Comments on: Dr. Egnor Won’t Give Up – Finds a New Way to Get It Wrong

By: NeuroLogica Blog » Dr. Egnor on Neuroscience - Wrong Again.

NeuroLogica Blog » Dr. Egnor on Neuroscience - Wrong Again. — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 12:15:08 +0000

[...] altogether – but Egnor does so subtly, without ever drawing attention to it specifically. In fact I have already dealt with this criticism from Egnor, who has not responded to my existing [...]

By: baj

baj — Wed, 27 Feb 2008 05:33:06 +0000

Pec: “The alternative science ideas are backed up by research and mathematics, in the same way mainstream science ideas are.”

i’m relatively new here. what is considered “alternative science”? if their ideas are supported by evidence in the same way as “mainstream science” then isn’t it just “science”?

By: Roy Niles

Roy Niles — Wed, 27 Feb 2008 01:07:47 +0000

You and he would have had a lot in common.

By: pec

pec — Wed, 27 Feb 2008 00:09:03 +0000

“LaPlace delivers a text that explains the cosmos and the solar system”

LaPlace had some knowledge, but not enough to realize the immensity of his ignorance.

By: skidoo

skidoo — Tue, 26 Feb 2008 20:49:58 +0000

Dr. Novella wrote:

If this unknown and unnecessary extra thing does not behave exactly as if brain function is the mind, then how is it different? What observation can we make or experiment can we run to tell the difference? Can we isolate the physical brain from it in any way? If not, that does not make it wrong – it makes in unnecessary.

Reminds me of one of my favorite anecdotes of late (paraphrased):

LaPlace delivers a text that explains the cosmos and the solar system and the orbits of the planets and whatnot to Napoleon.

Napoleon asks, “Where does God come in?”

LaPlace responds, “I have no need for that hypothesis.”

By: Response to Skeptics' Guide Host, Dr. Steven Novella (Podcast) - Page 10 - Alternative medicine and parapsychology forums of mind-energy.net

Tue, 26 Feb 2008 20:07:07 +0000

[...] Simply quoting other people only gets you so far – you actually have to engage in the problem! Give me a break. Here’s a quote for you. [...]

By: Roy Niles

Roy Niles — Tue, 26 Feb 2008 19:53:42 +0000

Actually 2+2=4 is merely a demonstration of the use of measurement as an analytical tool. It’s not even a self-evident truth as it’s never exactly true when applied to the material world. Dealing with apples, for example, no set of four apples can ever be expected to exactly equal any other set of four, apples included.

That’s a philosophically inspired observation. Is it a good thing?
Well, we would never even be able to ask that question without philosophy – there are otherwise no such operative concepts as good and evil in the physical world.

By: Physicalist

Physicalist — Tue, 26 Feb 2008 19:15:49 +0000

@ Roy Niles: Fair enough.

“to say you “know” something implies that you completely understand it”

Were I to restrict myself to this usage of “know” I’d never be able to say I know anything. (I almost allowed myself the simple mathematical knowledge of “2+2=4,” but then I realized I don’t completely understand the ontology of numbers.) I take it this is precisely your point.

I agree that at the end of the day there will always be philosophy. I won’t ask whether that’s a good thing . . .

By: Roy Niles

Roy Niles — Tue, 26 Feb 2008 17:55:22 +0000

Physicalist: When you say we “know”how stable atoms are formed from subatomic particles, etc., you give people like pec, whose main impetus is the frustration of not being even close to “knowing” such matters, the excuse he needs to mount these feeble attacks. You pull the trigger of his pop-off gun, so to speak.

Because to say you “know” something implies that you completely understand it as well, when I’m sure you “know” in another sense of the word that there are aspects of these things we may never understand.

And philosophical questions about such matters are never completely irrelevant, because any question that remains about any aspect of science will be a philosophical one at bottom.

By: Physicalist

Physicalist — Tue, 26 Feb 2008 16:55:29 +0000

@ pec: We know how stable atoms are formed from subatomic particles; we know how molecules are formed from these atoms, and we know that cells are formed from these molecules (and we know a fair bit about how this formation takes place). We also know that quantum chromodynamics and quantum gravity are irrelevant to molecular and biological phenomena. Certainly current physics presents us with many difficult and exciting questions at the level of philosophy and ontology (maybe even epistemology). But these questions are irrelevant to understanding the quantum mechanical explanation for why (e.g.) salt dissolves in water and reforms when the water evaporates, for how long protein chains can be assembled, etc. etc. The application of these laws to explain higher-level phenomena is very well understood, and that's all we need to establish physicalism.