Is J. Neil Schulman justified (logically) in believing in God?

[Starbuckle]

BC wrote: "There is a basic epistemological problem here. There is no clear way for an uninvolved party to distinguish between a genuine encounter with the Almighty (assuming there is an Almighty) and a psychic dysfunction."

This is true only if it is possible for an Almighty to exist. If the posited Almighty clearly cannot exist, it is easy enough to distinguish between the genuine encounters with the Almighty and an experience of a different character. Only a theist or agnostic can regard Neil's interpretation of his experience as possibly correct.

[J Neil Schulman]

Here is the alternative as I see it:

1) I experienced something externally real.

2) I did not experience something externally real.

Okay. How about this . . .

1.) Neil experienced something externally real

2.) Neil did not experience something externally real (he had a

psychotic break with reality

).

3.) Neil did not experience something externally real (he did not have a

psychotic break with reality

)

I am asking you to consider that the ketosis/paranoia/dehydration/starvation/insomnia may have led to the experience. As far as I can tell, you do not consider this a reasonable possibility.

Two and three are functionally identical. It still comes down to the binary choice of my experience being of something externally real or not.

[J Neil Schulman]

BC wrote: "There is a basic epistemological problem here. There is no clear way for an uninvolved party to distinguish between a genuine encounter with the Almighty (assuming there is an Almighty) and a psychic dysfunction."

This is true only if it is possible for an Almighty to exist. If the posited Almighty clearly cannot exist, it is easy enough to distinguish between the genuine encounters with the Almighty and an experience of a different character. Only a theist or agnostic can regard Neil's interpretation of his experience as possibly correct.

And that is the most important part of why I believe I have something to teach atheists, regardless of whether they regard my experience as real. I represent God as a being that does meet the definition of God (eternal consciousness, creator of the specific "universe" or continuum which we exist in, willful creator of all other consciousness beings) yet whose nature is not unknowable, does not violate the axioms of Existence, Non-Contradiction, and Identity (not "omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent") and the concept of which is not negated by any incontrovertible facts.

[J Neil Schulman]

Are you familiar with emergent systems and schooling behavior in fish?

That's quite a bit of hand-waving in an attempt to explain the cause of a phenomenon when the cause is not immediately apparent.

If I was studying this I'd be looking for subtle means of communication either among the fish or in reaction to some as-yet unidentified external trigger.

Not hand-waving at all. The behavioral rules were identified to be quite simple and were simulated: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/09/100916121320.htm

Very strange line of inquiry from Neil. You asked if he was familiar with fish schooling. He dodges the question and ignores the reference ('hand waving') and then suggests that the best way to proceed is to disregard all previous inquiry and leap immediately into the spirit world.

That stance boggles my mind. It appears that Neil is predisposed to a mystical explanation of any intriguing phenomena, without taking the time to even glance over more prosaic explanations.

Mike: Are you familiar with the science of crossing the road, which attempts to explain how people get from one side of the road to the other without being mashed like sardines? Much of the work concentrates on vision, sound and 'pedestrian signalling' infrastructure. Basically, the behaviour is an emergent property of Look Both Ways and/or wait for a 'safe crossing' light.

Neil: A lot of hand-waving nonsense. I would start with psychic emanations from the eleventh dimension and stir in multiple continua that we aren't able to measure yet.

Mike: Um, why would you posit invisible mystical possibilities rather than respond to the empirical work first?

Neil: You are a fucking dogmatic asshole.

"If I was studying this I'd be looking for subtle means of communication either among the fish or in reaction to some as-yet unidentified external trigger."

Where's the mysticism in that? Is everything not obvious and hard to figure out mystical? If an unknown external element is mystical, then I guess predicting orbits by positing as yet unseen planets never found any.

[Starbuckle]

J. Neil Schulman wrote: "The quantum paradigm for multiple 'universes' isn't the only one. If a bounded universe exists between a big bang and a big crunch, then repeats, then there are multiple universes. Since T is a function only within one of those iterations, an observer from within any of these iterations would be able to conceive of any of the other iterations as existing simultaneously, and existence is a standing wave of multiple continua."

How would a universe that repetitively expands and contracts, if that's what we're in, constitute more than one universe as opposed to stages of the same universe? And what relevance would this possibility have to the claims about God and his powers?

"Since T is a function only within one of those iterations, an observer from within any of these iterations would be able to conceive of any of the other iterations as existing simultaneously, and existence is a standing wave of multiple continua."

What does this statement mean and what is the evidence for it? I'm guessing "T" is time, but since time would exist in earlier or later iterations of the expansion and contraction, I'm not sure why you would say it is a "function within" only one of them. How could a repeated event be properly construed as occuring at the same time as a preceding or following one? What is a "standing wave of multiple continua"?

[J Neil Schulman]

Suppose there was a history of people who claimed to see extra colors that others could not see. They're dismissed as mystics by materialists and as blasphemers by dogmatic religionists.

Have them mix some paint until they arrive at the combination that correlates with what they see. There is nothing inherently problematic about what these people perceive. Some people are color blind, deaf people typically have more acute hearing than sighted people, sounds cause some people to experience colors, and trained radiologists can see things on a xray that others cannot.

In short, your example is merely a case of variations in a sensory faulty that all sighted people possess. Moreover, we have seen different colors ourselves, so we know what the people in your example mean when they speak of seeing an unusual color. There is a vast difference between the claim to see an unusual color and the claim to see God.

Then, some scientist decides to test these people by projecting infrared and ultraviolet frequencies onto a screen and seeing if there is any correlation with the extra colors they claim to see. The results of these tests are uniformly negative. These people are again dismissed as cranks, mystics, and religious outcasts.

For what possible reason would such people be stigmatized in this manner? Again, they are merely claiming to see a variant of something (i.e., color) that all sighted people can perceive. Their claim is no more inherently improbable than, say, than the visual experiences of people with dyslexia.

The assumption that their "internal" experiences have no external cause can only be tested when science reaches the point to know what to test for and design tests that can measure what they're looking for.

I submit paranormal phenomena can only be measured once we know what they are and how they work. The failure to be able to initiate these abilities on demand under laboratory conditions tells us only that much of the time they are not under the conscious control of the test subjects. But then again, neither are the content of dreams, and who denies that dreams are real -- and common -- phenomena?

This is the kind of "argument for all occasions" that one commonly finds with mystics and people who claim to possess paranormal powers. It can be applied to virtually any claim, no matter how fantastic and absurd. A person who claims to see dancing fairies at twilight, or who claims to be in telepathic communication with beings on another planet (as Geller does), or who claims to be the reincarnation of Napoleon, or who claims to be able to inhabit the bodies of other people, and so on without end, can make exactly the same argument that you do, viz, that science has not yet advanced to the point where their claims can be fairly tested, and it would therefore be sheer dogmatism to dismiss such claims.

This argument is worthless, and it shouldn't be too difficult for you to figure out why, given your claim to have read extensively in the field of epistemology. Even a modest knowledge of Rand's epistemology would be sufficient in this case.

Lastly, to say that dreams are "real" is not to say that dreams are anything more than a subjective experience. Of course, this does not mean that external factors do not play a role; anyone who has fallen asleep with the television on has probably noticed how a program can weave its way into a dream.

Ghs

Have them mix some paint until they arrive at the combination that correlates with what they see. There is nothing inherently problematic about what these people perceive. Some people are color blind, deaf people typically have more acute hearing than sighted people, sounds cause some people to experience colors, and trained radiologists can see things on a xray that others cannot.

Okay, George, mix colors that represent the color "cosmic ray."

Yes, dogs hear into the ultrasonic, but if someone not suffering from inner ear problems is hearing sounds not heard by anyone else in the room, including dogs, either they have a paranormal sense or they're delusional.

As a matter of fact, let's go with that. How do you know that anyone claiming to be suffering from tinnitus isn't delusional?

Edited December 31, 2010 by J. Neil Schulman

[J Neil Schulman]

If I'm correctly drawing inference from the epistemological tenets of George H. Smith, any time a scientist looks for an explanation for a so-far unseen or undetected phenomenon but the existence of which is postulated because of unexplained phenomena, the scientists are mere mystics chasing dreams.

Edited December 31, 2010 by J. Neil Schulman

[J Neil Schulman]

If I was the skeptic James Randi is, I'd start the J. Neil Schulman Education Foundation, and solicit a million dollars to be placed into a trust account and paid to the first person who can prove to me that there is such a real condition as tinnitus.

[George H. Smith]

Neil: "Do not accept my account on faith."

No one is doubting your account.

I'm doubting it. I think the whole thing is probably a stunt to get attention, most likely with the goal of getting someone other than himself interested in publishing his work.

J

There is no doubt in my mind that Neil's account is sincere. To perpetrate a fraud of this magnitude is not in his nature. Moreover, if Neil had wished to concoct a story out of thin air, he could have come up with a much more convincing story than we find in his book. Lastly, if money and publicity were Neil's motives, he would have been foolish not to have "experienced" the God of traditional Christianity. He could probably have made a decent amount of money for a book, not to mention a lecture tour for Christian audiences. As things stand now, however, Neil's story is so eccentric that Christians and other conventional religionists will find it no more convincing than atheists do. Indeed, many will be repulsed by Neil's idea of God in a way that atheists are not.

I have sometimes wondered what would happen if I converted to Christianity, wrote a book criticizing ATCAG, went on the Christian lecture circuit, debated atheists, etc. I would doubtless do a lot better financially than I am doing now.

In 1984, on the tenth anniversary of the publication of ATCAG, I gave a talk in LA, which was very well attended, in which I criticized my own book. I talked about things I thought were incorrect or overstated, and how I would rebut some of its arguments if I were a Christian theologian. I have even posted some of these criticisms online.

This proved to be an interesting experiment, one that Neil may want to try with regard to his book. I would wager that I am far more introspective and self-critical about my defense of atheism than Neil is about his defense of theism. Except for my early years, I have never had the kind of emotional attachment to atheism that Neil has to theism. On the contrary, I would be quite pleased to learn that God exists, provided he is not the fire and brimstone God of traditional Christianity, and I would welcome some kind of pleasant, stress free afterlife. Schopenhauer once observed that if atheism could promise an afterlife but theism could not, most people would convert to atheism without giving it a second thought. He was probably right.

Ghs

[George H. Smith]

If I'm correctly drawing inference from the epistemological tenets of George H. Smith, any time a scientist looks for an explanation for a so-far unseen or undetected phenomenon but the existence of which is postulated because of unexplained phenomena, the scientists are mere mystics chasing dreams.

As usual, you would be wrong to infer this.

Ghs

[Starbuckle]

For a true religious experience, captured on video, watch the following:

The musical based on it:

[Starbuckle]

JNS wrote: "If I was the skeptic James Randi is, I'd start the J. Neil Schulman Education Foundation, and solicit a million dollars to be placed into a trust account and paid to the first person who can prove to me that there is such a real condition as tinnitus."

Randi began the challenge with $10,000 of his own money. Others supporting his efforts to expose fraud later added to the sum.

[BaalChatzaf]

JNS wrote: "If I was the skeptic James Randi is, I'd start the J. Neil Schulman Education Foundation, and solicit a million dollars to be placed into a trust account and paid to the first person who can prove to me that there is such a real condition as tinnitus."

Randi began the challenge with $10,000 of his own money. Others supporting his efforts to expose fraud later added to the sum.

There are many people who hear a high pitched "squeeeee...." in their ears and there is no external sound source. I happen to be one of them. My "squeee..." is private and you cannot hear it, but I can. What makes this private subjective experience plausible is that there is a mechanism that causes it. Damage to the cochlea produces a nerve impulse we can actually be measured.

Can anyone "prove" there is such a condition as lower back pain? You can't feel my back-ache and I cannot feel yours.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[william.scherk]

"If I was studying [fish schooling] I'd be looking for subtle means of communication either among the fish or in reaction to some as-yet unidentified external trigger."

Where's the mysticism in that?

Well, young Neil, it so happens that fish schooling has been explained without reference to 'subtle means of communication.'

If an unknown external element is mystical, then I guess predicting orbits by positing as yet unseen planets never found any.

Do you refer to the orbit of Uranus and the (at one time) unseen orbital body Neptune? If so, you have the process of inquiry and scientific history badly garbled. What a shock that is . . .

I must now invoke the Law Of Pixies to explain this know-nothing attitude. I illustrate the Law Of Pixies with this chilling video courtesy of your fellow investigator . . . I double-dare you to explain this freaky exhibition.

Edited December 31, 2010 by william.scherk

[George H. Smith]

Have them mix some paint until they arrive at the combination that correlates with what they see. There is nothing inherently problematic about what these people perceive. Some people are color blind, deaf people typically have more acute hearing than sighted people, sounds cause some people to experience colors, and trained radiologists can see things on a xray that others cannot.

Okay, George, mix colors that represent the color "cosmic ray."

I know nothing about a color called "cosmic ray." Find someone who does and have him mix the paint.

Yes, dogs hear into the ultrasonic, but if someone not suffering from inner ear problems is hearing sounds not heard by anyone else in the room, including dogs, either they have a paranormal sense or they're delusional.

As a matter of fact, let's go with that. How do you know that anyone claiming to be suffering from tinnitus isn't delusional?

The term "delusional" pertains to false beliefs or opinions, especially to those which are held despite evidence to the contrary. A raw sensation, such as pain or a sound, cannot be delusional per se. A person who believes he hears a ringing in his ears really does experience this sensation. The relevant question is whether the cause of this sensation is physical or psychosomatic.

But suppose this person believes he is hearing chimes in heaven or a fire alarm in hell. Most people would regard these beliefs as delusional, but probably not you. After all, scientists have not developed tests that can determine whether or not is possible to hear chimes in heaven or fire alarms in hell, so who are we to dismiss such beliefs outright?

I suggest that you devote more than a few seconds of thought to your examples and analogies. Your journeys into philosophy are more like hit and run raids.

Ghs

[Selene]

William:

Well, all I can attest to is that as early as 1951, when I was five (5), we created rainbows with the garden hose.

My father explained the concept of light creating the rainbow and it made sense to me at five or six. We also had prisms as toys and that confirmed the rainbows.

So it was pixies...hmm

Who would have thought!

Adam

careful not to bite tongue while in cheek

[J Neil Schulman]

Neil: "Do not accept my account on faith."

No one is doubting your account.

I'm doubting it. I think the whole thing is probably a stunt to get attention, most likely with the goal of getting someone other than himself interested in publishing his work.

J

There is no doubt in my mind that Neil's account is sincere. To perpetrate a fraud of this magnitude is not in his nature. Moreover, if Neil had wished to concoct a story out of thin air, he could have come up with a much more convincing story than we find in his book. Lastly, if money and publicity were Neil's motives, he would have been foolish not to have "experienced" the God of traditional Christianity. He could probably have made a decent amount of money for a book, not to mention a lecture tour for Christian audiences. As things stand now, however, Neil's story is so eccentric that Christians and other conventional religionists will find it no more convincing than atheists do. Indeed, many will be repulsed by Neil's idea of God in a way that atheists are not.

I have sometimes wondered what would happen if I converted to Christianity, wrote a book criticizing ATCAG, went on the Christian lecture circuit, debated atheists, etc. I would doubtless do a lot better financially than I am doing now.

In 1984, on the tenth anniversary of the publication of ATCAG, I gave a talk in LA, which was very well attended, in which I criticized my own book. I talked about things I thought were incorrect or overstated, and how I would rebut some of its arguments if I were a Christian theologian. I have even posted some of these criticisms online.

This proved to be an interesting experiment, one that Neil may want to try with regard to his book. I would wager that I am far more introspective and self-critical about my defense of atheism than Neil is about his defense of theism. Except for my early years, I have never had the kind of emotional attachment to atheism that Neil has to theism. On the contrary, I would be quite pleased to learn that God exists, provided he is not the fire and brimstone God of traditional Christianity, and I would welcome some kind of pleasant, stress free afterlife. Schopenhauer once observed that if atheism could promise an afterlife but theism could not, most people would convert to atheism without giving it a second thought. He was probably right.

Ghs

George thank you for the kind words.

I would wager that I am far more introspective and self-critical about my defense of atheism than Neil is about his defense of theism.

I'll take that wager ... after a good night's sleep.

[J Neil Schulman]

"If I was studying [fish schooling] I'd be looking for subtle means of communication either among the fish or in reaction to some as-yet unidentified external trigger."

Where's the mysticism in that?

Well, young Neil, it so happens that fish schooling has been explained without reference to 'subtle means of communication.'

If an unknown external element is mystical, then I guess predicting orbits by positing as yet unseen planets never found any.

Do you refer to the orbit of Uranus and the (at one time) unseen orbital body Neptune? If so, you have the process of inquiry and scientific history badly garbled. What a shock that is . . .

I must now invoke the Law Of Pixies to explain this know-nothing attitude. I illustrate the Law Of Pixies with this chilling video courtesy of your fellow investigator . . . I double-dare you to explain this freaky exhibition.

Well, young Neil, it so happens that fish schooling has been explained without reference to 'subtle means of communication.'

The paper's author, Mr. Olson, isn't dogmatic about it the way you are. He writes, "This paper looks at the experimental observations of both individual fish behavior and the schooling behavior that arises within larger populations. The broad features of theoretical models which try to simulate schooling in fish are discussed. The current state of both simulation and observation are assessed, and future research goals are suggested. ... The fact that the forces governing fish behavior are internal to the fish make the problem of emergent fish schooling, in some respects, a much more difficult problem than emergence in physics. The complication arises because the rules governing fish behavior are much less well understood and are potentially much more complex than the simple forces that lead to emergence in physics. ... The current state of experimental/observational efforts to understand fish schools is still rather limited. While advances are being made in measurements in the wild and improved tracking of fish in the laboratory, many difficulties remain. It is still a major difficulty to accurately track fish position for a large number of fish over a large amount of time. Detailed tracking of the velocities of individuals within large dense schools is still impossible. Observations in the wild, though progressing, are still very limited. ... The theoretical aspect of fish schooling has been approached primarily with simulations. ... While both observation and simulation have made great progress in recent years, there are still hurdles to overcome. ... Ultimately the understanding of fish schooling is set to grow by leaps and bounds as new technologies are put to use in both experimental and computational efforts. It will be fascinating to see how these new developments confirm or overturn current theories."

Now that's how a scientist approaches questions. Mr. Olson would not start throwing around the word "preposterous" if someone else discovered that external factors such as unheretofore discovered sensory detection of potential predators were a major factor in schooling.

But, for you, no. There's a theory which provides one plausible explanation which even an expert in the subject considers promising but not definitive ... and you throw it at me as a settled dogma.

Feh.

Edited December 31, 2010 by J. Neil Schulman

[J Neil Schulman]

If an unknown external element is mystical, then I guess predicting orbits by positing as yet unseen planets never found any.

Do you refer to the orbit of Uranus and the (at one time) unseen orbital body Neptune? If so, you have the process of inquiry and scientific history badly garbled. What a shock that is . . .

No, I understand it quite well. Perturbations in the orbit of Uranus suggested that there was a so-far undetected planet whose gravity was causing the perturbations. Using this model of an "unseen celestial body" an orbit was hypothesized for a theoretical planet and predictions were hypothesized of where it might be. Then astronomers looked until they found something that satisfied their theoretical projections. They found Neptune.

Pluto was discovered the same way, by hypothesizing perturbations in the orbit of Neptune meant there was still another unseen planet. Clyde Tombaugh didn't have more than a high-school education when he looked through a telescope and saw it.

Astronomers using the Hubble telescope are today finding planets around other stars the same way.

Now, gravitational force is still not well understood. There are multiple theories to explain it, none definitively negating the others. Predominance of one theory over another waxes and wanes as cosmological models change. But scientists are able to use what they know of gravitational forces to make calculations and predictions, and this they have a pretty good handle on.

When Galileo did this, he was called before a theological court and censured for not accepting current doctrine. It took until Pope John-Paul the Second, hundreds of years later, and years after men had walked on the moon, for the Church to admit their mistake.

I submit as a proposition to the readers of this forum that parapsychology is today about where astronomy was in the time of Galileo -- unorthodox. Every laboratory test of psychic abilities has relied on one assumption: that such abilities are well-controllable by the test subjects during conventional states of consciousness. James Randi's challenge relies on this premise, and perhaps he's right to use it against stage performers who claim this ability but either wildly exaggerate their degree of control and accurate perception or have no paranormal abilities and are simple frauds. I think it's the former; George H. Smith thinks it's the latter. Either way, the assumption of conscious control dictates one set of laboratory protocols. Negating this assumption does not negate the possibility that psychic abilities are real and even frequent, but are often unrepeatable under laboratory conditions because the test subjects can't manifest them on demand with any degree of accuracy.

I take this position, myself, because my own experience is of very limited control. Most of my own paranormal experiences occurred unpredictably and mostly out of my control. I would make a poor laboratory test subject for psychic events I have experienced frequently enough to regard as real but can't control anywhere near well enough to reproduce on demand.

If anyone knows how to design experimental protocols to solve this problem, please speak up.

[william.scherk]

There's a theory which provides one plausible explanation which even an expert in the subject considers promising but not definitive ... and you throw it at me as a settled dogma.

Thanks for making the effort to consider the material in the article, Neil. I appreciate that you have changed your mind from "That's quite a bit of hand-waving."

Progress!

[J Neil Schulman]

Have them mix some paint until they arrive at the combination that correlates with what they see. There is nothing inherently problematic about what these people perceive. Some people are color blind, deaf people typically have more acute hearing than sighted people, sounds cause some people to experience colors, and trained radiologists can see things on a xray that others cannot.

Okay, George, mix colors that represent the color "cosmic ray."

I know nothing about a color called "cosmic ray." Find someone who does and have him mix the paint.

Yes, dogs hear into the ultrasonic, but if someone not suffering from inner ear problems is hearing sounds not heard by anyone else in the room, including dogs, either they have a paranormal sense or they're delusional.

As a matter of fact, let's go with that. How do you know that anyone claiming to be suffering from tinnitus isn't delusional?

The term "delusional" pertains to false beliefs or opinions, especially to those which are held despite evidence to the contrary. A raw sensation, such as pain or a sound, cannot be delusional per se. A person who believes he hears a ringing in his ears really does experience this sensation. The relevant question is whether the cause of this sensation is physical or psychosomatic.

But suppose this person believes he is hearing chimes in heaven or a fire alarm in hell. Most people would regard these beliefs as delusional, but probably not you. After all, scientists have not developed tests that can determine whether or not is possible to hear chimes in heaven or fire alarms in hell, so who are we to dismiss such beliefs outright?

I suggest that you devote more than a few seconds of thought to your examples and analogies. Your journeys into philosophy are more like hit and run raids.

Ghs

I know nothing about a color called "cosmic ray." Find someone who does and have him mix the paint.

Cosmic rays are real phenomena, but not within the visual spectrum. So if someone "saw" them and described them as an additional "color," it would not be a color anyone could place on a color wheel or ever assign a pantone number. But go back before cosmic rays could be detected in a lab, and someone who said they existed and he knew that because he'd seen them would be called by you a mystic, a crank, a charlatan, or if you were feeling generous, merely unable to satisfy your epistemological standards of evidence.

The term "delusional" pertains to false beliefs or opinions, especially to those which are held despite evidence to the contrary.

But you have no evidence to the contrary, George; the best you can muster is to say you haven't experienced it, yourself, and don't know of anyone else you regard as reliable who has. Am I expected to negate my own experience merely because it's not conventional? Am I to make my assertion of it dependent on the agreement of others? Think of what Ayn said about the sort of person who would deny his own hard-won knowledge because others didn't see it.

Would you respect a person claiming to be an atheist who had an experience like mine but denied it merely to get in good with you?

But suppose this person believes he is hearing chimes in heaven or a fire alarm in hell. Most people would regard these beliefs as delusional, but probably not you. After all, scientists have not developed tests that can determine whether or not is possible to hear chimes in heaven or fire alarms in hell, so who are we to dismiss such beliefs outright?

I would endeavor to keep an open mind. I might not succeed. I have expressed doubt about Neale Donald Walsch's claims in Conversations with God because the personality of God as he writes his dialogue does not correspond with the fellow I chatted up. Still, if I met Neale Donald Walsch I would try hard not to call him names.

I suggest that you devote more than a few seconds of thought to your examples and analogies. Your journeys into philosophy are more like hit and run raids.

Please. My "accident report" is book-length.

[william.scherk]

If an unknown external element is mystical, then I guess predicting orbits by positing as yet unseen planets never found any.

Do you refer to the orbit of Uranus and the (at one time) unseen orbital body Neptune? If so, you have the process of inquiry and scientific history badly garbled. What a shock that is . . .

No, I understand it quite well.

Perhaps, but what you wrote was rather unclear: "Predicting orbits by positing as yet unseen planets." Observing perturbed orbits led to predictions of as yet unseen planets, which planets were confirmed by observation.

Astronomers using the Hubble telescope are today finding planets around other stars the same way.

Well, no. Exoplanet discovery is different. Astronomers use Doppler spectroscopy, photometric transit or microlensing. Not the same thing, dude. Look it up.

[J Neil Schulman]

If an unknown external element is mystical, then I guess predicting orbits by positing as yet unseen planets never found any.

Do you refer to the orbit of Uranus and the (at one time) unseen orbital body Neptune? If so, you have the process of inquiry and scientific history badly garbled. What a shock that is . . .

No, I understand it quite well.

Perhaps, but what you wrote was rather unclear: "Predicting orbits by positing as yet unseen planets." Observing perturbed orbits led to predictions of as yet unseen planets, which planets were confirmed by observation.

Astronomers using the Hubble telescope are today finding planets around other stars the same way.

Well, no. Exoplanet discovery is different. Astronomers use Doppler spectroscopy, photometric transit or microlensing. Not the same thing, dude. Look it up.

"Predicting orbits by positing as yet unseen planets."

Yes. They predicted a theoretical planetary body in an orbit then looked along the orbit they predicted and found it.

Astronomers using the Hubble telescope are today finding planets around other stars the same way.

Well, no. Exoplanet discovery is different. Astronomers use Doppler spectroscopy, photometric transit or microlensing. Not the same thing, dude. Look it up.

*sigh* It's close enough for jazz. They're using better technology to do the same thing: looking where theoretical calculations predict -- and yes, I have read accounts of finding new planets orbiting other stars because of the gravitational effects on already-known planets in that system. Please don't make me Google this.

Edited December 31, 2010 by J. Neil Schulman

[william.scherk]

Cosmic rays are real phenomena, but not within the visual spectrum. So if someone "saw" them and described them as an additional "color," it would not be a color anyone could place on a color wheel or ever assign a pantone number.

Yes; cosmic rays are not composed of photons.

Remember, you wrote: "Okay, George, mix colors that represent the color "cosmic ray."

Why did you write that, when you know cosmic rays are not even part of the electromagnetic spectrum? It's like asking someone to mix colours that represent the flavour of pixies. It's a strained, stretched, unworkable comparison. It's a defective analogy. It stands in the way of discussion and makes your arguments seem unmoored, all over the map and aimed to defeat common understanding.

Neil, George suggested you work harder on your analogies and examples. It's very good advice, brother.

Edited December 31, 2010 by william.scherk

[william.scherk]

Please don't make me Google this.

Dude, I can't make you do anything. Only you can clean up the murky analogies and not quite right comparisons before you post. Why say "it's the same thing" when it's not the same thing? Do you want us to think that you are only capable of sloppy argumentation?

Look, the underlying point is that sloppy analogies are a lousy way of making an argument hang together. Don't be sloppy and imprecise if you don't want to be seen as sloppy and imprecise.