Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×

Comment Re:Call me strange but... (Score 1) 198

Full unpaywalled text

"Our results show that medical factors cannot account for occurrence of NDE"

So, we have 4 PhD's and MD's, peer-reviewed, and published in likely the most authoritative medical journal in the world, showing "hallucinations" that just happen to correspond specifically to the predictions of the theological model, along with perceptions of events expected to be unperceivable by the unconscious person, from a fully-experienced sense of complete personhood from a vantage point outside of their physical body.

Versus... MightyMartian and his wholly unbacked and unqualified mere characterizations.

Comment Re:Call me strange but... (Score 2) 198

Ah, no, you are muddling the issues here.

First of all, there is no hypothesis is science that has a "provable result". There is current correspondence between empirical information and a given scientific model, which is -permanently- provisional and open to new data.

Luminiferous Ether was, per all testing of the model at the time, "proven". The Steady State model of the universe was, by per all testing of the model of the time, "proven".

And both were false.

As for what a hypothesis "can lead to", if presently it is not testable, that it will or won't be is an exercise of you injecting your psychic powers regarding the future into science. Better to adjust your stance to what science actually is--that a strong inference from tested knowns is science, even in the absence of a known or proposable test, e.g., the QM Interpretations.

You don't really understand the words you are using here trying to address what philosophy actually is, since "metaphysics" is a core branch of of philosophy, along with epistemology, ethics, aesthetics, and politics. It does not mean "stuff they show on Ghost Hunter". Metaphysics is the domain that studies "what fundamentally exists", and even if your stance is "only material scientifically-detectable things exist", you still have a metaphysics, and that is your stance on it. That aside, philosophy is -extremely- rigorous. Logic, for one, defines rules for evaluation of premises that are far more rigorous that statements we can make in science, due to the fact theories are provisional. A fallacious argument is fallacious, period, fully demonstrated right then and there and refuted forever. Science does not have, and never can have, that level of definitive certainty.

Most important application of this rigor is exactly what has, again, been specifically what happened historically--defining at the core what science is, and is not. Fortunately, that rigor has held and so we have means of properly defining and scoping science, which, again, you don't, and haven't, as demonstrated precisely what you're claiming. You have nothing more than a circular definition of "science"--your (inaccurate) notion of science is backed by... you repeating your demonstrated-false definition of science.

Science can thank philosophy for keeping science-damaging people like you from repeatedly harming people's understanding of it. Yes, I know, your whole reason for excluding untestable QM science as "science" is because Dawkins convinced you that science is whatever you need to say it is, to politically exclude anything relating to religion.

Fix your understanding anyway.

Comment Re: Call me strange but... (Score 1) 198

So, editing the irrelevancies, your point to all this is to say that this particular medical/scientific process does not lead, in your mind, to the definitional questions of "what does 'human' mean exactly" posed by genetic manipulation in general (as also widely noted and discussed by others), that my actual post was addressing.


Comment Re: Call me strange but... (Score 1) 198

Okay, let's be clear. -You- replied to -my- broad high-level statement of logical implications of manipulating genetic processes in a general sense, for which my post was expanding on an even more broadly-stated parent post.

I do not know why you didn't post your as a reply to the originating article summary--that makes a lot more sense than to my particular post, for which it is an irrelevant focusing on a particular technique, and skipping my comment entirely, apparently with an air of "I know a lot about a subset of the science, so I'll go ahead and talk about that and not address your post as a supposed way of addressing it".

Whatever you think we are arguing about and you are contributing to specifically, we aren't.

Comment Re:Call me strange but... (Score 2) 198

Can you define what "consciousness" is?

Not with any more precision than I can "soul", but neither of us doubts it exists.

Notably, that it doesn't exist is one of the required "stances" , which end up being rather overtly indefensible, as an alternative way to rationalize the dilemma posed by the Mind-Body Problem.

If you want to delve into the question deeper here, googling "Mind-Body Problem" or "Cartesian Dualism" will provide you with all the background information on historical vetting of this issue you could want.

For a summary, I'd recommend:

Written by, incidentally, if you suspect me of bias, a current professor of philosophy and stated atheist (see top level URL).

Comment Re: Call me strange but... (Score 1) 198

I have nothing to defend.

The line of the thread is clear, I thought. What categorization of yourself is available based on material inference from your DNA, such as, say, how anyone should consider you required to be treated in any way other than any other categorization of a pattern of DNA?

Just say what you are, and justify that with reference to your DNA, if that's what you acknowledge you have available to reference, as the material origin of what you are. Particularly, by way of inquiry, which nucleotides provide you with "rights" in contrast to other hominids. Just the sequence and causal steps to generating your organism's rights would be fine.

If you don't have any reason to think you having them is something real, that is an acceptable answer, as well. Just say so.

Comment Re:Call me strange but... (Score 5, Insightful) 198

And that, as a matter of historical fact, came from philosophy.

Odd that your implicit assertion would be that it came suddenly from nowhere.

But if we're going to play dictionary games, here's Merriam-Webster:

noun sci-ence
Popularity: Top 1% of lookups
Simple Definition of science
: knowledge about or study of the natural world based on facts learned through experiments and observation
: a particular area of scientific study (such as biology, physics, or chemistry) : a particular branch of science
: a subject that is formally studied in a college, university, etc.

Does this scope specifically and only to the specific form-hypothesis-test-repeat steps (choose your alternate permutation of steps of which you claim there in only one standard) referred to as scientific method? No.

But then, no need for that. Such scoping is irrational and would immediately destroy science, if strong but untestable inference from established tested knowns is excluded.

Or, you can throw away, for one, most of Quantum Physics, particularly the core Interpretations, i.e. Copenhagen, Everett, etc., etc.

This physics is not science? Do you want more examples?

Comment Re:Call me strange but... (Score -1, Troll) 198

No, I just understand science better, and which domains of it allow for which scientific methodologies. Don't be the standard Slashdot science-poseur and claim there's only one.

Or, propose how you are going to reproduce upon demand findings of, say, anthropology, to reproduce the historical circumstances and test the inferential hypothesis per (a) scientific method.

Comment Re:Call me strange but... (Score -1, Troll) 198

Since you haven't thought about it, take a moment to. Should I address your DNA as "sir", "miss", "animal", or "thing"?

I want to be Politically Correct here, and address you as you "self identify".

Scientific justification for your alternative, which will of course hold sway in the final sense, I'll leave to you.

Slashdot Top Deals

Any program which runs right is obsolete.