Free Republic

Bill Nye is the Pee Wee Herman of science guy.

>>> Yockey concluded, “The origin of life by chance in a primeval soup is impossible in probability in the same way that a perpetual motion machine is impossible in probability.”<<<

Yet the Universe exists. The ‘impossible in probability’ exists.

Or is the Universe NOT a perpetual motion machine?

Then what is it?

And asserting it:

“is impossible in probability”

Is attempting to Prove a Negative.

You cannot ‘Prove what is Impossible’, by definition.

You can only what is possible.

Fallacy as given.

>>>That’s not evolution, it’s abiogenesis. Conflating the two is a common ploy in the debate, effectively making biblical literalism and philosophical naturalism the only arguments allowed. They call that a fallacy of false dichotomy.<<<

It has been at least 5 years since I’ve been here, maybe more.

To see my style of argumentation still reflected.

Bravo!

Putting you into the same category as Kant was just my way of poking some gentle fun at my worthy correspondent. :^) I meant "no harm," and so I'm truly sorry if I've offended you.

No offense taken. I don't think you could offend me if you tried. You don't have it in you.

Notwithstanding, we definitely seem to be pretty much agreed on one point, dear LogicWings: For I gather you, like me, generally have little use for German Idealist philosophers (e.g., Kant), and perhaps even less use for German Transcendental Idealist philosophers (e.g., Hegel). It seems to me they are "system-builders," not "system-describers." And generally, I deplore that sort of thing....

Won't get any argument from me there.

But that is not to say that these men did not have profound insights about the relations between mind and world of inestimable value and influence on the evolution of human thought. For instance, Kant's radical distinction of phenomenon and noumenon.

Well, that is a matter of opinion. Since, by Kant's definition noumenon is that it is 'unknowable' then it is a concept without any function or use to human beings. It is the first piece of Kantian sophistry I reject, followed by a priori. Thus I will skip your following exposition, not because there is anything wrong with it, rather because the whole line of thinking is fallacious.

Your James quote:

but about the inner nature of these facts or what makes them what they are, I can say nothing at all.

Pardon me, but yet again, this Begs the Question that there is an inner nature. I read and respond to these posts in the order in which they come, and rarely read ahead, so I found your next comment apropos since I had already referred to it.

Which — to me — is just more evidence for the truth of Alfred Korzybski's observation: “The map is not the territory.”

That kind of is, exactly my point, what I have trying to say. I read most of James' work many years ago. I should probably revisit him but where do I find the time?

My favorite James quote is:

There are no differences but differences of degree between different degrees of difference and no difference.

But that might have been the nitrous oxide talking.

On the question, "do you make a distinction between psyche and consciousness?" I'd have to answer: Not much of one. To me at the most basic level they are effectively synonymous.

See, I do make a distinction. I see consciousness as the vessel and psyche as the mechanism, for lack of a better metaphor. A person has one psyche at his or her disposal but there varying states and/or modes of consciousness. How the psyche views and interprets its surroundings is predicated upon the current state of consciousness.

for our reasonings have not established the non-existence of the Soul, they have only proved its superfluity for scientific purposes.

. . .you yourself seemingly confess cannot be "obviated" by scientific/empirical methods....

We had these discussions before. What, I'm supposed to make a hypocrite out of myself and attempt to Prove a Negative? There is a difference between “There is no evidence for . . .” and “Asserting positively the non-existence of something."

As James said: "Through feelings we become acquainted with things, but only by our thoughts do we know about them."

Well, I disagree with him on this point, but this is a quote taken out of full context. As this quote stands we don't become acquainted with things through feelings but through perception. We evaluate their meaning to us through feelings.

Which insight seems to suggest a possible resolution of any "dispute" between you and me, dear LogicWings, regarding "abstractions from Reality" and Reality Itself — the fullness of the latter of which is as incomprehensible to me as it is to you. (I suspect.)

Yes, I agree. I think we have ironed out the differences between "abstractions from Reality" and Reality Itself. The Korzybski quote means basically we are on the same page in that regard. The Universe is ultimately still mostly mystery no matter what we do think we know about it.

I must say that my experience with the human mind and what I know about it is that it is as mysterious as the Universe and we don't know near as much about it as we think we do. It has capabilities that far exceed our capacity to imagine. But life is in the discovering, traveling, exploring, investigating and seeking to understand.

"My first act of free will shall be to believe in free will."

Interesting, he exercised it before be believed in it.

Thanks for the wonderful conversations. I always learn something conversing with you two.

Until next time. . .

If LogicWings can give me three examples of what a "member" of the "set of faith . . . " looks like

No can do. It is an empty set.

and give me three examples of what a "member" of the "set of reason" looks like

I don't know. You might find at least three examples in Aristotle's Prior Analytics somewhere.

The thought has struck me that "set modeling" is not the best way to approach such problems....

Maybe, maybe not. Someone else used the method (probably AG) and I just followed the lead.

If it were possible, I would speak in mathematics because that is the most precise language known to me.

Funny, because Boop said:

One might say that science, as it is currently understood and practiced, is excessively devoted to abstractions, in a sort of process of "reification" in reverse.

You want to speak only in abstractions and she thinks we science uses them “excessively.” (perhaps) Interesting.

And I prefer the Oxford Dictionary for definitions.

I find them inadequate, stilting and rather narrow. Not sufficient for a philosophical , metaphysical discussion.

A creature bound by the space-time continuum has no means by which to determine that anything exists outside of that space-time continuum except upon a hypothetical basis.

That statement equates the universal set of knowables to the subset of knowables by empiricism. That is illogical.

Your definitions are as narrow as Oxford's, maybe that is why you prefer it. Please name for me any “knowable” that exists outside the space-time continuum.

Here and Here

In other words, we have access to no empirical data that tells us that only empirical data exist. There is no knowledge at the level of the senses. Likewise, no rational operation can provide its own content.

No, that is not me speaking. Yes, I believe it to be true, and yes it is a quote.

Good. I did not want to impugn you with a proposition you did not agree with. The construction: . . . no rational operation can provide its own content.

Is a refutation of Kant's a priori conceptualization of knowledge. And I happen to agree that a priori is not a valid concept. I just wondered if you understood that.

".....Now, as Jimmy Carter might say, back to our regularly scheduled pogrom.”

Well, to quote Jimmy Carter for anything? And did you really mean pogrom? (As Vinnie Barbarino once said, “I'm so confused!”

There are only four sources of knowledge, 1) empirical (through the senses), 2) rational, 3) pure intellection, and 4) revelation.

Well, since most of this conversation has been about intuition - I'd say you missed the boat.

In other words, we have access to no empirical data that tells us that only empirical data exist. There is no knowledge at the level of the senses.

Do you understand the difference between percepts and concepts? Percepts are 'empirical data'. Concepts are knowledge, two fundamentally different things.

Likewise, no rational operation can provide its own content.

A complete non sequitur from the two previous sentences (Undistributed Middle Term Fallacy) but as previously noted, refutes the concept of a priori.

Rather, a person decides the purposes for which he will use his powers of reason. Evidently, it does not go without saying that this personal decision cannot be reduced to reason.

This is getting painful. Remove the unnecessary negatives (contrapositive) and you have -

Evidently, it goes without saying that this personal decision can be reduced to reason.

Not only that, but so much is now known about "emotional intelligence," that this alone should suffice to put the kibosh on any form of unalloyed rationalism.

emotional intelligence concerns evaluation not perception. I don't even know what unalloyed rationalism means. As opposed alloyed rationalism?

Knowing is a deeply personal experience, both in telling us what is important to know and in assimilating the depth of the truth of what is known.

Have you considered taking up poetry? That is all this assertion is.

It is possible to be deeply stupid, but in order for that to happen, you generally have to be quite intelligent.

Have you considered giving up the drugs and alcohol?

For this is the bottom line: either my spiritual writing is a product of intellection, spontaneously produced on the spot each morning just because I enjoy doing it; or it is a product of delusion.

Well, you nailed that one. It is the latter.

But either way, it is not susceptible to rational refutation.

I do my best to refrain from couching it is such terms: But in this case you are wrong. If it is illogical, it is irrational, by definition.

You may not understand this, you may not agree with it, but for those of us who understand reason, it is true. To quote your next line:

Either you get it or you don't.

And you, apparently, don't.

Those who do get it are, like me, either deluded or just enjoy the intellection.

As noted, you're deluded, that is precisely my point. (Well, actually I don't really think you are 'deluded', that would be rude. I think you are in over your head.)

It's just a feeling we have. But feeling, like everything else, runs along a vertical continuum.

“Vertical continuum.” I like that, says exactly nothing. But, in reality, feelings (emotions) are derivative of values. They do not precede perception but are subsequent to it. Thus feelings (emotions) are not a means of gathering knowledge about reality, but evaluating its importance to you. Two completely separate things, or modes.

But even with politics, I would say that the majority of my stances are a result of intellection, not reason.

Please explain how you accomplish intellection without employing reason.

For example, my understanding of the spiritual primacy of liberty leads me to reject the left, which always erodes liberty.

Well, I don't understand how 'spiritual primacy' relates to liberty. I would agree though that the left always erodes liberty.

Likewise, my belief in low taxes and a small federal government is a reflection of my principled belief that this arrangement produces better human beings and is vital to our collective spiritual evolution;

Agreed, “low taxes and a small federal government . . . this arrangement produces better human beings” but collective spiritual evolution is a concept I cannot agree with, in any sense of the phrase. First of all, “collective” anything is fallacious as a social construct. It is the basis for Marxism, socialism and liberalism. Since spiritual development is individual, not collective, I don't know what this phrase means.

. . . capital punishment for murderers is a deeply moral act of cosmic and divine justice.

I don't see how government implementing a legal sanction is cosmic and divine justice rather than secular justice but if you say so.

Well, I clarified some of this with your dear friend AG but I will reiterate anyway. I have the time right now and I, as well, immensely enjoy our little tete a tete.

I do not believe the universe is merely an abstract concept. In philosophy, that sort of belief is called Idealism. (Kant is usually sorted into that school. I hope you're enjoying his company.)

Sometimes I wonder if you actively strive to misunderstand me. I was not asserting that the Universe is “merely an abstract concept” but was 'merely' objecting to Godwin's complaint the 'science' uses the term without 'understanding' what it is. I consider this an amateur complaint.

I would think that you know me well enough by now to know I am not that limited. And considering all of the posts I have made deriding Kant's sophistry I would think you would know better than to lump me in with him in any fashion.

But I am a philosophical Realist who recognizes that the substantial reality of the living universe is not dependent on me noticing it.

The “living Universe” - now that's an interesting turn of a phrase.

In other words, my answer to the question: If a tree falls in the forest, and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound? is: YES.

Ahh, definitions again. Depends how you define sound. Is it just vibrations through the air, or is it the perception of vibrations through the air? My Webster's has the latter as the first connotation and the former as the second. In Zen, from whence this Koan arises, it would be the first, without a hearer there is no sound.

From my perspective, the universe pre-exists (and post-exists) me; and because I notice it as something independently real apart from myself, I can engage with it and think about it. IOW, It is something real without any help from me at all. And I am a part and participant in it. And so are you

Agreed.

In short, you evidently regard the universe as an immaterial abstraction, a figment of thought, so to speak, and nothing more. And I do not. No wonder we have such difficulty understanding one another!

No, as I have explained, I do not regard the Universe as an immaterial abstraction. It appears to me that you are so intent in proving everything I write wrong that it all is extrapolated in extremis, thus you end up construing meaning I did not intend. I do make a distinction between the object under discussion that the concept that represents it. There is a way of looking at this that was illuminated in a dictum by philosopher/scientist Alfred Korzybski, “The map is not the territory.”

The Universe is what it is and what we are building in the concept “universe' is the map of what we have learned about it. This is the abstraction and Godwin's comment, to me, conflated the two. His objection that we (science) doesn't 'understand' the Universe I thought was unfounded. As I said before , if we already knew everything about the Universe and 'understood' it, there would be no need to study it. So we aren't supposed to have a concept 'universe' because we don't understand “Universe?” That was my point, not that all we have is the abstract concept but we do have a working model or map, in fact must have a working model or map, in which to place what we learn about it into a coherent context.

Well, at least you admit that science is somehow about gathering knowledge "about reality." But it seems according to your method, "reality" may be only a "reification" of your own. And, from your own statements, I gather you do not trust reifications. So, where does that leave you?

Have I sufficiently explained this to you that you understand that this is not the case? This not an accurate assessment of my position?

One might say that science, as it is currently understood and practiced, is excessively devoted to abstractions, in a sort of process of "reification" in reverse. But reification of what? Anomie? Mindlessness??? If science is not permitted — by its own method — to understand what it knows, then what is the point of science?

Well, I think abstractions are unavoidable, and since science is so mathematically based in this day and age it must needs be abstract. Abstractions are ubiquitous and unavoidable, even in ordinary language, so it isn't surprising to me that science consists of mostly higher level abstractions. And, I don't know what 'science is not permitted' means. Scientists 'understand' what science 'knows' but a formal discipline (for lack of a better identifier) cannot 'know' anything.

I won't repost your Rosen quote but I quite agree, since I see abstractions as more prevalent than most people.

Fortunately for us, the greatest scientific minds of all time did not follow your definition of science (above, bolds). I'm speaking of (for example) Newton, Einstein, Bohr, Schrödinger, Heisenberg, oh so many others. Not even Charles Darwin followed your definition!

As I have explained, you have misinterpreted my definition. I hope I've cleared this up.

What all these world-class thinkers had in common was: They practiced intuition-led science. They were not what I call "bean counters."

From which, a trial conclusion: Were it not for "intuition-led science," science could not advance at all.

I do tire of arguing these points that are merely opinion, cannot be proven and thus are, yes, Begging the Question. Even if the men you quoted all believed they were following an intuition-led discovery I do not accept the idea that the formulations themselves were not rooted in the sum total of their sensory experience as a working background for their 'intuition.' Neither do I accept your aforementioned conclusion. We will just have to agree to disagree on this point. (BTW – I consider the comparison to 'bean counters' a typical 'Straw Man' fallacy. Setting them up as diametrically opposed to this in order to prove, unsuccessfully, they are that.)

I was perplexed by your question: "I guess psychology doesn't exist then?"

I was being facetious. You had written:

Of course, the problem for the scientific method is this Self is immaterial, intangible, immeasurable, and thus unisolatable as a datum of scientific observation and experiment.

And since psychology is the study of this “immaterial, intangible, immeasurable, and thus unisolatable” self then it would follow psychology is attempting something it cannot do. But then you say:

Some people have actually empirically isolated it — e.g., William James — but will not give it a name. (James — perhaps the greatest American psychologist who ever lived, a rigorous experimentalist with — arguably — positivist leanings — just referred to it as "Thought" — with a capital "T".)

And a little later say:

Then you argue that Self itself is something that I must prove to you. But that would be like asking me to prove that you exist: But I cannot even conceive of you absent the idea of a unique Self. So what do you want me to prove?

So why didn't you just refer me to James, if he 'empirically isolated' it? I didn't ask you to prove it exists, I was asking if it is,' immaterial, intangible, immeasurable, and thus unisolatable' then how do you know it exists? Yet you say James did empirically isolate it. So which is it?

Especially in light of the fact that, for me, other than the problem of Life itself, the problem of Mind (psyche) is the single most important question in the world.

Let me ask you, do you make a distinction between psyche and consciousness?

Catch you on the flip side.

Thank you for your response. I have been dreading it because I knew I was going to take a beating. You were kinder than I expected.

I'm glad I didn't fulfill your expectations then. : )

Please don't associate the others with me.

Ok.

A problem I have with the rigidity of your approach to life is its inability (To me at least. Perhaps you can dispel that for me.) to accommodate values and subjective judgements. You can say, "If you do A the likely outcome is B but if you do X the likely outcome will be Y." However, that can't tell you whether B or Y will be good or bad or even satisfying.

You have to ask, what is value? What is the context? What is of more value to a starving man lost in the wilderness? Finding a gold coin or wandering upon an apple tree? How do you arrive at that answer? What is of more value next? Finding a shack with a cot from which seek shelter from the elements or a top of the line Rolls Royce that is out of gas?

The utility to the individual for that given purpose is what establishes the value, for that person. When a person has all his or her needs met then the hierarchy of values changes. Finding a mate, learning a career, all takes place in individual context, according to the 'subjective judgment' of that individual. Each individual evaluates what he or she deems of more value and makes choices.

How does logic determine the appreciation of music, art, poetry, etc.? Is that something beyond the senses or is simply primal reaction? If primal, what accounts for differences in taste. If something else, what?

Interesting question. Logic concerns thought. Music, art, poetry and other esthetic considerations are of other kind. Music is non verbal, so other than the thought required to build instruments, learn to read notes, proper tuning, etc., logic doesn't enter into it. Unless someone is attempting to achieve a specific symbolic goal, such as sad music or celebrating exultation, then some thought as to whether one is fulfilling one's purpose or not. Purpose implies thought.

To some degree what accounts for differences is cultural. Note the difference between the Big Band era, Rock and Roll and hip hop. To a certain degree this is a herd phenomenon.

In my early twenties I had a friend who was an English teacher at a University. He was questioning me about my thoughts about the world, and I was expounding and he laughed and said, “That is delightful, everything you say is sheer poetry.” I said, “What do you mean?” He replied, “You say whatever you want to.” Why some people find poetry appealing is up to them, what they choose to value.

Do you run a quick pretest before you think or say something? Can you parse your thoughts before you think them? How do you account for engrained knowledge from your early life which may be subjective instead of objective?

No, I don't need to do that. I have spent a lot of time studying and thinking these things through. I have studied nearly every school of philosophy and religion worldwide. Along the way I discovered logic, quite by accident and began studying that, much of I hadn't understood before that began to fall into place. The contradictions between the different schools of thought and the commonalities. I had to look at what I 'believed' and evaluate that in light of my experiences and what I could verify for myself. Eventually I came to, what is to me, a coherent philosophy, one that is congruent with reality as I experience it. At this point one doesn't need to pretest or parse anything.

I think we often make assumptions which we don't recognize as such. I assume (Yes I said It) you think you have overcome that by intuiting the truth of everything.

There is a distinction to be made between assumption, assertion and axiom. The only thing I can really take as an axiom is that I exist. Descarte's dictum, flawed though it is, is close enough to the truth. And since the rules of reality are such as they are, I have to take that as a given as well. (Everyone else does to no matter what they say. The only exceptions to this are the people who intentionally kill themselves. But no one, no matter what they say about reality being amenable to human thought, intentionally steps in front of a semi-truck racing down the highway. They understand and acknowledge the laws of reality quite well thank you.)

Whether something is a true proposition is dependent upon knowing the truth. Being outside the realm of our senses does not negate its truthfulness. It could easily be a truth we have yet to discover. It may not lead to a logical syllogism but it could be truth nonetheless. Is E+MC2 a valid syllogism? What do our senses say about that?

Whether a proposition is a 'true proposition' depends upon the definition of the terms that make up the proposition. Now you are getting to the crux of the matter. A proposition is made up of terms, which are words, which represent concepts. The process of identifying and defining those concepts is dependent upon logic. A perception is experienced enough times to establish a class, or set, for which a symbol then represents that experience. In language words, in other forms of thought, such as math or calculus, other symbols, but all are arrived at logically in the same manner.

Let me clarify what I mean. When we were driving across country my sister was about 1 year old or so, just beginning to talk. As we drove across country every animal with a head, 4 legs, and tail was a “dog.” She had the perceptual ability to note the shape of the animal but not the experience of separating differing sets of similar looking elements.

So when you say, “knowing the truth” what you actually mean is that the proposition's definitions are congruent with reality. Thus saying, “a horse is a reptile” is not while “a horse is a mammal is” by definition.

Being outside the realm of our senses does not negate its truthfulness. means being unable to determine whether the definition is congruent with reality, thus its truthfullness. Now, people get all hung up at this point because abstracts are not subject to the 'realm of the senses' but as definitions that contain multiple elements they have logical validity. For example there is no “mammal” because it is an abstraction that subsumes a whole plethora of species. What often happens is that an abstract can contain a number of other abstractions and people lose track of the fact that the abstract is ultimately grounded in concrete experience.

This leads to your next question. The terms in E=MC2 are all abstractions. This is not a syllogism but was arrived at by a whole series of syllogisms where the conclusion of one syllogism forms the premise of another syllogism, and that of another, and so on, (termed a Sorites). Now Einstien's equation is based upon mathematical logic so isn't strictly dependent upon the syllogisms of formal logic (although I could make an argument that it ultimately is) but the initial definitions that those terms represent are.

What is your thought about conjecture? Is it a valid way of thinking or a waste of time? Don't the quantum sciences do a lot of that? Aren't many problems solved that way? To you, how is conjecture different from imagination?

Conjecture is fine as long as it is stated as conjecture and not attempted to be smuggled in as fact. It has its use in thought exercises and hypothesis. To use a recent AGism, conjecture would be a sub-set of imagination.

I see strict logic as useful in much of our lives but not in its entirety. To adhere rigidly to formal logic is very sterile and anti-creative.

Strict logic? I'm not sure what that means. My point is that if it concerns thought, the only tool is logic. These discussions are mostly philosophical and thus, subject to the rigors of logic. In everyday life you use logic implicitly, (without consciously realizing you are doing so – it is called common sense) far more than you probably realize. What I object to is when people try to pass off arguments, make assertions in discussions such as these, that clearly violate the laws of logic.

And, for example, there is a whole school of political philosophy that holds that liberalism is only possible via fallacious thinking. There is a whole realm of economic philosophy that maintains the same thing, for different reasons. The two are related and cross paths frequently. In these applications formal logic is extremely creative. So I think your view of logic isn't all that accurate but that's ok too. I was once a liberal Democrat, as my parents were. We all learn along the way.

In other words, we have access to no empirical data that tells us that only empirical data exist. There is no knowledge at the level of the senses. Likewise, no rational operation can provide its own content.

Is this a quote, or is this you speaking? And are you asserting this is true?

Thanks Alamo-Girl for making my task easier. By responding to what I wrote in the way you have you make it easier to clarify. Thus I am responding to you first.

Thus when LogicWings states that Universe is an abstract concept that represents what we have ascertained about the sum total of everything that exists. It Is Not A Thing! he is not speaking of that which is but the word that represents what he believes is that which is.

Yes, to a certain degree. I actually intend more than just this, but this is what leads to your objections.

And he is wrong on both sides. First, the word "universe" is not the universe. His last sentence would indicate that he understands this but if so then why not finish the sentence, i.e. "The word 'universe' is an abstract concept that represents what we have ascertained about the sum total of everything that exists."

My, my you are picky. You should be picking apart Godwin's assertion that because we don't completely understand the Universe "science has its own set of names for things it does not understand, names such as "big bang," "genetic program," "life," "consciousness," or even "universe" — for what scientist has ever stood athwart and observed this thing called "universe?" that we (or science) have no right to use the concept. (That is what this quote implies to me. How you read it is up to you.) And this is what I was objecting to.

Thus the following is a misunderstanding on your part of what I meant:

Even so he is wrong on the second as well for the "universe" is finite according to the above science which means it is a subset of "all that there is."

Some of this is semantic. I prefer my Webster's unabridged definition of universe, it is more all encompassing.

1) The totality of known and supposed objects and phenomenon; all existing things, including the earth and all its creatures, the heavenly bodies, and all else throughout space; the cosmos; macrocosm.

I find it funny that your formulation above for the "universe" is finite according to the above science which means it is a subset of "all that there is." actually refutes the Godwin's above quote. How can you make such categorically absolute statements about the nature of the Universe if it isn't a valid concept? Thank you.

For instance, mathematical structures exist outside of space and time (Tegmark). Indeed according to Tegmark's Level IV Parallel Universe model, things "in" space/time are manifestations of those mathematical structures.

As another example, manifestations of pi exist throughout space/time - but pi is outside space/time. Pi is not "in" the universe or multi-verse and yet it is.

As a theoretical construct fine, as a literal one – NOT! A creature bound by the space-time continuum has no means by which to determine that anything exists outside of that space-time continuum except upon a hypothetical basis.

Funny thing, in checking something about Tegmark I found the following:

Are there infinitely many other stars, or does space connect back on itself? Most of my colleagues assume it is infinite and the data supports this, but we don't know yet.

and

For instance, measurements of the cosmic background radiation (the echo left over from the big bang) indicate that the space we live in is infinite and that matter is spread randomly throughout it. Therefore, all possible arrangements of matter must exist out there somewhere—including exact and inexact replicas of our own world and the beings in it.

Oh, and he makes explicitly clear that the Parallel Universe Models are theoretical at this point.

You missed the fact that I wasn’t arguing the proposition that life is not reducible to material phenomena—the point was that to assert we don’t know the substance of life is logically consistent with this proposition.

I didn't miss it, it is just dueling negatives, and you can't prove a negative i.e.,
life is not reducible to material phenomena

It is logically consistent to say:

No mammals have hair.
No Unicorns have hair.
Therefore
No Unicorns are mammals.

but unverifiable, thus moot.

Your point is, by definition, unverifiable, thus moot.

And surely you see that you can’t have knowledge of the subconscious mind when limited to your criteria “sensory perception/observation/measurement.”

Infer: to derive by reasoning; conclude or judge from premises or evidence.

I have a fairly extensive experience with people with mental health issues. So the straight-jacket you seek to put me in isn't going to happen. The "sensory perception/observation" part of this equation can lead to the conclusion there is a subconscious mind.

See, the problem here isn't what I am questioning, it is what you are projecting upon what I am saying, because of your pre-conceived notions (your assumptions) that if I challenge this statement I must embrace that. These are the blinders you wear, your sepia colored glasses.

To quote Robert McCloskey:

I know that you believe you understand what you think I said, but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.

I fear LogicWings indulges in premature self-exhaltation.

What is it with you guys that when someone rationally challenges your illogically held views you invariably respond with adolescent insults? Oh, never mind, the question answers itself.

He frequently calls most anything Begging the Question because of the (usually) necessary assumptions in the premises.

Assumptions are never “necessary”, axioms are. When the existence of something is claimed where there is no evidence of that existence, it is Begging the Question. Just because most people assume (and you know what they say about those who 'assume', don't you?) things to be true that are not, is not my problem. It is theirs. But I am not going to let it pass simply to get along. That is a major factor of what is wrong in these discussions, the assumption that things that don't exist do. It is mistaking fantasy for reality. (The one necessary qualification is a thought exercise where the assumption is obliquely stated, such as: Imagine you are riding a beam of light.)

But this talk about assumptions reminds me of an old joke.

Three friends are hiking through a forest: an office manager, a truck driver and an economist. They all fall into a deep bear trap. The start pondering, “Now what are we going to do?” The office manager and the truck driver turn to the economist and say, “Hey, your the smart guy here, with all the degrees. How do we get out of here?” And the economist thinks a moment and says, “Well, first, assume a ladder . . .”

In an effort to avoid that you will eventually end up with a grammatically and logically correct statement but a very stilted and dull conversation.

As opposed to illogical, irrational, pedantic, ponderous and overblown as they are now?

It also amazes me that he can find such frequent fault with the statements of others while remaining sublimely confident in his ability to evaluate his own thinking, a particularly hard thing to do without making assumptions.

Easy to do when one bases one's thoughts and arguments upon axioms rather than assumptions and unfounded assertions.

Concerning intuition, it is either knowledge from a realm outside our senses which is communicated to us in a yet to explain fashion or it is spirit as we commonly use the term, or it is a new association of previously learned knowledge, some of which itself may be new associations, which we make subconsciously.

That you do not understand or are not carefully reading what I have written is revealed by this statement. I will parse:

Concerning intuition, it is either knowledge from a realm outside our senses which is communicated to us in a yet to explain fashion or it is spirit as we commonly use the term . . .

The phrase: knowledge from a realm outside our senses is precisely the type of conjecture that I term Begging the Question. By definition it assumes something that cannot be verified nor proven, therefore is not a true proposition. Period. Same goes for “spirit”. That your suppositions, or presuppositions as boop termed them are entirely illusory is exactly my point. They have no more meaning than 'Leprechauns plant all mushrooms' does.

The second part:

. . . or it is a new association of previously learned knowledge, some of which itself may be new associations, which we make subconsciously.

Which I already stipulated, to quote myself, I love to quote myself:

I will postulate that we receive information via the senses that is integrated in the subconscious mind and is then presented to the conscious mind in a symbolic form that needs to be interpreted by the conscious mind but this is not direct apprehension of the Universe via “intuition” but a process rooted in the sensory world first.

which is why I said you either aren't understanding what I said or not carefully reading it.

As to multi-verses, there can be many multi-verses within a universe.

Many ways to refute this, Begs the Question that there are multi-verses (unprovable by definition ) or Assertion Without Proof, but fallacious on the face of it either way.

Again, it is all semantics or labeling.

Or, more accurately, nonsense.

One last thing, the early discussion of the BEFORE as NO THING, meaning eliminating principles and laws along with things, I don't agree with that.

Of course not. This is where logic goes out the window. You make my point beautifully.

That is just a perfect abstraction, LogicWings, referring to nothing identifiable in the actual world of experience. "Reason" isn't doing the sensing, mobilizing, and integrating here. A cognitive/cognizing Self is, hopefully utilizing the criteria of reason in the process.

Since I was quoting a rather sloppy piece of work to quote a portion would suffer from the affliction you identify. To be more precise, in answer to your criticism - The person, which you term Self, does the actual sensing, with the brain perceiving that information and integrating it by means of reason into a coherent, understandable whole. You are correct, 'reason' is not directly responsible for the 'sensing' function but it is for the 'integrating' aspect, so I erred in quoting the whole section intact. Sorry I didn't split hairs finely enough for you.

Of course, the problem for the scientific method is this Self is immaterial, intangible, immeasurable, and thus unisolatable as a datum of scientific observation and experiment.

Then how do you know it exists? Zen Buddhists would say it doesn't, that it is an illusion. And I would quibble with the immeasurable claim since, by definition, it is unitary, thus one.

Yet since it appears we need this Self to explain our own thought processes — as the source that can discern, identify, collect, integrate, analyze, and attempt to explain its findings — indeed, for "science" to occur at all, it hardly seems that science can just dump it down the memory hole of a superstitious human past without at the same time permanently putting itself "out of business."

I guess psychology doesn't exist then? This 'source' (curious wording) is somehow different than the 'ego' of said discipline? The idea expressed after the words “seems that science” appear to be a complete non sequitur. “The memory hole of a superstitious human past” means what exactly? Very poetic though.

And this goes to Robert Godwin's poignant question: "Does science really understand what it purports to know?" A question which you, LogicWings, completely dismissed in a recent post.

Yes, I dismissed it because it is a sloppy Reification. “Science” doesn't understand anything. It is an abstract concept representing a system of study via a set discipline and method to gather knowledge about reality. Individuals understand things, and some individuals understand things more clearly than others. And since individuals disagree about any number of aspects within that system of study to say science 'understands' anything, or should, is fallacious.

Which tells me, you missed two points: (1) that words actually have meanings that persevere over time, multigenerationally. They are (in a certain way) "stores" of a shared cultural heritage, expressions of actual human historical experience, passed down from generation to generation through time. If you think you can make words mean other than what they actually do mean in this context, then you are taking an ax to the foundation of human communication. The Tower of Babel (redux) is before our eyes....

I am not responsible for what your erroneously infer from what I write. I missed nothing, you didn't understand what I said. It doesn't matter how concepts are arrived at, whether words actually have meanings that persevere over time, multigenerationally or not. There is a certain hierarchy to conceptual development that determines the meaning of the word. I am not attempting to make words mean other than what they are, I am noting their place in the hierarchy of conceptual development.

names such as "big bang," "genetic program," "life," "consciousness," or even "universe" are all abstractions that subsume a set of concretes or other abstractions. That science has its own set of names for things it does not understand is irrelevant. The 'naming' is part of the process of attempting to understand . It is required for making this attempt. What you dismissed, or just missed, was the meaning of my statement “If our understanding were complete there would be no reason to investigate anything, an absurd situation.” Godwin is complaining that we don't know everything about everything. A silly complaint.

As to Godwin's second point — "what scientist has ever stood athwart and observed this thing called "universe?" — I gather you missed it entirely, dear LogicWings.

You only appear to be gathering wool. Universe is an abstract concept that represents what we have ascertained about the sum total of everything that exists. It Is Not A Thing! It is a concept, an abstract concept, so no one has to stand 'athwart' it, any more than one can stand athwart a society. To think you can is to Reify the concept. Which is what I said.

Let me give you an example that may be simple enough for you to follow, since this seems to be proving difficult for you. Suppose I say, “Hand me a furniture.” What do you do? What can you do? The abstraction 'furniture' is being Reified, so the statement is meaningless. This is the inverse of “Can't see the forest for the trees” which is a failure to see the abstraction.

Godwin, and apparently you as well, are making just the same sort of error. Committing the same Fallacy.

People do it all the time. Especially in discussions like this.

One more clue: Why is it said, “A house is not a home?”

Gödel was a mathematical realist, a Platonist

Platonism is demonstrably false. For it to be true it would mean there would have to be a Platonic form for every wrong idea as well as every true one, or it couldn't be conceived. So there is a Platonic form for Unicorns? Or the Hindu Gods Shiva or Ganesha? Or the mistaken Ptolemaic geocentric Universe? Or the ether? Why didn't Newton discover Einstein's Theories instead of the ones he did formulate? If mathematics were pure discovery rather than formulation then no one could ever get it wrong.

He believed that what makes mathematics true is that it's descriptive -- not of empirical reality, of course, but of an abstract reality.

I don't care if it is Gödel an 'abstract reality' is a contradiction in terms. An 'abstract' by definition is a concept that subsumes a number of concretes (real things = reality) or a number of other abstracts. An abstract has no other reality than as a concept. Period.

Mathematical intuition is something analogous to a kind of sense perception.

Another sentence that has very little meaning. It is just a pile of words.

Gödel wrote that we're not seeing things that just happen to be true, we're seeing things that must be true. The world of abstract entities is a necessary world -- that's why we can deduce our descriptions of it through pure reason.

Same thing applies here, “abstract entities” in the sense that they have a reality separate from the fact they are concepts is a contradiction in terms. These are assertions that aren't founded on anything other that opinion. To say they must be true is to Beg the Question that they are, not proof. The ability of the mind to formulate ever higher level abstractions doesn't mean they have actual existence. This is reminiscent of the theory of the 'ether' that Michelson & Morley finally put to rest. What medium do these 'abstract entities' exist in? Unprovable, by definition.

things are not true because they are logical, but logical because they are true; our ability to use logic and math to describe the world is because they derive from something higher and eternal (more on which below).

The part in blue presents a false dichotomy and reaches a false conclusion thereby and the part in red is an Assertion Without Proof. It shows a very poor understanding of what logic actually is and, in fact, Reifies logic. How does someone determine if something is true or not without using logic? Thus the first part of the blue sentence is demonstrably false. Logic can be used to create valid syllogisms that are constructed with false premises so that Assertion is false. Logic is a mental process, not a thing.

Since the physical world exists prior to our exploration of it, so do the higher worlds. This is easy to prove to anyone who goes there. But for those who wish they were mere animals no proof is enough to convince them otherwise.

A human being is not a mere animal so this assertion is without meaning. If higher worlds exist then they should be provable. If they are dependent upon the 'belief' of the individual then they are not provable, by definition. Another Straw Man constructed to knock down an argument not made.

.....our access to the realm of beauty is a key that unlocks many cosmic mysteries.

That is an opinion, not fact. You write as if beauty were an objective fact. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. My father lived in Fiji for a while. He told me a story of how he was fishing with a bunch of Fijians at sunset and there was this incredible sunset. My dad said, “Wow! Look at that!” The Fijians all turned and said, “What? What?” My father said, “The sunset, it is so beautiful.” The Fijians all shrugged and went back to fishing. They couldn't see it, couldn't see what he was talking about.

"....How stupid would I have to be to think any of my answers to questions asked by ignorant flat-landers --(who limit their thinking to the horizontal world)-- would make any sense at all to them?

Careful there, your arrogance is showing.

"the properties we ascribe to our object of interest and the questions we ask about it reinforce the original metaphorical image and we miss aspects of the system that do not fit the metaphorical approximation."

Agreed, see how it applies to you?

. . . have the capacity to understand any of the answers I would give to their "questions".

As I said, your arrogance is showing.

Science is and must be exciting, since it relies on largely unspecifiable clues which can be sensed, mobilized and integrated only by a passionate response to their hidden meaning.

Perhaps this means something to you but I find it the kind of gobbledygook that Kant obfuscates with so well. This type of language is actually irresponsible, especially for a scientist/philosopher. To whit: largely unspecifiable clues. This is a term, a phrase, without any discernable meaning. What does “unspecifiable” mean? If they are “ unspecifiable” then how does he know they exist as “clues?” This is a blatant contradiction. Another violation of the Proving the Negative Fallacy and/or Assertion Without Proof that is so common in these discussions.

. . . which can be sensed, mobilized and integrated only by a passionate response to their hidden meaning.

This is nice poetry and all but it isn't serious philosophy. It is wrong though since information can only be “sensed, mobilized and integrated” by reason. (What does 'mobilized' in this context mean? Just words.)

This also backhandedly acknowledges the point I made (sensed, integrated) from the quote you used. But to call the process “intuition” is to Beg the Question or use the term in a manner in which it isn't traditionally meant.

"Polanyi ... most adequately expressed this idea of "lower intuition," so to speak, being critical to the evolution of scientific understanding and therefore progress into the great unKnown.

Evolution? Very funny. So now we have “lower intuition” which implies a 'higher intuition' without having proven the existence of intuition in the first place. Not very convincing.

But to point out that the material world cannot be understood in the absence of intuition is to simultaneously affirm the obvious fact that the world is not material.

Same errors is logic, over and over again. But to point out that the material world cannot be understood in the absence of intuition . . . this statement cannot be proven. It is merely an Assertion Without Proof, since it is attempting to Prove a Negative “cannot be understood”.

Then the second half: is to simultaneously affirm the obvious fact that the world is not material.

Oh really. Then why do bullets kill people? Do people just 'intuit' that they are deadly? See this is where this stuff crosses the line into nonsense (in a very literal sense of the word). How can it be “an obvious fact” if there are no “facts” since the world isn't material? Do you see the contradiction here? Let me put this another way, taking out the obfuscation in between and parsing the whole phrase for logical validity we have:

But to point out that the material world cannot be understood in the absence of intuition is to simultaneously affirm the obvious fact that the world is not material.

Which gives us: the material world . . . is not material.

In other words: A is not A. (That groaning sound you hear is Aristotle turning in his grave.)

Thus it fails the most basic truth table.

Thus your final statement: ".... reality itself is nothing but an intuition is a non sequitur since it follows from none of the above. If reality is nothing but an intuition there is no way to validate anything since nothing 'exists' except intuition, including the statement ".... reality itself is nothing but an intuition.”

Can you say “absurdity?”

First—why do you so readily accept the existence of the subconscious mind?

I have extensively studied the subject of psychology, for starters. Second, have you ever been talking to someone when you wanted a particular word, or maybe someone's name, and cannot recall it but then do recall it two hours later.

Where was that knowledge? Clearly in your mind but not available to your conscious mind.

Extensive training in the martial arts teaches one that there is a form of knowledge that operates far too quickly for the conscious mind but is known by the mind nonetheless. What mind possesses this knowledge?

Finally, from whence come dreams?

Here’s something you can know: to say we don’t know the mechanism, the substance or the essence of life is an assertion which is logically consistent with the proposition that life is not reducible to material phenomena.

Your proposition that life is not reducible to material phenomena is not capable of verification, therefore it is irrelevant. You are arguing for the validity of a proposition on the basis of long standing, well known fallacy. You can't prove a negative, friend. That's what I find annoying.

Hi Boop. Been off the boards, except occasionally, a long time. Hope I have time enough to attend for a while.

I gather the reason you do is because you "believe" (i.e., have faith) that faith and reason are inexorably, utterly, mutually opposed to one another. So you dump faith into the "religion" bucket, and reason into the "science" bucket (so to speak), and demand that "never the twain shall meet."

I always get a kick out of other people telling me what I 'believe' or characterize my thought processes. Runs part and parcel with the whole fallacious train of thought that I seek to illuminate.
Your terminology reveals its Circularity: I gather the reason you do is because . . . thus putting reason prior to faith while asserting what I “believe”. If I have reason to think something is true, is an actual fact then faith doesn't enter into it. No doubt you will insist that it does but this is just a semantic error on your part.

It isn't that faith and reason are inexorably, utterly, mutually opposed to one another but that faith, especially in the definitions you cited, is illusory. Faith is trust is belief is confidence is faith in an endless circle. But there is no substance to these terms other than an emotional one and emotions are not a means of perceiving reality but of evaluating one's relationship to it. One 'loves' peaches, 'hates' lemons. One 'hopes' for a better life but in order for that to come about one must work for it. Human action is predicated on thought, motivated by emotion.

At this point you would probably say I have 'faith' that my actions would be fruitful but I disagree with this assessment. Expecting an outcome based upon experience is not faith, it is judgment. Sometimes right, sometimes wrong, which a person must then use reason to figure out how to correct his or her path, but faith never enters into it.

In short, your unfounded presupposition demands the result you arrive at.

You defined a Straw Man presupposition that doesn't represent my position and then seek to refute that by stating that I provide no evidence for it. True because that isn't my position.

It is merely your belief, in which you place your faith, your trust. [The Latin root word, fides carries both senses.]

That is your Assertion (presupposition) for which you have no proof. That trust is not a means of perceiving reality but a projection upon it is easy to prove. Look at all the people who placed their “trust” in Bernie Madoff, who 'believed' and who had 'faith' that he had their best interests at heart. Had 'fides' been a valid means of perceiving reality this would not have happened. Thus the belief, trust, faith circularity is a perceptual issue not a perception issue. It isn't due to perceiving reality as it truly is and using reason to integrate that perception but a projection upon it of an emotional state of hope and wish.

Today, science offers its own rendering of the totality of existence, but perhaps it is worth inquiring how much of this highly sophisticated, mostly mathematical account is based upon concepts, assumptions, and a priori intellectual commitments that are no more sophisticated (or critically examined) than the myths of antiquity.

Well, for starters I don't accept 'a priori' as a valid concept, so we will lock horns on that point. This sophistry is probable the worst damage that Kant has done to logic and reason. So Godwin's exposition doesn't hold much water as far as I am concerned. When he gets to:

However, is it not equally evident that science has its own set of names for things it does not understand, names such as "big bang," "genetic program," "life," "consciousness," or even "universe" — for what scientist has ever stood athwart and observed this thing called "universe?"

he commits the Fallacy of Reification. These are concepts, symbolic representations the mind uses to identify these things in an attempt to understand, since there is no other way the human mind can operate. This goes back to my previous comment: It reminds me of the people who say that because we don't know everything we don't know anything. If our understanding were complete there would be no reason to investigate anything, an absurd situation. So his statement is basically meaningless. After Whitehead's comment you said:

In other words, for some "science" is an ersatz religion . . .

The operative word here is 'some.' Just because some do doesn't mean all do, but you present your arguments as if this were the case. Some people are murderers, but that doesn't mean everyone is guilty of murder. It doesn't even qualify as a Glittering Generality so there really isn't any point.

On the evidence, I do not agree that faith and reason are "mutually exclusive."

They aren't so much “mutually exclusive” as they are sets that have no members in common. One is an emotive illusory formulation and the other is the manner by which we integrate the evidence of the senses.

As to your definitions the only valid one would be the social one: 1a : allegiance to duty or a person : loyalty b (1) : fidelity to one's promises (2) : sincerity of intentions
Having faith that another person will perform in a given manner is valid in a social context, but Madoff demonstrates that that faith is often misplaced. If you substitute the word 'trust', the alternate meaning of fides then you trust a policeman to not shoot you for calling 911. But as for the other definitions they do not have an Epistemological value and have nothing to do with “knowledge” per se.

The one I object to the most would be 2 b : : firm belief in something for which there is no proof

This is the connotation that many people often conflate with 'believing' the Laws of Physics which has its basis in evidence and reason. To the degree a 'belief' is congruent with reality it is actually something separate from 'belief' or 'faith' and is more properly called knowledge. I don't 'have faith' that the sun will come up tomorrow, I know it. The only possibility I can conceive of is that the solar system was taken out by a supernova overnight.

Thanks for writing back. Nice talking (metaphorically) with you.

The concept of “intuition” is universal to scientific discussion and study. Not to equate intuition with spiritual knowledge, necessarily, but it is an example of intelligibility which is other than sensory.

The concept of “intuition” as a means of discovering facts (knowledge) about the Universe cannot be verified or proven, thus is invalid. No person can verify another person's “intuition” by intuition alone. Any attempt to 'verify' anything immediately puts you in the realm of sensory perception/observation/measurement and so invalidates the assertion that we 'obtain knowledge' via the agency of intuition.

I will postulate that we receive information via the senses that is integrated in the subconscious mind and is then presented to the conscious mind in a symbolic form that needs to be interpreted by the conscious mind but this is not direct apprehension of the Universe via “intuition” but a process rooted in the sensory world first.

Life itself was already mentioned by the great mind of betty b, I think, in this thread. We can neither observe nor describe the substance of life.

Begs the Question there is a substance of life. And to say that life is 'unobservable' is to say we cannot know that it exists apart from what is not life. To say we don't know the 'mechanism' of life is to say we haven't found it yet. You may assert that it cannot be or will never be but that commits another fallacy. It is this kind of Straw Man Fallacy that I find particularly annoying. It reminds me of the people who say that because we don't know everything we don't know anything. Nevertheless this is not an example of a non-observable source for knowledge about the Universe, which was the subject under discussion.

The rest of your comments are conjecture and opinion and thus are off topic. I am talking about what you can and cannot know. By definition the Multi-verse cannot be determined to exist one way or another, thus is a rather futile exercise. It is akin to talking about what color Unicorns are. From a Logical Positivist position it is meaningless as saying, “Argle nool varkoobin flark.”

There was plenty in earlier posts that I may get back to but this one is one of my oldest pet peeves, that of Conflating the various connotations of the word “Faith” and treating them all as equivalent. They are not.

To quote Betty Boop (Hi Betty, miss me?):

The scientist's faith is that the world is intelligible. If the scientist did not believe that, then all his science would be in vain; indeed, there could be no science at all. And the engineer faithfully believes in the complete adequacy of the mechanistic principles of his calling. If he doubted them, he would not be an engineer at all.

We start off with the world being 'intelligible.' If it wasn't intelligible, on some level – no one, no creature even, could survive for a moment if it weren't. You accused 12stCenturion of the Fallacy of Misplaced Concreteness or as it is more typically know Reification and then commit it here. Intelligence is an abstract concept and its application, intelligibility, is a function of the human mind, not a attribute of the world. And many aspects aren't particularly intelligible: that at the sub-atomic level particles are simultaneously particle and wave, the Copenhagen Interpretation that they exist only as probabilities until detected and then collapse into point of being or the contradiction between Einstein's Theories and Bell's Theorem. (As an aside the Copenhagen Interpretation is also an example of Reification, know why?) So we take that quibble for starters.

Then the assertion that this is taken on faith. There is faith and then there is 'faith'. To have the confidence that the sun will come up tomorrow morning can be called 'faith' that the sun will rise, but this is not the same as “Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.” The last part of that sentence being an oxymoron since the very root of the word evidence means 'to see'. These are two very different connotations. To equate them is to conflate them.

What's even more interesting is the fact that one must have faith in 'faith' before one can have faith. It is the ultimate self-recursive non sequitur.

Thus the next sentence does not follow:

If the scientist did not believe that, then all his science would be in vain; indeed, there could be no science at all. To 'believe' something due to countless examples of consistency as provided by the senses is not the same as to 'believe' in the supernatural. Since the supernatural is, by definition, beyond the realm of the senses, while the investigation of this world, of this Universe, is dependent upon the information garnered by the senses, the connotations of this word are not the same and it is a mistake to conflate them.

And the engineer faithfully believes in the complete adequacy of the mechanistic principles of his calling.

Because he has proven their consistency through countless examples of their veracity, not because he wants them to be true, without any evidence.

It seems to me that all human knowledge rests on faith at its very foundation. That is, without faith there is no spur towards knowledge, no scope for the operations of logic and reason, nothing for intelligence to work on.

All human knowledge rests upon experience, period. The 'scope of logic and reason' is to integrate that experience into a coherent whole, without which survival is not possible for man. Faith is not an element in human survival.

To move on:

And yet for countless millenia by now, belief in God has been universal to all mankind everywhere.

Apparently you aren't familiar with Taoism or Buddhism. Shinto doesn't really foot the bill either.

But back to my opening comment, that every scientist must believe the world is intelligible or there couldn't be any science at all; science per se would be a pointless exercise if the fundamental intelligibility of the world was in doubt.

Your argument is Circular and a Glittering Generality to boot. You speak for “every scientist” with an absolute that only exists in your own mind. The world exists as it is and to seek to discover how that world operates doesn't require a 'belief', just a desire to know. And that desire to know started way back when with, How do I survive? How do I keep this fire going that the lightening started?

There is a glaring hole in your reasoning that if the 'fundamental intelligibility' of the world were so obvious, people wouldn't have gotten so wrong for so long. It remains to be seen whether there is some fundamental element that is beyond human understanding but that will take of the future of humanity to determine conclusively, so, once again, it is a moot point. Just like the speculation of the existence of Multi-verses.

And yet I know of no scientist, offhand, who asks the question: Why is the world intelligible? What is it that embues it with intelligibility?

Well, first of all Wigner, which Alamo-Girl (Hi Alamo-Girl, miss me?) quoted, implies this first question in the 'unreasonable(!) effectiveness of mathematics' . Your second sentence Begs the Question that it is 'embued' rather than seeing it for what it is, the explanation of the observable phenomenon of the Universe by mankind. Intelligibility is an intellectual process by Man, not on inherent quality of the Universe. Reification again, my dear. ; }

Then:

Science does not ask these questions. Indeed, such questions seem a bit above science's paygrade, given its utter dependence on sensory perception/observation/measurement which is its fundamental, even sacrosanct method.

Well, as demonstrated, they have been asked. But, pray tell, is there other than sensory perception/observation/measurement by which we obtain knowledge about the Universe we live in? Hmmmmm?

I might add that there are plenty of "non-observables" of the greatest importance to human beings. Indeed, the ability of man to detect them is a sign of his categorical superiority to the lower animals.

You need to delineate these "non-observables" in order for this assertion to have any credibility.

But to not ask such questions doesn't mean the questions disappear. Plus by its own methods, science cannot disprove, or falsify the eternal Presence of God.

Do you remember Boop, years ago, the fallacy I identified when last we had this conversation? I remember. Do you? I AM curious. What was my reply to this Assertion?

Anyhoot, back to my claim that faith and reason are NOT mutually exclusive: If you were to scrupulously, honestly analyze your own thought processes, I think you would find I am right about this. Actually, they are completely different realms. Faith, in the way you mean it, religiously (and let me make this clear, I am not saying there is anything WRONG with that, per se) and REASON as a means of apprehending and understanding the Universe we exist in, ARE mutually exclusive .

I scrupulously, honestly (more than you can know) analyze my own thought processes - and I know you are wrong.

But hardly any person does that sort of thing nowadays.... Few people understand their own thinking. But then critical thinking is getting to be a lost art it seems.

Well see there, now we agree. Few people understand their own thinking and critical analysis does seem to increasingly become a lost art.

I am going to post this without much copy editing because I have to go. I will amend as necessary. But it is enough to get us going, I THINK.