Rob I suggest you take your time and read this in it's entirety before commenting. For both our sakes. Don't get too caught up with the initial part of the refutation (this is the least of your problems;)) Also do bear in mind that I am attacking your argument and not you :)
ROB’S ARGUMENT
Rob’s argument can be summed up thus –
(empirical evidence)+(valid logic)=(reliable scientific conclusions)
Therefore as long as conclusions are based on sound logic and the evidence available they are valid regardless of the nature of the conclusions drawn. All logically valid conclusions are permitted whether they result in directly testable material conclusions or not.
Science is redefined such that it may include non-material empirically un-testable conclusions .
As such Intelligent Design, due to either a material source or a supernatural entity (e.g. God) is a perfectly valid scientific conclusion.
Based on this the argument is then made that 'Methodological Naturalism' with it's requirement for conclusions to be material and directly testable by empirical means, is a philosophical position only and as such should NOT be considered scientific.
STRAGGLER'S POSITION
As I shall demonstrate the above argument is deeply flawed. The attempted redefinition of science results in intrinsically unreliable conclusions to which the only logical practical answer is methodological naturalism, or conventional science as we know it.
Methodological naturalism, as I shall show, is not a philosophical position but a result of practical limitations on the methods available to us to draw the most reliable conclusions possible through the investigation of the natural world.
LAW OF CONTRADICTION – THE PROBLEM BEGINS
Rob’s definition of science has an initial but not fatal problem.
Is it possible for two theories based on the same evidence and with the correct application of logic to come to alternative and opposing conclusions?
(empirical evidence)+(valid logic)=(reliable scientific conclusions)
If the above methodology is applied to produce conclusion A and conclusion B from the same set of empirical evidence (where A and B are mutually exclusive ) what happens?
According to Rob’s definition of science both conclusions are valid and to be considered reliable if the logic applied is valid in each case.
However either A or B must be wrong by the law of contradiction which Rob holds so dearly
We cannot therefore say that both A and B are reliable conclusions.
Thus if two mutually exclusive but logically valid conclusions are both considered reliable by Rob’s definition of science the definition itself is invalid by virtue of breaking the law of contradiction.
(If at this point you are claiming incomplete evidence as get out clause please do read on!!)
If the law of contradiction is to remain intact Rob’s definition of science can only ever allow ONE reliable conclusion from any given set of empirical evidence.
Rob’s definition of science does not ALLOW rival theories to logically exist.
Yet the history of science is littered with examples of rival theories drawing different valid logical conclusions from the same empirical evidence. How so?
The logical inability of Rob's definition of science to deal with this fact could be considered a severe blow. No philosophy or definition of science that disallows logically competing valid rival theories can be considered complete. However this is just the very tip of the iceberg in terms of the flaws in Rob's argument.
ROB IS RIGHT!!! - THE SPECIAL CASE
Rob’s definition of science is actually perfectly valid in one particular and very special instance.
Where we have ALL of the possible evidence the definition works superbly.
(This is the reason that Rob is getting confused. His theory is totally internally consistent but only applies in one very special case)
If we rewrite the definition thus –
(Complete empirical evidence)+(valid logic)=(wholly reliable scientific conclusion)
Then the issue of rival theories becomes moot.
With the complete set of all the empirical evidence and the correct application of logic only one conclusion is indeed possible.
The law of contradiction remains unbroken and we know that we have reached the most reliable conclusion it is possible to reach (the truth?).
In the case of ALWAYS having ALL of the available evidence the application of logic alone would be a perfectly acceptable and logically valid method of drawing reliable scientific conclusions.
In this idealised scenario Rob's definition of science stands firm.
OMNISCIENCE REQUIRED - THE PROBLEMS GET WORSE
However is it possible to EVER have ALL the required evidence?
More importantly for science - Is it ever possible for us to KNOW that we have ALL the required evidence?
Unless we claim omniscience (which alas is not permitted and which would make any scientific investigation utterly pointless anyway) the answer to the second question at least must be NO!
There is always the possibility that new evidence will surface and that our theories and conclusions will be refuted. Thus our 'equation' necessarily becomes
(incomplete empirical evidence)+(valid logic)=(unreliable conclusions)
Given that we cannot ever know if we have all the required evidence and given that our aim is to to make reliable scientific conclusions any method that we apply to draw conclusions MUST assume that the evidence available is insufficient.
The combination of incomplete evidence and logic necessarily leads us to unreliable conclusions and is thus no basis on which to draw any conclusions at all. Simply asserting that more evidence is required is just not recognsing the nature of the problem. We can never know how much evidence will be required to make our conclusions reliable.
No matter how valid our logic we must always assume the appliance of logic alone to incomplete evidence is insufficient to to meet our stated aim of drawing reliable conclusions
Thus Rob's definition of science irretrievably falls apart at the seams to all practical intents and purposes.
REAL SCIENCE - THE WAY FORWARDS
So if our evidence must be considered incomplete and our resulting logical conclusions must be considered unreliable where does that leave us?
Despair not. There is an answer. The answer is the scientific method.
Not only does the scientific method tackle the fact that our evidence must be necessarily considered incomplete, it embraces this fact.
Consider the following alternative form of the equation we have been considering up until now
(incomplete empirical evidence)+(valid logic)=(hypothesis)
A hypothesis is NOT a conclusion as such. It is something which needs to be tested against that which it purports to describe in order to be validated or refuted. That is the key difference.
I could at this point cite dictionary definitions of the term 'hypothesis'. I could refer to great reams of literature written by far better men than I regarding the scientific method and it's application.
On the basis that we are all familiar with the basic concepts I will not bother.
With regard to the application of the scientific method to nature specifically (I.e. natural science) a couple of comments are however necessary in the context of this debate.
1) As applied to nature a hypothesis based approach can, in my view, be encapsulated thus - "Any fool can make a theory fit the facts BUT only those closest to the truth can hope to find that the facts fit the theory". In other words constructing theories that comply with existing evidence is easy to do and highly open to interpretation. However theories that reveal new aspects of nature which are then confirmed have passed the most difficult test it is possible to apply to any theory. The workings of nature will not obey our theories no matter how much we may wish it!! Hence prediction as the gold standard of evaluation in terms assessing theories and hypotheses.
2) A hypothesis based approach is necessarily tentative. Hypotheses are refuted or verified but never proven. By building our hypotheses on the foundations of evidence revealed by previously tested and verified hypotheses we can build up a body of knowledge of which we can have a high degree of certainty. With enough evidence, enough verification and enough corroboration from other interrelated scientific disciplines employing the same exacting tests against other aspects of nature we can even reach the point where we consider our theories to be factual descriptions of the world to all practical intents and purposes. Despite this we must always recognise that the evidence on which all of this is based must be assumed to be incomplete and thus our theories to be tentative to some degree at least.
A hypothesis based approach is the practical means by which we can make the MOST reliable conclusions whilst recognising that the evidence available to us must always be considered incomplete and open to poor intepretation.
If the stated aim of science is to draw the most reliable conclusions regarding the natural world then the scientific method is what it is because it is the best means we have of ensuring that this aim is achieved.
THE RETURN OF METHODOLOGICAL NATURALISM
If we apply our current 'equation' -
(incomplete empirical evidence)+(valid logic)=(hypothesis)
to the natural world what outcomes are possible?
As previously stated a hypothesis is not a conclusion in itself. A hypothesis needs to be tested against that which it purports to describe.
A natural science hypothesis regarding the workings of the natural world must thus necessarily be tested empirically against nature itself.
In this context conclusions or hypotheses which relate to supernatural or immaterial beings, phenomenon or concepts are simply un-testable. Untestable hypotheses are no better than the conclusions available via Rob's method of "scientific" analysis refuted earlier. They are simply inherently unreliable. Such conclusions cannot meet the criteria by which science measures the reliability of a theory.
"Supernatural" conclusions cannot be empirically tested. Without such tests available supernatural conclusions cannot ever meet the requirement of science that they be rendered reliable. Therefore supernatural conclusions are unscientific and have no place in science.
CONCLUSION
Rob's definition of science has been shown to lead to inherently unreliable conclusions. The use of hypotheses as an alternative method of establishing reliable theories has been demonstrated to be superior. If the stated aim of science is to draw the most reliable conclusions possible given the evident practical limitations of knowledge then there is frankly no contest between the two positions.
So is 'Methodological Naturalism' a philosophical position? That was the accusation made by Rob in his thesis.
Of course it is not. It is a practical limitation on which theories we are able to test and which we are not.
Any suggestion that it is otherwise displays a deep misunderstanding regarding what science is and what it sets out to achieve..
Methodological naturalism is the logical result of the recognition that our knowledge is inherently limited combined with the aim of deriving the most reliable conclusions humanly possible with regard to the workings of the natural world.
Rob's thesis has been shown to be both logically invalid and inadequate in any practical sense. His methodologies have been found wanting, his arguments dissected and his conclusions utterly and totally refuted. Methodological naturalism lives on :)
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
Edited by Straggler, : Loads of typos and some reformatting + the odd change of wording.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
™ Version 4.1
