an affirmative causal statement is, in and of itself, unscientific; but we can claim that it is supported by scientific experimentation.

Same point as above.

Repetition and observation are scientific; from them we can arrive at plausible acceptance, but this plausibility is no longer scientific.

Then, is any set of repetitions and observations scientific? Then, would a hunter-gatherer noting the correlation between the onset of dark and the disappearance of the sun be an instance of scientific experimentation?

If that's the case, then what's the difference between ascribing this phenomenon to supernatural rather than natural causes? Both are supported by the same scientific evidence, and both make the same sort of non-scientific claims - spiritualism and physicalism brought to the same level.

At the very least, "scientific theory" would have to be considered an oxymoron and discarded from common usage.

Even if science disproved causality

But then, I'm not sure how mere correlation could ever disprove causation. I've heard, "Correlation does not necessitate causation", but I've never heard, "Correlation necessitates the absence of causation"!

it would still prove beneficial for human use simply by providing us with the ability to plausibly assume certain results, even if it does not guarantee them.

On the contrary: it can only hold with causality. Without causality, we can not plausibly assume results. If, in an acausal universe, jumping twice in a row is alternately followed by flying pink elephants and instant death-and-resurrection, it would certainly not be plausible to assume any causal link between these events!

***************

If no one minds, I'll confine Soterion's conception of science to responses directed at his posts, unless anyone else would actually like to adopt it.

Dude, this doesn't say much about your open mindedness. Despite the way people can clearly end up using language in different ways and even that language is made up, you don't think you could be wrong, or your usage could be particular. It's just that it's entirely up to me to read it again and again.

If you think language is a one sided affair, in your own perspective you're going to be right at the end of this, simply from lumping the other guy with all the work and him giving up because of that.

Funnily enough, that's pretty much what I said of your approach!

Slow down and acknowledge some reading errors on your side of the discussion.

Oh shi-i-i-t, son, I'll grant you that one. I missed it. However, though this is an embarrassing oversight it doesn't actually change the substance of my counter too much. Let's try it again.

So even if there were a way for science to disprove causality, it would essentially be disproving itself.

And your reply:

I don't know why you think science - the act of scientific investigation - is trying to prove itself to begin with? Perhaps because you've lined it up next to religion?

I never said that science is trying to prove itself. I said that science has no mechanism for disproving causality. What I did say: If, on the other hand, there were such a mechanism - it is crucial that you understand this caveat which I was making - then - and let me make it explicit - without a mechanism for proving causality it would necessarily be disproving itself. Why, you might ask? Because science is predicated upon causality - that's literally my whole point.

*shrug* That's my stance on the sentence.

By your reading of english, if I say 'If I buy a lottery ticket, then my numbers come up, then I have won the lottery' you'll read me as saying that just by buying a lottery ticket, I'll win the lottery.

Nope. Perhaps you'd like to  show how this analogy actually holds?

You've said science and religion are the same (you'll now say you never said that).

I've got you dead-to-rights here. I never, ever, said that. What I said is - and you may search this up yourself, if you don't believe it:

The way it looks here, the choice is ultimately a matter of pure preference. A scientific world-view and a religious world-view are ultimately equally valid.

Epistemically-speaking.

 8-)

Like alot of athiests, it sounds like you're looking for an under the counter god.

Nah - I've already noted my motivation earlier on.

[What Came Before]

Hmmm...

I'm reminded of this video for some reason. At the heart of your words flexes the cold of scrutiny.

Measure is unceasing...

Lol. None know me, Bakker User , though I'd wager that I've exposed my expressive self on this forum more than any other avenue of my life - I certainly can't rank Dunyain, simply someone attempting one active, embodied practice of many. In the future, I'm sure I'll be classified as some fundamentalist evolutionist and not one of those new-age hippie transcendentalists or augmentalists. I even embrace emotions :shock: ?

You are arguing against a position you already hold as part of your explanatory style: that is, causality & science?

I would be lying if I were to disclaim an implicit belief in the strength of causality. My default loyalty was at one point unqueestionably with science, I suppose.

Just curious - my opinion would be that you've been fair in offering premises to justify your refutation, regardless.

Causality as you've encountered it seems to you an indigestible distinction?

Indigestible assumption, I would say.

Distinctions are only attempts to sketch borders? I admit the assumptive nature of naming things, forcing them into places. Everything is change, or not, and yet all we can do is throw these very human nets at leviathans and grotesqueries.

It would seem Callan and Soterion share your usual perspective

I'm unsure, in quite a few senses.

You hope to strengthen the security of an existing perspective by playing your own Devil's Advocate?

I'm not sure that I am, actually. Then again... on reflection, perhaps I've set this up in such a way that, "no matter who wins, I win". That is, I'm no longer certain of which side I hold the preference for.

you aren't finding the counter you are incognizant of?

Nothing I hadn't thought of or can't think of a way around - yet.

Keep flexing - the brain's a muscle unlike any other. A most useful practice.

"You can never convince others, only that, in this moment, you have learned enough."

A common metaphor in my philosophic experience is a pot of water that boils, when decrying science in philosophy's favour based on the noncausality charge.

[What Came Before]

I never said that science is trying to prove itself. I said that science has no mechanism for disproving causality. What I did say: If, on the other hand, there were such a mechanism - it is crucial that you understand this caveat which I was making - then - and let me make it explicit - without a mechanism for proving causality it would necessarily be disproving itself. Why, you might ask? Because science is predicated upon causality - that's literally my whole point.

You're refering to some other method and attributing that as being the scientific method. I've said "if a test produces result Y in 1000 tests, on the 1001st test it may produce result X. Perhaps causality will not be the case at some point? Who knows?"

You keep reading it as "Hae, science thinks if you get result Y 1000 times, then it's proven!". Indeed looking back at your former posts I recognise this now, when you say "If 100 tests, X happens 100 times - could be totally unrelated."

As I said back then: Either I don't know what you mean, or you didn't read what I wrote - it is accepted that on the 1001st time result Y might occur.

No, science doesn't think if you get result Y 1000 times, it's proven. Apparently you keep insisting that is what science does think.

Nope. Perhaps you'd like to show how this analogy actually holds?

Show entirely on my own, without effort on your part? No, I wouldn't like that.

I'll quote you

You've shown nothing. "If X happens, then Y happens, then causality is occuring" is an instance of begging the question.

You've said this is begging the question, because you treat the following as a statement of fact "if X happens, then Y happens, then causality is occuring", as if causality IS occuring, rather than causality MIGHT BE occuring.

It's not the former. You keep reading it the way it's not intended, then when I go to correct your reading to the latter, to treat it as a MIGHT BE statement, you've ignored that. Maybe the lottery ticket analogy was just too complex to show up as such a correction, but it doesn't seem complex to me.

I've got you dead-to-rights here. I never, ever, said that. What I said is - and you may search this up yourself, if you don't believe it:

The way it looks here, the choice is ultimately a matter of pure preference. A scientific world-view and a religious world-view are ultimately equally valid.

Let's go even further back

What I'm getting at is, if science is predicated upon such a huge assumption - and the Scientific Method surely relies upon causality to be meaningful - then what makes scientific claims any more epistemically valid than religious claims, which simply assume the existence of supernatural entities and create logical proofs from there?

In that case, isn't it merely a matter of 'choose-your-prejudice'? - See more at: http://secondapocalypse.forumer.com/philosophy-101-t1239708-50.html#sthash.zAVwJaqv.dpuf

It makes it sound like you're stating actual facts here, that you say they are both predicated on huge assumptions.

So you're not stating any facts, you're just saying 'choose what you wanna'?

It honestly didn't sound like it. It sounded like you thought you had some sort of facts to treat them as equal choices.

Nah - I've already noted my motivation earlier on.

I still don't know why you brought up 'sacred faith'


Unrelated Foot Note: This just in - I hate that when I cut and paste text from here it throws in an advert for this forum. I didn't even know there was code that could do something invasive like that (next if I take a screen shot they'll have code to put in a shitty watermark)

[What Came Before]

Unrelated response: There are plenty of sites that do that - I've even encountered it academically, along with some discomfort.

I haven't experienced that here? Does it happen within forum or only when you take the text to quote on another site or document?

[What Came Before]

I haven't experienced that here? Does it happen within forum or only when you take the text to quote on another site or document? - See more at: http://secondapocalypse.forumer.com/philosophy-101-t1239708-80.html#sthash.XR1dkHv2.dpuf

When I look at the forum in my browser, highlight, copy then paste, the above occurs. It may be a default setting.

Also although I'm in part to blame, I wonder if we are detracting from Jorge's good idea to have a philosophy 101 thread - maybe this discussion (pretty much starting with Bakker Users first post) could be clipped off into it's own thread and we can continue it from there (obviously with a link back to this thread, for reference)?

[What Came Before]

No, science doesn't think if you get result Y 1000 times, it's proven. Apparently you keep insisting that is what science does think.

I'll clarify: That's not quite what I'm saying, because I disagree with your

Perhaps causality will not be the case at some point? Who knows?"

I do not see science as accepting this possibility. In fact, if the X-result occurs on the 1001th time, science would never, ever reject causality as a whole - it would instead consider the possibility that the causal mechanism behind these results is not as well-understood as previously thought. That's a huge distinction.

You've said this is begging the question, because you treat the following as a statement of fact "if X happens, then Y happens, then causality is occuring", as if causality IS occuring, rather than causality MIGHT BE occuring.

Let's go back to what you originally said that prompted this response.

'If X then Y is occuring, causality is occuring'.

That wasn't a paraphrase; you said it yourself. No "might be" in there.

It makes it sound like you're stating actual facts here, that you say they are both predicated on huge assumptions.

So you're not stating any facts, you're just saying 'choose what you wanna'?

What exactly are you talking about? What's your point? How is that relevant to your claim that I said "science and religion are the same"? 'X holds Y assumption' is a factual statement, by the way. So count me bewildered.

I still don't know why you brought up 'sacred faith'

Assumptions are calls to faith.

Also although I'm in part to blame, I wonder if we are detracting from Jorge's good idea to have a philosophy 101 thread - maybe this discussion (pretty much starting with Bakker Users first post) could be clipped off into it's own thread and we can continue it from there (obviously with a link back to this thread, for reference)?

Isn't this 101-material?

It seems to me you're not clear on what the argument is, and what evidence I have called for it. Perhaps we should start from the beginning and revoke the existing subsequent posts?

*********************

Distinctions are only attempts to sketch borders? I admit the assumptive nature of naming things, forcing them into places. Everything is change, or not, and yet all we can do is throw these very human nets at leviathans and grotesqueries.

You  give me too much credit. I hardly understand half of what I post...

A common metaphor in my philosophic experience is a pot of water that boils, when decrying science in philosophy's favour based on the noncausality charge.

I've thought about this for a couple of days, but I'm afraid I have to admit that I don't understand the metaphor.

P.S. The forum-link attachment to copy-pastes is kind of annoying.

[What Came Before]

I haven't seen the added links, either. I'm guessing the Firefox add-ons Adblock Plus and/or NoScript are dealing with them

[What Came Before]

Soterion, you make this both easier and more difficult by introducing a novel conception of what science is and does...

Easier because it keeps some problems and introduces others; harder because I need to switch quite a few mental gears, and track guage, etc...

I'll need to visit a few more points and questions. But my impression is that your definition of science much reduces it - if not in terms of prestige, then certainly in terms of usual scope.

However, causal statements should be assessed based on the wealth or paucity of correlative evidence.

But it always rests upon the assumption of causality. So even defining science this way and removing it from the causal picture, all that "evidence" suddenly isn't worth very much.

I'm not understanding why...

Repetition/iteration doesn't prove causality.  It merely provides a foundation for praxis.  I perceive science itself as an abstraction, as experimental apparatuses that function in order to formulate meta-functional axioms.  Science functions like Kant's categorical imperative.  It isn't actually comprised of causal statements, but it allows us to test causal statements.  We can repeatedly put a causal statement to the test; if it consistently passes, this doesn't prove its causality but it does allow us to continue under the presumption that future tests will yield similar results.

Once a test yields a negative result, we know definitively the causality of the aforementioned statement to be untrue.

Repetition and observation are scientific; from them we can arrive at plausible acceptance, but this plausibility is no longer scientific.

Then, is any set of repetitions and observations scientific? Then, would a hunter-gatherer noting the correlation between the onset of dark and the disappearance of the sun be an instance of scientific experimentation?

If that's the case, then what's the difference between ascribing this phenomenon to supernatural rather than natural causes? Both are supported by the same scientific evidence, and both make the same sort of non-scientific claims - spiritualism and physicalism brought to the same level.

There is no difference if we're talking about definitive attributions of causality; neither supernatural nor natural causality can be proven.  If our skepticism allows us to pursue scientific practices without recourse to causal thinking, then both supernatural and natural explanations become imaginary and irrational.  They're nothing more than the way we represent reality to ourselves.

Even if science disproved causality

But then, I'm not sure how mere correlation could ever disprove causation. I've heard, "Correlation does not necessitate causation", but I've never heard, "Correlation necessitates the absence of causation"!

I'm under the impression that correlation doesn't disprove causation; if, however, an experiment yields results in which previously correlative phenomena are shown to no longer correspond, then we've definitively disproved causality in this case.

it would still prove beneficial for human use simply by providing us with the ability to plausibly assume certain results, even if it does not guarantee them.

On the contrary: it can only hold with causality. Without causality, we can not plausibly assume results. If, in an acausal universe, jumping twice in a row is alternately followed by flying pink elephants and instant death-and-resurrection, it would certainly not be plausible to assume any causal link between these events!

That's the ideology of practical operation.  I think of Žižek's "They know what they do, and yet they do it anyway."  This isn't false consciousness; we may accept cognitively that causality doesn't actually exist, or doesn't need to exist, but we must act as though it does.

This leads me to a question that I think needs clarification.  When we discuss "science," are we discussing the cultural institution of science; i.e., the institution that is subject to monetary demands, social obligations, political pressure, etc.?  Because I certainly think you're making decent points if we're discussing some adulterated cultural manifestation of science as institutionalized.  I'm referring to science in the sense of an abstract pursuit, as a concept that we use to describe our investigations of the physical world.

[What Came Before]

I do not see science as accepting this possibility. In fact, if the X-result occurs on the 1001th time, science would never, ever reject causality as a whole - it would instead consider the possibility that the causal mechanism behind these results is not as well-understood as previously thought.

Well, that theory of causality is disproved. Do you expect all notions of causality aught to be disproven without experiment?

Also lets consider this in contrast - what else do you have? You don't think science as a practice wont sort of go 'Well, what other options are there?' and genuinely ask it?

It seems at best you have your personal opinion that it wont? Got more than that?

'If X then Y is occuring, causality is occuring'.

That wasn't a paraphrase; you said it yourself. No "might be" in there.

Again you just read 'if' in the way that forfils your conclusion.

Is there more than one way to read 'if' in that sentence?

Just say no, if you're so sure there isn't. But it's not so much that you're sure, but that you're taking a reading shortcut when it most advantages your conclusion.

It makes it sound like you're stating actual facts here, that you say they are both predicated on huge assumptions.

What exactly are you talking about? What's your point? How is that relevant to your claim that I said "science and religion are the same"?

Tell me in your own words what you think my point is. Take a guess, if need be.

I don't think you're even trying to formulate what I'm saying in your head right now - you're not bothering, then responding to your own hash of not bothering as if some sort of genuine inability to understand the point. Write what you think I'm saying.

I've seen this occur before - people who don't want to see a point easily enough just don't see it. It's not hard - just power down the mental processes and everything the other guy says just literally doesn't make sense anymore.

Assumptions are calls to faith.

So religious folks will, if you ask them, straight away say 'oh, my faith is really just an assumption!'? Or they'll say 'Oh, my faith is really just a disprovable hypothesis!'?

Keep kludging them together, I guess, if that's what you need to do.

You're claim doesn't actually have a disproval method attached to it, come to think of it.

[What Came Before]

if it consistently passes, this doesn't prove its causality but it does allow us to continue under the presumption that future tests will yield similar results.

Well, isn't that the point? That causality is still an assumption. Keeping it apart from the suggested correlative function of science, the fact of the assumption makes

However, causal statements should be assessed based on the wealth or paucity of correlative evidence.

subject to dismissal. If causality remains an assumption, then whatever the specific function of science, these "meta-functional" axioms arising from its correlations are no better than a causal judgement even without any correlative evidence.

If our skepticism allows us to pursue scientific practices without recourse to causal thinking, then both supernatural and natural explanations become imaginary and irrational.

This really gets to the heart of the issue and articulates my overall point much better than I have done or could do. Thanks. Though I'm still not sure I can accept this stripped-down version of science you maintain.

I'm under the impression that correlation doesn't disprove causation; if, however, an experiment yields results in which previously correlative phenomena are shown to no longer correspond, then we've definitively disproved causality in this case.

Well, to be more precise you've disproved absolute causality for this particular 'sequence'.

That's the ideology of practical operation. I think of Žižek's "They know what they do, and yet they do it anyway." This isn't false consciousness; we may accept cognitively that causality doesn't actually exist, or doesn't need to exist, but we must act as though it does.

I've no idea; as far as professional philosophy goes, I've only ever read Bakker and some Plato. Sounds like the "useful myth of morality" bit, though.

I'm referring to science in the sense of an abstract pursuit, as a concept that we use to describe our investigations of the physical world.

Science as a system; the latter. But as we've established, your different conception of science requires (has required) a somewhat different approach.

Though it seems to be leaning toward the affirmative, I'd still like to hear what you think of

Then, is any set of repetitions and observations scientific? Then, would a hunter-gatherer noting the correlation between the onset of dark and the disappearance of the sun be an instance of scientific experimentation?

It's the one thing that I seem to lack definite understanding of vis-a-vis your version of science.

*********************

It seems at best you have your personal opinion that it wont? Got more than that?

It's not an opinion?

Just say no, if you're so sure there isn't. But it's not so much that you're sure, but that you're taking a reading shortcut when it most advantages your conclusion.

 :roll:

Tell me in your own words what you think my point is. Take a guess, if need be.

I don't think you're even trying to formulate what I'm saying in your head right now - you're not bothering, then responding to your own hash of not bothering as if some sort of genuine inability to understand the point. Write what you think I'm saying.

I've seen this occur before - people who don't want to see a point easily enough just don't see it. It's not hard - just power down the mental processes and everything the other guy says just literally doesn't make sense anymore.

 :roll:

So religious folks will, if you ask them, straight away say 'oh, my faith is really just an assumption!'? Or they'll say 'Oh, my faith is really just a disprovable hypothesis!'?

Keep kludging them together, I guess, if that's what you need to do.

I believe you're referring to the practice of some theists to attempt to demonstrate the existence of a god through some test or perhaps logical proofs. This would be an attempt to prove an assumption through propositions that rest upon that very assumption. And so?

You're claim doesn't actually have a disproval method attached to it, come to think of it.

It does - Soterion did it just now by adopting a definition of "science" that would make my particular arguments incompatible. As I mentioned earlier, you would need to show that science does not hold causality as an assumption to beat me back, and his redefinition ensured just that. This way, I'm forced away from confronting science per se, and instead toward denigrating both supernaturalism and physicalism specifically. With the implicit ( :oops: ) definition of science I've been relying upon within our discourse, physicalism and science are inextricable - thus the assertion of a causality assumption in science. Get it yet?

So don't you see what you're doing here? 'I can't see a way around what this guy's saying, so it must be undisprovable (which is somehow bad, I guess, probably), so I get to walk away scot-free; so convenient for me and my cherished beliefs'.