Can a materialistic formula explain a non-materialistic process?

Good point.They do not look for them because the presuppositions of their interpretive filter (= Materialism) has already ruled them out. To accept their existence is to recognize the existence of God. Evolutionists do not allow competition because "only their science is genuine science". They have become what they replaced: the Priests and Bishops who controlled science before the rise of Darwinism. They secretly admire the way Theists ran the show as seen in their emulation. You are attempting to stake-out a non-commital objective position that does not exist. Materialists (= Atheists) will label you a Creationist anyway.RayEdited by Cold Foreign Object, : No reason given.Edited by Cold Foreign Object, : both edits were spelling and grammar

The central EvC issue, so why not start a thread, as there'll be plenty of interest. You seem to agree, perhaps, that views that fit the evidence best are the nearest to objectivity, which was the point I was making about "judgement calls".The reason I suggest you start the thread rather than me is that it gives you the chance to choose the wording of the O.P., and that's better, because, as you know, you're likely to be outnumbered by evil evo's!"Can "evos" or "creos" world views claim objectivity on the origins of species via evidence?" might be an idea for a title.

When you talk about the 'phenomenon' of nature being caused by various processes are you referring to the opposite of the Kantian concept of 'noumenon'? If so, then obviously all phenomenon are inherently subjective judgements. Only noumenon are objective and we can't access them directly. We can make judgements about them, but those judgements would be based on the subjective phenomenonIt does seem a bit unusual to accuse someone of "actually believ[ing] [their] judgements are objective and not subjective" when that same person has been talking about Kantian noumenon and the fallibilism of Pierce and Popper. My judgements are obviously subjective. How could they possibly be otherwise?The rest of your post doesn't seem worth getting into. If you want to simply be patronising and say 'you do not understand the question or issue' then don't bother replying - it doesn't advance the discussion.Instead of repeating the question, and then complaining because my answers show a lack of understanding. Why don't you just explain what the question means? Maybe if you word it differently I'll be able to divine what you are saying.

quote:

---

Is the phenomena of nature caused by materialistic or non-materialistic processes a judgement call

---

The Kantian phenomena is obviously a judgement.
The Kantian noumena is not based on a judgement.With my best understanding of what you are trying to ask, that is the answer. I've asked for you to explain it further; if you just repeat the question at me and say 'you don't understand' - I won't answer the question I'll just refer you to this post and ask for you to explain your question in more detail if that is not a satisfactory answer.

Actually I said "phenomena of nature" and when was Kant brought into the subject matter of this topic? What does pre-Darwinian philosophy have to do with the OP or any relevant post addressing the OP?"Phenomena of nature" means whatever one sees in nature in totality. Kantian 'noumenon' (as you describe it) is speaking about, OR presupposes, that nomianism or natural laws make up the "phenomena of nature". Of course I am basing the definition of 'noumenon' on my knowledge of prefixes and suffixes, not Kant. Is this not contradictory?Care to explain?But please produce a post that conveys everything that is on your mind. Just let it out, criticism and all: I won't take anything personally.RayEdited by Cold Foreign Object, : No reason given.

Kant was brought up in Message 13 after you made the observation that "the judgement that the phenomena of nature is the result of a materialistic based process is "subjective, fallible" etc.etc." To which I replied by telling you that this was not news - and that if that was your only point then Kant already made the point and that this same point has made its way into scientific thought. The noumena do not make up the phenomena of nature by any stretch of the imagination. Phenomena are, at best, made up of judgements and perceptions and discrimations about noumena. I trust you understand the words being used, so I'm not sure how you might think it is contradictory. Here is wiki's introduction to the subject:

quote:

---

The noumenon (plural: noumena) classically refers to an object of human inquiry, understanding or cognition. The term is generally used in contrast with, or in relation to, "phenomenon" (plural: phenomena), which refers to appearances, or objects of the senses. Phenomena is that which is perceived. Noumena is the actual object that emits the phenomena in question.

---

You may read more at your leisure and it is obviously more complex that described here. However, the idea that we can only experience and thus judge subjective experiences of phenomena has long been known. Various methods have been put forward to try an minimize possible mistakes that arise as a result of this known philosophical problem.Is it a judgement call whether you believe something has a material cause or a non-material one? Yes. Is it a judgement call whether something actually has a material or non-material cause? No - judgements don't change reality.

I do not consider Wikipedia a source for anything except ordinary Tabloid slander by anonymous persons who have access to a computer.Just a quick stab based on the prefix and suffix (I have not studied Kant on this issue): 'noumenon' or 'noumena' is a contraction coinage from two terms; the ancient prefix 'noma' which means 'law' and the suffix 'menon' or 'mena' taken from 'phenomenon' or its plural. Literally, it means "law(s) of reality".But, of course, your knowledge of Kant as relayed accurately to whatever degree by Wikipedia, communicates a very complex philosophical breakdown of reality, which is what your blue box comment above seems to indicate. Yes, I agree. And because this is true [EDIT: MY VERY BAD ERROR; I DO NOT AGREE AND I BELIEVE IT IS NOT TRUE], and because this intrudes into the ancient philosophical debate between Realism and Idealism I have no interest in going any further in this vein of the discussion. I am a Realist - my mind is made up - because Idealism is nonsense.SOMEWHAT OFF TOPIC:I am a firm advocate of serious scientific discussions at EvC Forum, whether the subject is history, archaeology or the traditional disciplines, that the author define his terms. It doesn't really matter which definition as long as a definition or definitions are in place, and as long as the evidence and explanations based on said definition(s) correspond. Persons can challenge a definition, of course, but by defining one's terms this allows a better discussion or debate to take place. It seems too many discussions are spent arguing about definitions and never really about the topic. Persons who don't understand the need to define or the concept of working from a stated definition, whether they agree or disagree to any extent, should be asked not to post in the topic until they find a way to understand. EvC member RAZD has made quite a gallant effort to define terms in various topics only to have a dummy come along, who does not understand what I just wrote, and cripple the reason-for-being of the debate. 300 posts come and go because of a moron or two who do not get it.Personally, the problem between you and I over definitions is because we hold diametrically different worldviews: I am a hardline special creationist and you are a materialist. This vast gulf is hard to bridge sometimes. In the end, as we know, terms have more than one accurate definition. I have generally agreed up to this point and I do agree that "judgements don't change reality". But my real position is that it is NOT a subjective judgement call, that both Creationists and Evolutionists believe their judgements are objective corresponding to objective reality. One side is obviously very wrong.I disagree with Bertvan when he argued that both views are subjective based on fallible judgements. His argument seems to be a plea for Materialists "to be fair" and admit that their view is just as subjective as his, and to allow their enemies a safe harbour in science. Of course this will never happen. While Materialists will admit that their views are subjective on a philosophical basis, they, like I just pointed out, believe firmly that they are objective corresponding to objective reality. Materialists have every reason in the world to prevent "heretics a place and voice in science". Especially Dembski type voices, like Bertvan, who is attempting to claim Agnosticism while arguing that reality was produced by, and reflects, intelligence. Materialists are bothered greatly by this particular position because it is their phony position in reverse.Anyway, I know for an absolute fact that there is a way to know if your view of reality is objective corresponding to objective reality. This argument will be written in my forth coming paper and I actually look forward to your reaction.Ray Edited by Cold Foreign Object, : See text; edit plainly acknowledged and explainedEdited by Cold Foreign Object, : No reason given.

Yes I know, that's why I invited you to read more at your leisure. Its etymology is not important (it actually comes from the Greek 'noeo-', similar to the word 'paranoia' ). Kant used it to mean "Ding an sich" - the thing in itself, which is how I was using it (it's more complex than this because being a human, Kant didn't use it completely consistently). And that's why I didn't want to give you a simple answer to your question because I wasn't sure what you meant by 'phenomena'. If you meant 'the thing in itself' as in, the actuality of natural events - then my answer is no. If you meant it to mean 'the perception of the thing in itself', my answer would be yes. Well, your position aside - I do not believe my judgements are objective, but I have a strong argument which explains why I think it corresponds to objective reality more than your own position. You are now arguing that the inherent fallibility of subjective perception hasn't been discussed in philosophy for a long time? What do you think Kant or Pierce or Popper were doing then? Wow, your paper not only refutes evolution but also provides an epistemological revolution? I'll continue my long wait to read it.

Acknowledged.Looks like I was the one who was doing most of the misunderstanding. No, I said nothing against the fact of philosophical discussion. I made a correction in my post after sleep typing a very bad error. The edit in CAPS corrects the preceding sentence, which I chose not to delete. My real position is that the two major perceptions of reality are NOT subjective. Bertvan was arguing that they are. I can prove that both Creationism and Materialism are objective views of reality (believe it or not, and, of course, you will not believe it until you read my paper). Like I said: I look forward to your reaction.Ray