Expert: Austin Cline - 7/12/2009

Question
QUESTION: Dear Austin,
        Does science believe in intution and predictions.

Can a person foresee or predict ones future in a way that is explainable in science?

We know that time is considered as the fourth dimension after three dimensions of space.
So, can it be true that whatever has to happen in time till infinity has always existed i.e that all the future events that have to happen in future have already been fixed(destined to take place) or have already happened and we just travel through time to reach all events as we do in space by reaching from one place to another travelling in a specific direction.

If this is possible, don't you think some people who claim to foresee the future events can actually see them or feel them by a process which can be explained by the science.

What do you say about Nastradoomus.

ANSWER: "Does science believe in intution and predictions. Can a person foresee or predict ones future in a way that is explainable in science?"

Science doesn't "believe" anything; the correct question is whether something is consistent with what science tells us about the world and/or whether something can be supported, justified, explained scientifically.

Intuition doesn't contradict anything in science because there is nothing bizarre about a person's brain making connections for us below our conscious awareness. Predictions, though, are another story. There is no scientific basis for "seeing" or learning about the future. Human predictions are guesses based on more or less good information, more or less insight into how people behave, etc.

"We know that time is considered as the fourth dimension after three dimensions of space. So, can it be true that..."

Nothing you suggest follows logically or empirically from the premise that time is the fourth dimension.

"If this is possible, don't you think some people who claim to foresee the future events can actually see them or feel them by a process which can be explained by the science."

No, there is no evidence or basis for this. Nothing written by Nostradamus is special because it's all metaphor which has to be interpreted. Given enough time and license, you can interpret anything to be an event that's already happened.


---------- FOLLOW-UP ----------

QUESTION: Why do you just make statements? Why don't you explain why my suggestion does not follow "logically or empirically from the premise that time is the fourth dimension".
If you believe in rational methods, you should logically or theoretically give reasons behind your statements. I put my same idea behind another athiest and he told me that the hypothesis i have put is a possiblity but has not been prooven yet. So, how could you say that my suggestion was far from the theory of fourth dimension?
Thanks

ANSWER: "Why do you just make statements? Why don't you explain why my suggestion does not follow "logically or empirically from the premise that time is the fourth dimension"."

Your ideas do not follow because there is no logical or empirical connection between them and the premise — there are no facts or logical implications which entail the truth of your ideas based on that one premise. Beyond this, the burden is entirely yours to be able demonstrate that a connection exists.

"If you believe in rational methods, you should logically or theoretically give reasons behind your statements. "

The burden lies with the person making the argument, not with the one noting the absence of any logical or empirical connections in the very little bit said by the original claimant. It's your job to make a case for your idea if you want others to evaluate that position; if all you can do is state what the position is then you don't have anything substantive enough to take seriously. Thus far, though, all you've done is state the position; you haven't even tried to make any sort of case — logical or empirical — for why it might be true or why anyone should think for even a second that it might be true.

If you said "John is a murderer," and I said "There's no evidence connecting John to the murder," it wouldn't be my job to explain to you why there is no evidence. My statement "there is no evidence" is simply a report of the absence of any evidence in front of us; "why" there is no evidence is likely because it doesn't exist but it may also be because you've thus far failed to provide evidence which does exist.

Why doesn't your idea follow empirically from your premise? Because you provide no empirical evidence to support your idea.

Why doesn't your idea logically from your premise? Because you provide no inferential argument demonstrating a logical connection between the premise and the any level of likelihood that your idea could be true.

"I put my same idea behind another athiest and he told me that the hypothesis i have put is a possiblity but has not been prooven yet. "

You should have asked *why* it is a possible. Anyone can say "X is possible," but that doesn't *make it* possible. For "X is possible" to be a rationally justifiably statement, one has to be able to provide a rational justification.

---------- FOLLOW-UP ----------

QUESTION: "Your ideas do not follow because there is no logical or empirical connection between them and the premise — there are no facts or logical implications which entail the truth of your ideas based on that one premise. Beyond this, the burden is entirely yours to be able demonstrate that a connection exists."

First of all i would like you that this is not a court of law where only the claimant has to proove his theory. Even if the answerer rejects any idea, he can't just rebuff it without giving any logical reason to do that. In court of law the magistrate doesn't know whether the facts produced by the claimant are true or false, therefore in law the burden of proof is on the claimant. However, here in this forum we are not fighting a case. We have come here just to learn and correct our myths and misconceptions. Here, unlike from a judicial officer we expect from you experts that you must be knowing enough to satisfy our queries. Moreover, if you still want to apply judicial method while answering the questions here, then i would like to tell you that I just put a theory and asked whether it is possible or not? I did not claim anything. It was you who claimed that "my ideas do not follow because there is no logical or empirical connection between them and the premise". So it is your responsibility to proove your claim, because mine was not a claim, but an idea in form of a question.

"Why doesn't your idea logically from your premise? Because you provide no inferential argument demonstrating a logical connection between the premise and the any level of likelihood that your idea could be true."

I provided a very simple argument which you overlooked. I do not claim that my argumet was very strong but i did make. If you remember, i said that "We know that time is considered as the fourth dimension after three dimensions of space. So, can it be true that whatever has to happen in time till infinity has always existed i.e that all the future events that have to happen in future have already been fixed(destined to take place) or have already happened and we just travel through time to reach all events as we do in space by reaching from one place to another travelling in a specific direction."
It's true that i did not explain my argument in detail but it is expected from experts like you that you understand the precise arguments. My argument here can be summarised as - " In space dimension one can move in a linear direction, so the same can be the case in fourth dimension where one can move in a line to meet events which are  fixed."

I asked this question to many atheists but nobody refuted my idea as you did. Interestingly one of them told me that a mathematician named Minkowski  originally conceived an idea very much similar to my idea. According to Minkwoski "time is a kind of highway on which all events are fixed and which we encounter in a kind of linear way".

Answer
"First of all i would like you that this is not a court of law where only the claimant has to proove his theory."

The obligation of a person to support their claims is not limited to courts; on the contrary, it is a general obligation that everyone has. To deny this is to assert that people bear some sort of obligation to refute any random assertion they encounter and, if they don't, then the assertion must be accepted - and that's absurd.

So, no, it's not up to me or anyone else to refute, disprove, or argue against any random idea you or anyone else comes up with. If you have an idea you think can and should be taken seriously or even perhaps accepted by others, the burden is entirely yours to make a good case for it. This necessarily includes being able to provide empirical and logical support for what you claim.

In the absence of sound support - empirical and logical - there is necessarily and automatically no good reason to accept some random claim.

"I just put a theory and asked whether it is possible or not?"

No, you asked a question: given some premise, might some conclusion be true? In the absence of any empirical or logical connection between the premise and the conclusion, then it is not legitimate to think that the conclusion might be true in light of the premise. Connections must be established first. The absence of such connections is a logical fallacy known as a Red Herring.

Here's an example of an analogous Red Herring: "given that cherries are red, will scientists be able to develop a cold fusion energy source?" Unless I am able to establish empirical and logical connections between the premise and the conclusion (which is stated in the form of a question), there is no reason for anyone to answer or to agree that the conclusion really is possible.

"It was you who claimed that "my ideas do not follow because there is no logical or empirical connection between them and the premise". So it is your responsibility to proove your claim, because mine was not a claim, but an idea in form of a question."

And I've already explained how the claim is supported: You have provided no connections. If connections exist, it's entirely your job to establish them. If you can't or won't, it's wrong for you to expect anyone to believe they exist.

"I provided a very simple argument which you overlooked."

You provided a claim, not an argument. An argument is a series of statements and connected inferences design to support or prove the truth of some proposition. You provide no inferentially connected statements, just a single premise plus a question about whether some conclusions are true in light of that premise.

"If you remember, i said that "We know that time is considered as the fourth dimension after three dimensions of space. "

Of course I remember it; that's your single premise. Now here is your question about whether some conclusion follows from it:

"So, can it be true that whatever has to happen in time till infinity has always existed i.e that all the future events that have to happen in future have already been fixed(destined to take place) or have already happened and we just travel through time to reach all events as we do in space by reaching from one place to another travelling in a specific direction." "

It's up to you to provide empirical and/or logical connections between your premise and this conclusion.

"It's true that i did not explain my argument in detail but it is expected from experts like you that you understand the precise arguments."

I'm sorry if you were given the impression that I could or should read your mind, but that's simply not a skill I possess. All I can or should know about your position or argument is what you tell me. If you can't or won't provide that relevant information, then you aren't asking a question you can legitimately expect to be answered.

Now, if you are able to make a substantive argument for some position, maybe I can tell you if it's a valid and/or sound argument. Until then, though, your failure and refusal to provide any logical and/or empirical connections between your premise and conclusion means that you do not have an actual argument nor do you have a position that can be taken seriously by anyone.

"I asked this question to many atheists but nobody refuted my idea as you did."

The word "refute" doesn't mean what you appear to think it means. Since you haven't provided any position or argument to examine, I've not bothered trying to refute anything. It's up to you to present a substantive position that can be and deserves to be evaluated.

I recommend you look up on this as an important learning opportunity — specifically, the opportunity to learn more about what an argument really is, how to construct one, what makes arguments valid/invalid and sound/unsound, how to improve poor arguments, etc.