ScratchMonkey

I used quotes to indicate that you didn't specify what you meant by the term. Did you mean the German guy who started the tradition? Or the character from cartoons? Or the ideals of the holiday?

Definitions are critical in science for testability. If you don't clearly state your hypothesis, how can anyone reproduce the test results? That's why the Bible is worthless as science. It doesn't make testable claims.

If you want be sloppy in your claims, then it's pointless to even participate, because no useful communication is happening and therefore no progress is possible.

Even with testability, proof is rarely possible. At best, one can achieve a high degree of confidence. Hence, we have a high degree of confidence that there are no jolly old men living at the north pole who come down chimneys on December 25th. It's incompatible with the laws of physics that so far seem to be in effect.

ScratchMonkey

I'm not a vitalist, so I don't buy that one.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soul

Just so we're clear on the term "supernatural", here's some commentary:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supernatural

My position is that if you can measure it, then it's natural, not supernatural.

Hambergler

I have never met anyone that says they have met Santa w flying sled reindeer or the Spaghetti Monster. One is a joke the other is a mythological figure. But I have met many people that say they have had encounters with ghosts. That doesn't necessary lead me to draw a firm conclusion, but at that point I must be open to the possibility that they may have experienced something I haven't. The more people that claim these encounters the greater the possibility that I may be ignorant concerning them.

Another example is if someone makes the statement that there is NO possibility of life on other planets. That is simply an ignorant/arrogant statement. Probably an Archie Bunker type character.

__________________

sordavie

There is an important question in the philosophy of science--what do scientists mean by theoretical words like 'electron', 'hydrogen', 'quark', 'negative charge', and such. It's an important question for science because those are theoretical terms. That is, they are technical terms with very precise meanings. They aren't part of any natural language like English. What the topologist means by 'distance', when she's doing topology is much more precise than what any of us typically mean by distance. That's because 'distance' is a technical term in topology and carries with it a precise definition. When a topologist is talking about distance, you better be sure to know exactly what that definition is. However, when we talk about distance, there's no need to define first what the word means. We're both competent speakers of English, and 'distance', as we use it, is a word of English not a technical term of topology.

If you'd like a good article on the subject, I recommend David Lewis' "How to define theoretical terms."

Anyway, 'Santa Claus' is not a technical term either. We're both speaking modern English. It is a name for a fictional heavyset character with eight flying reindeer who delivers presents to kids around the world by climbing down their chimneys. It does not refer to the idea of Santa Claus. It does not refer to the historical figure Saint Nicolas, whom the fictional character may be based off. It does not refer to people who dress up and pretend to be Santa Claus. It does not refer to the ideals of the holiday. It may refer to a fictional character in certain cartoons. But, as we know, fictional characters don't exist.

Science has nothing to say about whether the name 'Santa Claus' refers to something that exists. It's not a statement of any theory of physics, chemistry, biology, or anything else we plausibly take to be a science. These claims are not sloppy. They just aren't scientific claims. There is no scientific hypothesis that I made. I don't know why you insist on thinking this is some scientific issue. We communicate all the time in English without first precisely defining our words. Indeed, it would be impossible to (noncircularly) define all of our words in English using other English words.

I don't understand why people make the mistake of thinking that the name of a fictional character must refer to an idea or something real. That can't be right. Sherlock Holmes is a fictional detective. Sherlock Holmes does not exist. The idea that I have of Sherlock Holmes does exist (it's something in my mind). But the idea I have of Sherlock Holmes is not a fictional detective. It's an idea. It's a mental representation in my head. The mental representation does exist. The fictional character surely does not. The name 'Sherlock Holmes' is an empty name (it does not refer to anything that exists) of a fictional character, it is not a name for my idea of Sherlock Holmes.

PM me if you want to talk about philosophy of science. Some of your ideas about it aren't quite right.

__________________

CingularDuality

I disagree. Santa Claus does exist, and it is an idea and a real person, and a fictional character. To say otherwise is foolish. Think about what you're saying and use a little bit of perspective.

Oh, and "Santa Claus" is absolutely a technical term, too! You should've heard my 7 year old son and his friend going on and on about whether or not the dude at Macy's was Santa or one of his elves or whether it's just some dude dressed up like Santa. They talked for half an hour about what exactly Santa could and could not do. So, just as distance might be a technical term to a topologist (but not you), so might Santa be a technical term to a child. Just because YOU can't define it doesn't mean there isn't a technical definition, as you pointed out.

__________________

Become a supporting member!

Buy a Tactical Duck!
Take the world's smallest political quiz! "I was touched by His Noodly Appendage."
TacticalGamer TX LAN/BBQ Veteran:

ScratchMonkey

And, for the record, just because I just dinged 47, doesn't mean I don't think like a child.

If you want to start a thread about PoS, I'd be happy to tag along. I don't mind being shown the error of my ways. I'm just another blind guy groping an elephant. (And hoping the bastard doesn't kick me! )