It Shows on Your Face, Ichijou-San - Vol. 1 Ch. 4

[MangaDex]

 

[DynJarren]

Kabedon time, poor mouse having all the blood sucked out of it, that would be painful as your body slowly does due to a lack of oxygenated blood moving through your veins

 

[MewOne]

The mouse lives to see another chapterrr

 

[durende]

Gotta hand it to this manga, it has pretty good comedic timing lol

 

[dementati]

If vampires were real, they could most certainly be proven by science.

 

[krow5729]

If vampires were real, they could most certainly be proven by science.

What is your point lol

 

[dementati]

What is your point lol

The club president said "This club, you see, researches things that by principle cannot be concretely proven by science", which makes it sound as if there's something that makes paranormal events innately unprovable by science. But this is completely false, paranormal events are just those which have yet to be proven by science, most likely because they aren't real. But if something like that actually were real, like a vampire, science could totally prove they exist.

 

[krow5729]

The club president said "This club, you see, researches things that by principle cannot be concretely proven by science", which makes it sound as if there's something that makes paranormal events innately unprovable by science. But this is completely false, paranormal events are just those which have yet to be proven by science, most likely because they aren't real. But if something like that actually were real, like a vampire, science could totally prove they exist.

Thanks for clarifying!!

 

[Elhao]

A5 ranked mouse doesn't make a lot of sense since afaik the A5 refers to the meat's degree of marbling and has nothing to do with the blood quality.

 

[dementati]

A5 ranked mouse doesn't make a lot of sense since afaik the A5 refers to the meat's degree of marbling and has nothing to do with the blood quality.

The number part, 5, refers to overall meat quality and not just marbling (though marbling is one factor). The A refers to yield grade, so how much meat you get off the cow.

 

[beep_repair]

A5 ranked mouse doesn't make a lot of sense since afaik the A5 refers to the meat's degree of marbling and has nothing to do with the blood quality.

Why wouldn't vampires have have their own grading system?

 

[beep_repair]

The club president said "This club, you see, researches things that by principle cannot be concretely proven by science", which makes it sound as if there's something that makes paranormal events innately unprovable by science. But this is completely false, paranormal events are just those which have yet to be proven by science, most likely because they aren't real. But if something like that actually were real, like a vampire, science could totally prove they exist.

This presumes that "the supernatural" is simply a class of the natural that remains unknown to science. If the supernatural is, however, truly beyond/outside the natural (i.e. beyond/outside material reality), then it might be literally unknowable to science. Supernatural beings might, for example be immeasurable, or inconstant in basic nature, or unbound by physical laws.

 

[dementati]

This presumes that "the supernatural" is simply a class of the natural that remains unknown to science. If the supernatural is, however, truly beyond/outside the natural (i.e. beyond/outside material reality), then it might be literally unknowable to science. Supernatural beings might, for example be immeasurable, or inconstant in basic nature, or unbound by physical laws.

If the supernatural is in any way objectively perceptible (like, you know, a vampire. You can see it suck someone’s blood or fly or turn into a bat, etc.), then it’s empirically measurable on some level and this falls within the domain of science. Stuff that doesn’t is like, consciousness, which is wholly a subjective experience. When people talk about “unbound by physical laws”, what they generally mean is something that doesn’t obey physics as we know it, but that just means there’s a wider set of physical laws we’ve yet to discover.

 

[beep_repair]

If the supernatural is in any way objectively perceptible (like, you know, a vampire. You can see it suck someone’s blood or fly or turn into a bat, etc.), then it’s empirically measurable on some level and this falls within the domain of science. Stuff that doesn’t is like, consciousness, which is wholly a subjective experience. When people talk about “unbound by physical laws”, what they generally mean is something that doesn’t obey physics as we know it, but that just means there’s a wider set of physical laws we’ve yet to discover.

Again, I think that assumes too much. Science itself depends on certain assumptions: that all things will exist in the material world, that they will be physically measurable and have consistent physical properties, and that they will obey a consistent set of physical laws.

A supernatural or divine being, as imagined by myth/fiction, might not share these qualities. It might, for instance, be perceptible to a single individual consciousness, but not otherwise be perceptible or measurable at all, not even by other consciousnesses.

My point is that things which cannot be in any way documented, measured, or independently verified, if they can be said to exist at all, will likely exist "outside science" so to speak. Of course, we needn't accept that such things do or even could exist in reality, but fiction allows room even for our most impossible imaginings.

 

[dementati]

A supernatural or divine being, as imagined by myth/fiction, might not share these qualities. It might, for instance, be perceptible to a single individual consciousness, but not otherwise be perceptible or measurable at all, not even by other consciousnesses.

If there was a god that was only perceivable by a single person and could not affect the world in any other way (i. e. it can't choose to reveal itself to anyone other than this one person and it can't manipulate any other aspect of objective reality, directly or indirectly [such as by giving information to their human subject]), then it's not objectively perceivable, just like any other feature of this person's subjective consciousness. But supernatural and divine entities as depicted in fiction essentially never have those kinds of science-defying properties. In pretty much all cases, they're objectively perceptible and follow consistent sets of rules, they're just not the normal laws of physics, which means it's just a kind of superset to the physics we are familiar with in the real world.

My point is that things which cannot be in any way documented, measured, or independently verified, if they can be said to exist at all, will likely exist "outside science" so to speak.

I think what you mentioned here ("if they can be said to exist at all") is kind of important. If something is not objectively perceptible, whether it exists or not, it kinda doesn't matter. Like, a supernatural or divine entity which has no objectively observable impact on the world is pretty much not worth caring about, because it won't really affect anyone's life in any meaningful way. People's belief in such an entity might, but the entity itself won't.

 

[beep_repair]

If there was a god that was only perceivable by a single person and could not affect the world in any other way (i. e. it can't choose to reveal itself to anyone other than this one person and it can't manipulate any other aspect of objective reality, directly or indirectly [such as by giving information to their human subject]), then it's not objectively perceivable, just like any other feature of this person's subjective consciousness. But supernatural and divine entities as depicted in fiction essentially never have those kinds of science-defying properties. In pretty much all cases, they're objectively perceptible and follow consistent sets of rules, they're just not the normal laws of physics, which means it's just a kind of superset to the physics we are familiar with in the real world.

I think what you mentioned here ("if they can be said to exist at all") is kind of important. If something is not objectively perceptible, whether it exists or not, it kinda doesn't matter. Like, a supernatural or divine entity which has no objectively observable impact on the world is pretty much not worth caring about, because it won't really affect anyone's life in any meaningful way. People's belief in such an entity might, but the entity itself won't.

I don't really disagree with anything you've said. I'm trying to carve out a special space for "extrascientific" supernatural beings only because I find the idea of such things interesting and at least theoretically plausible. An example might be certain Christian conceptions of the divine: a being bound by no law but its own will, immeasurable but omnipresent and all-powerful, existing outside time and space, and knowable only via the atavistic awareness of the "soul", itself an undefinable aspect of the divine that supposedly exists within and inseparable from human consciousness. Crazy shit, but conceptually intriguing.

 

[dementati]

I don't really disagree with anything you've said. I'm trying to carve out a special space for "extrascientific" supernatural beings only because I find the idea of such things interesting and at least theoretically plausible. An example might be certain Christian conceptions of the divine: a being bound by no law but its own will, immeasurable but omnipresent and all-powerful, existing outside time and space, and knowable only via the atavistic awareness of the "soul", itself an undefinable aspect of the divine that supposedly exists within and inseparable from human consciousness. Crazy shit, but conceptually intriguing.

The thing about the Christian god is that it's dramatically described in terms such as "immeasurable", "omni-[insert adjective here]", etc., which sounds impressive (and I guess that's the point, it's supposed to make us go "woaaah") but if you actually try to break down what that would mean logically speaking, you don't end up with a lot, because of what I described above. Pretty much everything that we consider to be significant in our lives is that which is objectively measurable, so stuff that isn't just isn't very interesting. It's stuff that like, somehow exists apart from us and has nothing to do with us.

 

[beep_repair]

The thing about the Christian god is that it's dramatically described in terms such as "immeasurable", "omni-[insert adjective here]", etc., which sounds impressive (and I guess that's the point, it's supposed to make us go "woaaah") but if you actually try to break down what that would mean logically speaking, you don't end up with a lot, because of what I described above. Pretty much everything that we consider to be significant in our lives is that which is objectively measurable, so stuff that isn't just isn't very interesting. It's stuff that like, somehow exists apart from us and has nothing to do with us.

Well, in the case of the Christian God, though "he" is said to be immeasurable and non-material (or trans-material, super-material, or w/e) in himself, he is also said to control material reality, and in fact to have created it ex nihilo. So his spiritual actions sometimes have physical effects that can be perceived and might be measured, e.g. floods, burning bushes, pillars of salt, loaves & fishes, spontaneous resurrections, etc.

I'm not a believer, but if we treat God as a fictional superbeing, he's both "outside science" and relevant to human doings. I find the idea of such entities interesting, though I understand that others may not.

 

[dementati]

Well, in the case of the Christian God, though "he" is said to be immeasurable and non-material (or trans-material, super-material, or w/e) in himself, he is also said to control material reality, and in fact to have created it ex nihilo.

But whoever (if we think of it as a person or agent) created and controls material reality must thus have powers that allow them to do so, and a mind that compelled them to do so, and they must've existed in some kind of other reality prior to creating ours. Words like "immeasurable", "non-material", "trans-material", "super-material" don't really mean anything, unless you attach some kind of concrete meaning to them, but if you do, you're acknowledging that they refer to some kind of concrete super-set of the reality we know. If that superset is somehow objectively perceptible, we can model it with science, and if it isn't, it doesn't matter to us.

So his spiritual actions sometimes have physical effects that can be perceived and might be measured, e.g. floods, burning bushes, pillars of salt, loaves & fishes, spontaneous resurrections, etc.

If god's actions have observable effects on the reality we do know, we could create a scientific model of the way god interacts with our material reality, even if they technically exists outside of it. Like, we can statistically measure under what conditions they choose to use their divine powers and estimate what kind of personality and goals they have, and what the extent of their powers are.

I'm not a believer, but if we treat God as a fictional superbeing, he's both "outside science" and relevant to human doings. I find the idea of such entities interesting, though I understand that others may not.

It's not that I'm not interested, I'm just arguing that such a being is kinda logically incoherent.

 

[beep_repair]

If that superset is somehow objectively perceptible, we can model it with science, and if it isn't, it doesn't matter to us.

That's the part of the argument I question. It seems too presumptive to put forward as an axiom. I mean, sure: if what we call "reality" does not seem to contain and constrain God, then we can always expand our field of consideration to the unknown super-reality (superset) that presumably does. But if God and his superset are at every level of such expansion expressions of God's will alone, and if God himself remains immeasurable at every level of expansion, then scientific inquiry into the fundamental nature of God might not be capable of revealing anything. This fact alone, however, would not necessarily make God irrelevant so far as humans were concerned. It would only make him impossible to "pin down" scientifically.

If god's actions have observable effects on the reality we do know, we could create a scientific model of the way god interacts with our material reality, even if they technically exists outside of it. Like, we can statistically measure under what conditions they choose to use their divine powers and estimate what kind of personality and goals they have, and what the extent of their powers are.

Sure, we could always record information about the perceived effects of God's action: "A bush was seen to burn in the year 1270 BC and measured at a temperature of 484°C. The voice that supposedly issued from said bush was allegedly heard and understood by Moses but could not otherwise be detected." From such observations we could compile data and plot probabilities, but that would only prove useful if God were at some level bound by laws or tendencies that could be revealed by such effort.

It's not that I'm not interested, I'm just arguing that such a being is kinda logically incoherent.

I don't see the logical incoherence. I do see the assumption built into scientific thinking that all real things must have consistent and measurable properties, and that they must be bound by consistent and discernable laws (and therefore statistical tendencies). I personally believe that this assumption is entirely valid. But I nevertheless choose to leave open the possibility of that which escapes it. The acceptance of not just the unknown but the possibility of the unknowable is, I believe, an essential component of scientific/rational humility. But that's just me...