So the claim is "this house is haunted".
If we were to test this statement scientifcially we would identify the Null(0)default position, which is "this house isn't haunted" and we would go from there.
First of all we wouldn't accept an impossible task to prove a universal negative.
Then we need to investigate and build a case through objective evidence and data in our effort to establish a link between the state of being haunted and the specific House.
Its the same principle we found in the burden of proof , in our judiciary system etc.
We presume everyone to be "not guilty" and we try to build a case that would link the defendant to the punishable act. In every case the standard is "beyond reasonable doubt", not an absolute proof.

Now imagine the process backwards. All the houses would have to be proven not haunted (to avoid special pleading) and all defendants should be considered guilty and they would have the burden to provide the evidence!
Gods,haunted houses,being guilty etc are significant statements and they demand significant indications , meaning that we can not accept them as our default position without any evidence giving a significant edge for their case.

- First of all "Empirical Science" isn't a philosophical caprice but a Pragmatic Necessity and no "crawling out" is talking place. — Nickolasgaspar

So, there's no escape from the supremacy of Emperor Science?

Wow! Ten reply posts in a row. That must set some kind of record. And I salute your passion. To what do you attribute your emotional drive to drive a stake into the heart of God? And how do you characterize that heart-felt motivation? To purge pristine Science of all conjecture & speculation?

Again, I bow before the power of your relentless Logic. But, I hope you won't report me to the Emperor, for expressing my forbidden opinions in public. I thought I could get away with my watered-down god-concept. But now I see that I was wrong to think I could evade the moral census of Science. I hereby repent of my sins against Lord Logic, and promise to avoid any further transgressions of Official Doctrine --- on this thread. :joke:


Are you now, or have you ever been a member of the Philosophical conspiracy to subvert Science?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism

It's really nobody's business if people have faith in a creator. Just sayin.

"Are there any scientific grounds for god?" Yes. God is proven by radio-astronomy and radiological data-interpretation pictured on a tablet-pc or other screen as swirling white-silver-gold colors.
Further, if you put (f)MRI "hat" on the person viewing this imagery of God, then you'll discover that the person communicates with God via brain-signals (the fMRI). Cool or what?
Further, God has the same radio-signature as (some) ghosts as viewed somewhat similarly by "ghost-radars" or "ghost-viewing devices".

What do you make of the fact that (empirical) science can be verified i.e. we can, with certainty, tell the difference between empirical truths and empirical lies? For someone into logic/rationality, the empirical world is paradise - we can establish truths and disprove falsehoods.

On the other hand, metaphysical matters (God, etc.) are mere possibilities, unproven/unverified; quite frankly, they maybe unprovable/unverifiable.

Now look at how the two stack up against each other: Imagination (metaphysics) vs. Facts (empirical science). Is this even a choice? Fantasy vs. Reality? Maybe it is, but daydreaming is frowned upon, oui?

On the other hand, metaphysical matters (God, etc.) are mere possibilities, unproven/unverified; quite frankly, they maybe unprovable/unverifiable.

Now look at how the two stack up against each other: Imagination (metaphysics) vs. Facts (empirical science). Is this even a choice? Fantasy vs. Reality? Maybe it is, but daydreaming is frowned upon, oui? — Agent Smith

You are comparing empirical Science with theoretical Philosophy. But they are different approaches to a> practical knowledge or b> meaningful wisdom. Materialistic Science limits its reductive analysis to questions that are inherently amenable to empirical evidence. But Philosophy was left holding the bag of metaphysical questions that have no true/false answers, only more-or-less plausible.

If you think we are doing Science on a Philosophy forum, you should take-up your scalpel and dissect the God question into its fundamental Atoms. For most of us, God is not a physical object, but a mental concept, defining the whole of which we humans are merely questioning particles. From that perspective, maybe you are an Atom of God. So, yes, you have a choice : to dissect material objects or to understand mental Models. This forum offers the latter. :smile:

Taking into account the fact that only the empirical is useful to us in any way at all, would you agree that metaphysics is useless. I'm taking a pragmatic approach I believe, but it is a question worth asking.

Your theory of Enformationism, what's its selling point? As far as I can tell, it seems to have utility in a yin-yang sorta way; in other words is Taoism metaphysics or not? Taoism is practical advice, oui?

Taking into account the fact that only the empirical is useful to us in any way at all, would you agree that metaphysics is useless. I'm taking a pragmatic approach I believe, but it is a question worth asking.

Your theory of Enformationism, what's its selling point? As far as I can tell, it seems to have utility in a yin-yang sorta way; in other words is Taoism metaphysics or not? Taoism is practical advice, oui? — Agent Smith

Yes. Metaphysics is useless for putting bread on the table. But it can be used for building clarified concepts in your mind. Likewise, Philosophy won't put a man on the moon, but it might allow mankind to work together, despite differences, to reach such goals. Philosophy & Metaphysics are not focused on the material world out there, but on the mental world in here. Science allows us to control the natural world, but Philosophy helps us to control the cultural world. For example, Putin is not a platonic philosopher-king, but a typical thug warlord. Would it be pragmatic to teach a young Putin about the hubris of Hitler, and the harmony of Confucius & Pythagoras? Maybe, maybe not; but it's worth a try.

As a 21st century worldview, Enformationism could conceivably update the mind-set of humanity, from the ancient spooky belief system of Spiritualism (e.g. Animism), and the dispiriting effects of Materialism & Capitalism. Marx's critique of industrial age Capitalism, revealed its internal contradictions, but his proposed Communism had its own destructive paradoxes. So, all general worldviews begin to fall-apart as human cultures split into factions, each justified by an incomplete (hence biased) understanding of how & why the world works as it does.

Don't get me wrong. Enformationism is not a political manifesto, but simply a personal analysis & synthesis of how the world works, from quantum to cosmic scales, and why it doesn't work perfectly. Historically, each dominant cultural worldview, has provided philosophical insights to the remaining mysteries of reality. But all have a limited shelf-life, before the gaps in understanding become pit-falls for failure. So, humanity has to learn from its social breakdowns, and to patch the gaps with new insights. The key perception, and conception, of Enformationism is basically, what philosophers & sages of all eras have preached : unity & harmony are threatened by Entropy. So we must constantly repair the cracks in the foundation of society.

To find appropriate spackle to smooth over the rough spots in modern cultures, we can learn from the positives & negatives of ancient cultures. For example, Taoism was a general worldview that allowed the high culture of China to survive for centuries, despite the usual tribulations of complex human societies. The Yin/Yang principle gave people the BothAnd idea of harmony of opposites, to offset the destructive dualistic belief in Either/Or, us-versus-them, and my-way-or-the-highway. And the Tao-concept served as a unifying principle of balance upon which to build a harmonious society. Today, universal & ubiquitous Tao-like Information could serve as the fulcrum upon which to balance our divisive modern world. If only enough people were aware of its role in every facet of life. Enformationism is also practical advice for avoiding the Matter vs Mind estrangement of vulgar Materialism. :nerd:

PS__But what is "information"? En-Form-Action. Stay tuned.


WHAT’S THE PROBLEM? :

Historically, the dominant worldview of civilizations and cultures has swung between the two poles of practical Materialism and theoretical Idealism. Idealist societies, such as medieval Europe, tend to focus their intellectual energy and attention on otherworldly matters, hence material progress stagnates. In their more worldly materialistic phases, cultures such as modern Europe prefer to emphasize the here and now, accelerating technical (reductive) progress to the detriment of spiritual (holistic) development. Eastern cultures, that have been traditionally more Idealistic, are now attempting to catch-up with pragmatic Western nations in technical prowess and materialistic goods. Consequently, the internal struggles between Body and Soul, Part and Whole create tension and friction for those on both sides of the moral/material balance point.

Materialists often object to the intrusion of idealistic, meta-physical religious and philosophical concepts into the pragmatic, scientific search for understanding of the world around us. But it is my contention that it was materialistic Science itself, following the evidence where it led, that accidentally stumbled into the forbidden realm of Idealism. If they could turn back the clock to the golden age of science–-before the unexpected and unwanted intrusions of Einstein and the Quantum Theorists into regions of the universe beyond the limited scope of man’s physical senses–-Materialism would still reign supreme. Since Einstein showed the practical impossibility of going backward in time, I guess we will just have to move forward, and deal with the perplexing paradoxes of pre-cosmic and sub-atomic reality in the scientific spirit of open-minded skepticism. And let the facts fall where they may.

I’m not so idealistic that I could believe we are on the verge of a final resolution of this long-standing philosophical debate. But I do see a glimmer of light ahead of us in the tunnel of life. If humanity can come to see that the duality of this world is natural, necessary, and inherent in material Reality, but not in metaphysical Ideality, then perhaps a detente can be negotiated so we can work together toward common goals in both realms. Conflict is an unavoidable effect of Duality, but those opposing forces can be resolved in Ideality.

The Enformationism paradigm envisions a convergence of scientific knowledge and philosophical wisdom; matter & mind; real & ideal; body & soul. But like any paradigm shift, it may take a long time to take hold. This thesis is just a beginning.
Enformationism website

In a sense then your Enformationism bridges the gap between spiritualism, sensu lato, and materialism! Though it's foundations are pure ideas, these ideas have practical significance.

Thanks for the brief but informative history lesson.

↪Gnomon
In a sense then your Enformationism bridges the gap between spiritualism, sensu lato, and materialism! Though it's foundations are pure ideas, these ideas have practical significance. — Agent Smith

I suspect that, like me, your philosophical attitude is mostly Pragmatic. But I have been forced by the Enformationism worldview to be tolerant of people with more Romantic interpretations of reality. I live in the Bible Belt, so my family & friends remain loyal to the biblical ideology of a world characterized by an ongoing war between Good & Evil forces : gods, demons, angels, etc. with magical powers. Even New Agers, who typically view the forces of nature in less personal terms, often prefer a bit of fantasy with their facts. So, they could interpret my EnFormAction (causal energy) as a Star Wars "Force". And that's OK with me. I'm in no position to be doctrinaire.

Unlike some on this forum, who are engaged in open combat against Religion & Romanticism & Spiritualism. Their "realistic" dogma is what has been labeled by observers as the belief system of "Scientism". It's not just anti-theist, but also anti-romantic. Which may be why they ridicule philosophical "what -if" conjectures & speculations as unscientific. Well, duh! Philosophers don't do empirical research. And they don't dissect objective Reality, but merely analyze subjective Ideality (human views about reality). So, to the soldiers of Scientism, all philosophy looks like Idealism & Religionism.

Spiritualism was Idealistic & Romantic, in that it imagined invisible intentional agents pushing things & people around. Then Science reinterpreted those mysterious causes in terms of non-sentient forces & energies. But, a rose by any other name is still the same. And an invisible Cause is still "spooky action at a distance". So, I call it EnFormAction, but you can call it "Energy", or "Spirit", or "Logos", or "Elan Vital", depending on your attitude : "just the facts ma'am" pragmatism, or "tell me a magical story" imagination. Whatever works for you, can have "practical significance" in your life. :smile:

Philosophy that works :
Later in the book, Wolf gets even more down-to-Earth, describing the concept of Informative Power in terms of Physics, and by coining the word "enformation" as a dynamic verb form of the noun "information", which is merely static data. He defines his neologism as "patterns that energy forms of itself". Which is equivalent to my own coinage of EnFormAction, the creative power of evolution, and the act of en-forming. He says that "energy is our way of defining 'enformation'". The meaning of information is in its structure, its pattern. Yet, in physics, energy can be both constructive & destructive, and the result of disorganization is called "entropy". So, I had to come up with another new term for the mysterious positive "force" that opposes Entropy.
Review of book by David M. Wolf
"Philosophy grounds itself in factual "truth." By revising how we understand this, we make a change that has profound impact upon most world-wide systems for gaining knowledge."

So, according to you, it's all information. How do you reconcile the fact that information can be true/right or false/wrong with your BothAnd Principle, which seems to ignore or set aside true/false and right/wrong dichotomies, preferring a synthesis of opposing views rather than resolutions where one side wins the debate?

So, according to you, it's all information. How do you reconcile the fact that information can be true/right or false/wrong with your BothAnd Principle, which seems to ignore or set aside true/false and right/wrong dichotomies, preferring a synthesis of opposing views rather than resolutions where one side wins the debate? — Agent Smith

Yes & No. The BothAnd Principle merely acknowledges that the world-system has the Potential for both good and bad effects on human aspirations, including the preference for Life versus Death. However, we are not guaranteed to get what we desire. So, we try to make the best of an imperfect world, by balancing the bad with some good. Individually, we can aim high for what's best for me. But as components of a collective society there are trade-offs. What's good for me (e.g. becoming a billionaire, may deprive millions of others of a living wage) might be bad for someone else, which could ultimately become bad for me. What goes around, comes around.

The essence of the BothAnd principle, is the Golden Rule plus the Golden Mean : avoid extremes, and be content with moderation. Nothing new about that ancient wisdom, except that it is necessitated by the understanding that Information is a continuum from 1 to 0, or 100% to nothing. If you get 100%, someone else might get nothing. And. depending on circumstances beyond your control, you could be that someone-else. That's why Kant's Imperative was basically : "do unto others as you would have them do unto you".

In a more technical sense, Information (EnFormAction) is like Energy : in excess, it becomes an inferno ; or in deficit, it becomes a deep-freeze. So the Goldilocks or Habitable zone is merely warm-enough to be "just right". That's why philosophers of all eras have agreed that balance & proportion & moderation are better, for all concerned, than imbalance, overabundance, & exorbitance. Depending on the circumstances, though, the balance point is not necessarily at the mid-point. Which is why the BothAnd Principle must be applied with wisdom. :smile:


The Goldilocks Enigma :
Why is the Universe Just Right for Life?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_Jackpot

:ok: