Soul Searching

[drmomentum[$]]

Does it make sense for scientists to look for the soul?

This article implies that some are looking at least to justify the idea.

-JP

[cyndilouwhoo]

JP--

I can't think of anything to say but, "Yes".

Cyndi

Who thinks that looking for the existence of a soul is the most wonderful pursuit a researcher can undertake

[drmomentum[$]]

The reason I posed the question is that the idea that the soul is something tangible which can be found scientifically necessarily means that the opposite case is possibly true: that in the soul does not exist.

All scientific beliefs must be falsifiable. In other words, if there is no evidence which can disprove a belief it is non-falsifiable and therefore not scientific.

Let me give an example. Let's say that you and I believe that Santa Clause exists. You beleive that he exists as an intangible spirit in our hearts, while I believe that he is a real person up in the North Pole.

Your Santa Clause is non-falsifiable. He exists outside of the realm of scientific proof. My Santa Clause, since I give him a description and location is verifiable. If I travel to the North Pole and find no evidence whatsoever of Santa Clause, I have to face the probability that the Santa I believe in does not exist. You, OTOH, will never have to face that probability because your Santa is non-falsifiable.

-JP

[poseidon]

Santa Claus did exist in some form at one point. That's kinda like saying Jesus Christ didn't exist.

If scientists can't find physical evidence of a soul, that does not mean that the soul doesn't exist. That just means that no one can find proof of it. That's like saying God doesn't exist, because you can't find a physical entity to your satisfaction that meets your criteria of who God is.

If the scientist is going to have a preconceived answer to the issue, then they will find what they are or aren't looking for. I firmly believe that, especially in light of the fact of who may be funding those scientists.

[mtbat]

What Jeff said-&

I belive I have a soul-just because I can't prove it doesn't mean it doesn't exist-or that it does. Sort of like that "if a tree falls in a forest and there isn't anyone around to hear it fall does it make a noise" type thing

Regardless-at some point all of us will find out the truth about what happenes after we die-until then we just have to do the best we can to be good and decent people-at least that is my opinion.

Fridai

[drmomentum[$]]

Originally posted by poseidon
Santa Claus did exist in some form at one point. That's kinda like saying Jesus Christ didn't exist.

Did I say Santa Clause did not exist?

If scientists can't find physical evidence of a soul, that does not mean that the soul doesn't exist. That just means that no one can find proof of it. That's like saying God doesn't exist, because you can't find a physical entity to your satisfaction that meets your criteria of who God is.

It kind of is like that, isn't it. But again, I did not say that not finding evidence for a soul meant it did not exist. That is your preconception about science, not mine.

I am saying that putting the soul into the scientific realm acknowledges the possibility that it doesn't exist because hypotheses must be falsifiable. This idea is probably foreign to many people.

Why isn't the concept of falsifiability taught better in schools? This is another of my pet peeves - the lack of a focus on methods of critical thinking in our school system.

-JP

[poseidon]

I am saying that putting the soul into the scientific realm acknowledges the possibility that it doesn't exist because hypotheses must be falsifiable. This idea is probably foreign to many people.

I'm not a scientist and I can't say that I exactly understand how you can prove something is not there simply because you can't find it (isn't that proving something falsifiable?). I think the whole concept is flawed to many people, not foreign to them.

If I'm wrong, please let me know. I'm not totally up on the falsification of stuff.

I also am not questioning as to whether or not you believe Santa Claus ever existed. What I am saying is that whether or not he lives on the North Pole is irrelevant to whether or not he existed. If I tell you that I live in Denver, and it turns out that I really live in Erik's basement in Minneapolis, that doesn't mean that I don't exist.

[erik_kosberg]

I was wondering what all of those strange noises down there were. I think that I’m going to have a hard time explaining this one to my wife. But honey, that wasn’t me banging around down there, it was the god of the seas...

If I tell you that I live in Denver, and it turns out that I really live in Erik's basement in Minneapolis, that doesn't mean that I don't exist.

[cristina1]

The scientific field (if I remember correctly from High School) begins with a hypothesis and then you set out to prove or disprove it. For instance, to prove gravity exists, I might say that whatever goes up must come down, then proceed to experiment with it. If I throw 100 itmes in the air and all come down again, I proved my theory.

However, in searching for a soul, I might never find any evidence that says there IS a soul, yet never disprove the hypothesis either. I believe that is the point that JP was trying to make. There might very well be a soul without scientific evidence. Unlike the gravity example, where the items NOT falling back down proved there was NO gravity, we have no hard evidence there isnt a soul. We are still left with the same information we had before we began.

The Santa Claus example was a very good one. The point wasnt if Santa ever existed at all, but if he is still in existence today. If JP believes that he is a real human being living at the North Pole, that is easy to prove or disprove. But if I believe he is within each of us in spirit, then it is next to impossible to prove or disprove. It is like any of the other intangibles - you cant see it, smell it or touch it.

[kurt_messick]

'Science' (or some precursor) has been looking for the soul for a long time.

There was the classical/medieval idea that the soul is located in the pituitary gland (or thereabout).

There was the idea that cats are minions of witches because they can steal a person's soul while the person sleeps (by somehow stealing from their breath -- cats sometimes cuddle around the face and mouth of a sleeping person). The soul had to be somehow tangible.

There was even a Simpsons episode in which Bart sold his soul. :smileo:

Science postulates and works with many non-verifiable non-tangible things (when is the last time you saw a tachyon -- that's not just a made up word for Star Trek, btw).

For myself, I tend to think of the soul as something that is rooted in the tangible, but not identical with any particular tangible thing -- rather like personality. You can tremendously affect a personality by physical or emotional/psychological means, and we know what it is to 'have one' and 'not have one' (generally), but there is no one thing or one location for it.

As for the sense of 'real' -- this is in philosophical speech a category question. In what sense is E=mc(squared) real? Is it unreal? Show me where it is?

[jankp]

I've been trying to read Timothy Leary's last book, JP, called Design for Dying where he tries to make us understand his theories about the meaning of life and why we're here. He states that the soul is in our brain. "You are alive only where your viewpoint is." He also says not to believe anything he says, but to think for yourself and question authority.

Tom Robbins the novelist has said, "Science only gives people what they need. Magic gives people what they want."

Jan

[drmomentum[$]]

Originally posted by poseidon


I'm not a scientist and I can't say that I exactly understand how you can prove something is not there simply because you can't find it (isn't that proving something falsifiable?). I think the whole concept is flawed to many people, not foreign to them.

Firstly, let me say that this isn't directed at you personally, Jeff. Everybody can have an opinion, but IMHO the opinion that a concept is flawed isn't worth much unless one understands the concept in the first place. And this concept isn't as widely taught as it should be.

If I tell you that A) my father is in the next room, and B) that people can be seen by everyone, then my assertion is falsifiable. If you want to verify my assertion, you just look in the room. If you see no father then A AND B is false. (Meaning that either of the assertions is false, making the thing as a whole false. Since we know people can be seen, it implies that my dad is not in the room.)

Now take the example of me saying the soul of Karl Rove is in the next room (assuming it has, as I suspect, fled his body).

You ask me: James, how can I verify your claim? Can I see the spirit?
I tell you: No.
You: Can I smell, touch, or hear it?
Me: No.
You: Can I detect it by any means?
Me: No.

If I tell you that there is absolutely no way to test for any evidence of my claim, then my claim is unfalsifiable. That simply means that it falls outside of what science is designed to do. Science only works with falsifiable claims.

Some claims are serially unfalsifiable. For instance, I tell you "I can detect gold underground with my special foil helmet." So you say "Show me." I try to detect gold that you have hidden, but I fail. I say "It's because of that power plant nearby." So you set up another test away from a power plant. This time, I fail and blame it on the weather. You let me choose more amicable weather conditions for the test. And so on, until finally I say "The mere presence of someone who needs to see this verified by a test causes it not to work." Voila, it has become unfalsifiable.

Now, I can't tell you not to believe in unfalsifiable things. Your reason to believe X, Y, and Z are personal choices. Belief in God, for example, is unfalsifiable. People don't believe in god because his existence is scientifically supported or proven - it's outside of science, apart from science.

There is a great bit in the book "Contact" by Carl Sagan where he toys with the notion of God actually giving us indication of his existence mathematically which I found to be a really intriguing idea. I don't want to ruin the story for anybody, but I encourage people to read the book. It was my favorite part of the book and it was completely absent from the movie (thought the movie was OK).

What I am saying is that whether or not he lives on the North Pole is irrelevant to whether or not he existed.

That should be obvious. In my example I asserted that "Santa is a real person living in the North Pole." Not living at the North Pole invalidates my entire assertion - because it violates the second half, not the first half. The first half still can be true or false.

Logic is another thing they need to teach in school.

REGARDING TACHYONS

Tachyons are not falsifiable - true.

They are only weakly theoretical particles that are allowed by the equations of special relativity. The equations don't insist that they exist, they simply don't rule out the existence of negative or imaginary mass particles that naturally travel faster than the speed of light. None of our modern physics is based on the assertion that tachyons exist. They're simply an interesting side effect of special relativity. The fact that some people theorize about tachyons does not detract from the importance of falsifiability.

-JP

[patach]

What kind of soul? The essence in our being? A ghost? Our sub-conscious? There are many forms of "soul" and I'm not sure which one science is trying to prove.

[drmomentum[$]]

Originally posted by patach
What kind of soul? The essence in our being? A ghost? Our sub-conscious? There are many forms of "soul" and I'm not sure which one science is trying to prove.

Science doesn't try to prove anything, but I get your meaning.

One could argue that all the forms you list are part of the same one thing. How do you distinguish a "ghost" from an "essence?"

-JP

[poseidon]

But scientists do have an agenda, JP, and they do try to prove or disprove things according to their agenda.

So, while science doesn't try to prove or disprove things, scientists do.

[erik_kosberg]

Originally posted by poseidon
But scientists do have an agenda, JP, and they do try to prove or disprove things according to their agenda.

So, while science doesn't try to prove or disprove things, scientists do.

I doubt that any halfway reputable scientist would agree with that. Paid shills who work for Exxon and say that fossil fuels are blameless with respect to global warming might well try to prove or disprove things, but that doesn’t mean that they’re really scientists. The scientific method does not have an agenda.

[drmomentum[$]]

Originally posted by poseidon
But scientists do have an agenda

Heaven forbid someone might infer from my statements that there are people without an agenda.

You, especially, ought to understand why I made the comment about science, considering your penchant for pointing out that fringe conservatives don't speak for conservatism as a whole.

Sure there are scientists, policemen, pastors, insurance adjustors, presidents, doctors, lawyers, youth group organizers, teachers, and sanitary engineers who have an agenda. So what? That's people.

One of the strengths of the scientific community is that the agenda of many scientists is to challenge the ideas of other scientists. There is a system of peer review for deciding what ideas work best; this works to minimize individual bias. No - bias is not eliminated IN the individual. Rather the bias of an individual does not survive under the scrutiny of peers who are looking to replace those ideas with more elegant ones.

To an individual who has a hard time letting go of personally favored ideas this system looks terribly flawed and unfair. "Why aren't they listening to ME? Why can't they see that I'M RIGHT." (I've actually met people like this.)

If you have an agenda and it makes it into your work, you will not be remembered well for it as a scientist.

-JP

[poseidon]

JP,

I think you're wrong. There are plenty of scientists who have an agenda and work it into their studies. They come up with a conclusion and then find a way to make their conclusion happen. It isn't always money driven. I can think of that on this issue as well as many others. When does life start could be a great issue to do research on as well. But, if a scientist has a preconceived notion that it starts at conception, then I'm willing to be that scientist will, more often than not, find a way to prove that life starts at conception.

Sure, there are plenty of scientists who do honest work and do things out of curiosity as well. I was careful not to say "all" because I don't want to generalize to that degree.

Jeff

[drmomentum[$]]

Originally posted by poseidon
JP,

I think you're wrong. There are plenty of scientists who have an agenda and work it into their studies.

Firstly, I don't deny there are people with agendas. I don't see any reason to single out scientists. In fact, scientists are an especially silly group to single out because of the self-correcting nature of their environment.

Secondly, I don't believe that respected scientists who work hard to turn their personal beliefs into science are plentiful. Name me a few. A respected scientist who has an agenda as you describe and has influenced the scientific community in his field a lasting way is going to be hard to find. Anyone trying to twist his research to reflect his personal beliefs is not going to be respected, or even going to be considered a scientist by the scientific community.

As Erik more succinctly put it, the scientific method does not have an agenda. Regardless of personal feelings, science is self-correcting, which is why it has been so successful. A scientist with an agenda is not respected. I can give you names pf people who try to turn their religious or paranormal beliefs into science to support creationism, ESP, and the like. Russel Targ and Karl Puthoff off the top of my head believed in Uri Geller's powers and were conned into writing all sorts of papers while at SRI. Were they respected? Did they make their mark on science? Hardly.

Find me some that have, if they are significant. I assert they are not significant.

They come up with a conclusion and then find a way to make their conclusion happen.

If science were like law enforcement this might make sense. Imagine a corrupt law enforcement officer who wants to pin a crime on a scapegoat. He trumps up evidence and next thing you know the poor sod is in jail. He never gets out.

Science is not like law enforcement, because the case is never settled. The next scientist who comes along is going to look at the evidence, and the next one after that, and the next, and the next. Even if this corrupt person were able to slip his ideas by his contemporaries, he's got the next batch of scientists to contend with.

Do I doubt you can find a person who calls himself a scientist who is not reputable? Sure - I can point you toward creation science and crackpots in the free energy realm. None of them will amount to anything unless they can product research that is repeatable by someone without their bias.

-JP

[pluckyduck]

Warning: I am about to drag the news media into this and threaten to take this thread hopelessly off track

JP - I'll venture to say that Jeff's view of science and scientists is representative of most of us average Joes out here. While I respect Science itself, I am so freakin' inundated with news byte after news byte telling me that "so-and-so" found "this and that" in Important Science Experiment #4567, followed by a news byte a few months later with a completely contradictory finding.

I'm nearly as suspicious of the funding sources of much scientific research as I am of the funding sources of political candidates. I believe (with no hard evidence to back up my belief, so don't even bother asking me for it ) that money is doing a lot of the talking in what subjects are being researched and even the conclusions that are being reached and/or broadcast. No, the scientific community is not responsible for the horrendous job the news media does in picking up a tiny bit of a random story...but this kind of stuff seriously undermines the respect that scientific research has in the eyes of the average guy out here.

The American people have gotten awfully jaded. I assume that someone somewhere is doing what they are doing in feverish competition for grant money, or gene patents or something, and that that kind of feverish competition colors the results.

I'm not going to assert that my position is right, but, it is in line with the way the general public perceives the state of science today. "Money talks."

Andrea

[teskue]

Now for my 2 cents. The isssue is not wether we have a soul or not. The issue is if we are accountable for our actions. If we have no soul, then there is no reason to live a good life. And, we all know the desires of the felsh are a lot of fun.

This is just another attempt to make man unaccountable for their actions. Don't we do enough of the it's not my fault stuff in this country? Now we are trying to say it doesn't matter what we do, cause there will never be an accounting.

It makes me wonder why we even put people in jail. And, it is a sad direction the human thinking is going. I can only see a decrease in moral behavior with this type of thinking prospering.

[drmomentum[$]]

Originally posted by teskue
Now for my 2 cents. The isssue is not wether we have a soul or not. The issue is if we are accountable for our actions. If we have no soul, then there is no reason to live a good life. And, we all know the desires of the felsh are a lot of fun.

I have never desired felsh. (What is that, some sort of kosher food?) JOKING.

But seriously:

There is no reason to live a good life if you have no soul? I don't agree. I think living a good life is its own reward.

You want a sad commentary? If the only reason for someone to live a good life is to avoid punishment, then that person has not matured out of a child-like mentality. I hope to teach my children that there is more to just punishment to consider in deciding what actions to take.

How about because you want to live a good life.

Besides that, how does a researcher looking to prove the existence of the soul make man unaccountable for his actions? Seems like you have your own argument (flawed, though it is) backwards.

-JP