What is science? (ROB and STRAGGLER only)

In a previous thread, the question of god's existence in a world without religious texts, led to a subtopic on how we would know there is a God. to make a long story short, it is dependant upon the definition of science. And that is certainly relevant in the over-all context of the ID/TOE debate.

Straggler has invited me to start a thread on a rather long bit I wrote on the subject.

For those of you not predisposed to engaging such an unwieldy piece of analysis, the short version is this:

Science is the law of contradiction.

For those who would rather feed on the whole piece, you can read it here: http://rob-lock.livejournal.com/

I'd like to begin by giving Straggler a chance to raise again his question regarding the color 'red' and it's relevance to my argument.

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Added link to "previous thread".

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : "Add the "(ROB and STRAGGLER only)" to the topic title.

Actually I respect Straggler and though I didn't intend for it to be a great debate, I have to admit that it would be nice not to have certain others who cannot concede a single point.

Your turn Straggler. We're in no hurry so think it through. I don't have time like I used to for a million EVC questions.

Make it count!

Straggler:

God is like the colour red above but with no opportunity to experiment or verify with others that what you mean by God is what they mean by 'God'. It is all inside your head with no possible reference to an objective reality.

That is simply untrue. The writers of the Bible experienced the same thing. It's quite remarkable actually to see how they describe with exisite detail what is happening to me.

The problem is you don't have any way of verify it, until you test it.

And whether we are willing to test it honestly depends upon whether or not we want it to be true.

Straggler:

The tester always has a personal investment in the conclusion and knows in advance the result they wish to find.

Well I see your point... I have so much to gain by preaching the gospel. Everyone is lining up to hear that they are dead in their sin, and that God loved them enough to die for that sin; that though they are prisoners and slaves to their DNA and environmental programming, they can be born again and leave their life sin a free man or woman.

Yes yes yes... the accolades are never ending. Everyone welcomes me with open arms. And the pay is extraordinary. I have so many friends.

Why... I am as hip as a man can be! I wait my reward in heaven and give up my life now. Do you really think my faith is that strong? C'mon I am a man just like you...

Sorry for the sarcasm, but seriously...

Straggler:

Having read your essay I think you have missed something fundamental that is relevant to this point. A key method of scientific investigation is to improve objectivity by seperating the comparitive test used from the actual theory being tested. For example - using the colour red example again - Rather than comparing coloured cards etc etc. etc. ourselves we could design an experiment in which the experimenters and the experimentees know nothing of the conclusions that will be drawn from their results.

Isn't that exactly what methodological naturalism does?
It predetermines what the results will be? And that is that we will only get material explanations, and no God to fear.

To me, it's just another example of how unscientific methodological naturalism actually is.

Sience is logic. And natural science is logic applied to the natural world. That's the premise.

We cannot presuppose what the results will be. Let logic lead us home without presuppoing where home is.

Could it be... that great wealth (even fortunes) of sexual treasure, material prosperity, intellectual esteem, and power cloud the judgement of naturalists who hold the major chairs of science?

So it's not just what can be gained by one side of the debate that might bias the results.

Bias is an equal opportunity lender.

We must also look at what will be lost by the other side of the debate. Holding on to what one has is a more powerful motivator than fanciful dreams that may or may not come to pass in the next life.

Matthew 19:23 Then Jesus said to his disciples, "I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. 19 Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."

The power of 'now' is an awesome force. Passion and party sometimes blind us. And as you know, that goes for me too.

Straggler:

How does religious and scientific reasoning differ?

All reasoning is philosophical. Whether one uses inductive or deductive reasoning (we rely almost entirely on deduction) contradiction and coherence are what we seek in order to legitimize or impune premises and conclusions.

The only distinction is in the character of reality. Is god (reality) just nature, or is He 'The God of nature'. That is the only distinction. Naturalists worship a form of nature god and philosophize about reality from that spiritual lens or worldview.

Did you miss that part of my argument?

quote:

---

The conflict between 'science’ and 'religion' is not really over the existence of God because ‘God’ and ‘reality’ are synonymous.

Both are absolute, ultimate, and sovereign. The question is really one of God’s (or reality's) characteristics. Is reality a living being or merely an impersonal material force? ‘Whatever’ or ‘whoever’ reality is; reality ‘is God’ by definition. It is what it is, or I am what I am.

The only difference between the philosophies of naturalism and monotheism is the nature of God. The point is that all philosophy is religious faith. It matters not whether one is monotheistic, pantheistic, polytheistic, atheistic, or what have you. All of them are theistic. The deist assumes that the 'theo' has left the building.

Even the agnostic is in the same boat since his philosophy purposely excludes deciding the question of theism. Without theism, there is no such thing as an agnostic. The absolute character of reality (irrespective of its other qualities) does not give us the option of excluding ourselves from philosophizing about 'theo'. To do so, would itself be philosophizing.

---

Straggler:

How exactly does your theory relate to a concrete but simple example such as the perception of the colour red

First of all, I am not offering a theory. I am stating a fact. And that is that science is logical (the law of contradiction); that that is it's power to test for coherence.

We perceive color by seeing. We perceive coherence by way of logic.

In your blind study experiment, the subjects were allowed to freely give the results of their perception. And that is scientific and objective.

With 'methodological naturalism', the test subjects are only allowed to perceive within a certain parameter of explanation. It does not allow for scientific, objective, or free application of our logical faculties to interpret the evidence.

Does that help?

Edited by Rob, : No reason given.

Edited by Rob, : No reason given.

Edited by Rob, : No reason given.

Edited by Rob, : No reason given.

As a side note. I am still polishing up the language in my 'wanna be dissertation'. No major conceptual changes, but I think It would help to post it here (all 5 pages) unless the moderation declines. I thought I'd ask first.

Ok... I already posted a link so no point in that. I am working on getting it into the hands of some of the 'real ID guys'.

Anyone have Dembski's or Meyer's personal email?

You see, they make a good case that methodological naturalism is fatally flawed and biased, but I have yet to hear (not that I have heard it all) of a alternate definition to offer other than vague references to 'the inference to the best explanation'. Though that is ultimately valid IMO, it's rather difficult to wade through. So I am putting this one out there.

In the mean time it needs to be ravaged by the hounds of hell of course :D

I want it to be attacked, maligned, challenged, doubted, dishonored, mocked and impuned. And that is why I have returned to your humble abode...

In fact, feel free to unlock the shaft to the abyss and let everyone in anytime.

All kidding aside (because the pride-fighter in me actually likes you guys), does it hold water or not?

I think it does, but I want to know how it might be challenged, so I put it out there to be tested.

I really don't want mindless attacks, but put a Modulus on it, or a Straggler, maybe even a HootMon.

Edited by Rob, : No reason given.

Straggler, I contend that I have already refuted all of these points.

For example your first point, we all have a God that we worship; a view of reality that protects whatever needs we perceive that we need.

And naturalism is a form of nature god. We've been over this ground.

I think you need to chew on it some more, because I would have thought you had not read it at all judging by your comments.

First off, there is nothing that is abstract about coherence. If it is not valid, then any debate or observation is futile.

So I am a bit perturbed that you imply ambiguity on my part. The whole point of my excersize is to de-abstractinalize methodological naturalism.

Nonetheless, I will answer your questions and put aside any feelings.

Rob: In case you missed it, our current definition of science says that 'only material explanations are scientific' though that definition is itself only a philosophical proposition Straggler: I have explained why I think this is not a philosophical position but a practical limitation. You need to explain exactly how you have refuted this.

Actually it is not a practical limitation. Philosophy came before science. In fact, philosophy was the first science. It was only later that we attempted to apply it to understanding the natural world. So, the empirical world confirms that logic (the law of contradiction) is valid.

Only if our reasoning is valid, can science be true. The Lewis quote I gave was to remind you of this fact. Perhaps you're grappling with that, but you cannot say that I did not address or refute it.

Rob: The conflict between science and religion is not over the existence of God because the terms God and reality are synonymous. Both are absolute, ultimate, and sovereign. The question is really one of God’s (or reality's) characteristics. Straggler: The key difference of characteristic is that physical 'reality' can be perceived collectively, tested collectively, verified as consistent and concluded to exist objectively whilst recognising the fact that we must perceive it subjectively (i.e. back to the colour red argument). Personal perceptions of God are wholly subjective so no reliable conclusion as to the existence of God is possible.

Logic can also be perceived collectively. If I say that I cannot speak, then everyone can hear the problem, but they percieve it with their mind.

It sounds as though you are making the case that logic and red do not exist materially? That they are not real things, but only perceptions?

If so, are your own thoughts real? Do you exist?

Rob: This point begs to be repeated; if nature is ordered in an intelligible, logical, and coherent fashion, then our philosophical constructs (theories) regarding it, must also be coherent if they are to be compatible with the assumed empirical order. Straggler: The empirical evidence suggests that nature does display these characteristics. This is a conclusion based on empirical evidence.

Not so...

Perhaps you should consider professor Haldane's dilemma which I picked up in C.S. Lewis's book 'Miracles':

quote:

---

"It seems to me immensely unlikely that mind is a mere by-product of matter. For if my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true. They may be sound chemically, but that does not make them sound logically. And hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms. In order to escape from this necessity of sawing away the branch on which I am sitting, so to speak, I am compelled to believe that mind is not wholly conditioned by matter."

---

Your proposition is circular Straggler, and it also does not leave you thoughts the option to be anything but the ebb and flow of matter. In other words, our thoughts are not thoughts at all. They are just matter doing what matter enevitably does. Sometimes it loves, and sometimes it slaughters. What's the difference?

Also, what are the laws of physics Straggler?

They are not material, but matter obeys them. In fact, matter is formed by them.

Rob: we all have a God that we worship; a view of reality that protects whatever needs we perceive that we need Straggler: I do indeed perceive reality.

You misunderstood the point. Your view of reality is your god. Your perceptions are what you think need to be protected by that god.

Straggler:

Apparently the same reality that we can all demonstrate beyond all reasonable doubt that we all share.

If matter is all that there is (as you maintain) then my perceptions cannot be other than the actions of matter. How can mind exist apart and disconnected (out of reality) from the only reality that there is?

Straggler:

The same cannot be said of your perception of God.

With all due respect Straggler, I thank Him for that...

Edited by Rob, : No reason given.

Edited by Rob, : No reason given.

Straggler:

The question of this discussion is whether or not science - or methodical naturalism - is subject to the same sort of inherent weaknesses as religion.

Absolutely! The answers and assumptions they propose must be coherent internally, and with the external evidence.

It is the naturalists who do not believe in coherence. But as i have said clearly, if the evidence is coherent, then our theories must have that same quality, if we expect them to match.

Straggler:

Do you agree as to the wholly subjective nature of religious conclusions?

I don't know of any philosophy that is wholly subjective. But I do know that the only thing that is Holy(ie. whole) is absolute coherence.

Straggler:

Do you agree as to the aim of the discussion as stated above?

Yes, just as I have said all along. The question is, 'do you'?

Is natural science the application of logical coherence so as to understand the natural world or not?

Is science coherent... yes or no?

Edited by Rob, : No reason given.

Rob: is science logical? Straggler: I don't know. Nor do I know if it matters in any practical sense.

C'mon Straggler, of course it does...

You said it yourself in the same reply:

How could we apply logic meaningfully if reality (material or otherwsie) were illogical, inconsistent and incoherent?

You're absolutely right! It is obvious that if science is not logical, then it is meaningless to us?

Straggler:

If the appliance of logic requires the same assumptions that you accuse science of requiring does your own argument not conclude itself to be invalid?

No, because my argument (defintion of science) is not only coherent, but coherence itself. I am making the case that science is essentially applied logic. Logic cannot contradict itself by definition.

It is methodological naturalism that is contradictory and incoherent because it presupposes where logic can lead. I maintain that it leads straight to God (reality). And if God (reality) is logical, then logic will take us to God (reality).

It is only illogical arguments that are false. That is the whole point of my proposition and why methodological naturalism cannot be science.

Look, your a smart man. We all get tired now and then. Percy, Kuresu, Razd, Ned, jar (did I forget anyone?) have all had a field day with me a few times because I grew weary. I absolutely lost it.

I am not trying or willing to beat you up. Don't lose it.

Take a break, recharge, and re-read my proposition. As I said at first, we're in no hurry.

Edited by Rob, : No reason given.

Edited by Rob, : No reason given.

Straggler:

The question is whether or not logical coherence in the form that YOU have applied it is itself coherent.

I do not determine the form of logic.

The law of contradiction is what we all use.If that were not the case, then you would lose the power to contradict what I am saying.

If you reject the law of contradiction as the logical authority, then you reject the scientific method as well, because that is it's power. And that is the beauty of the proposed definition. It is what it is.

As stated from the proposition:

Assuming the entities involved achieve coherence, then theory + evidence = knowledge. All scientific observation is therefore triune in principle. There is no escaping this reality. If an idea is not testable, repeatable, observable, and falsifiable, it is not considered scientific. All of those qualities assume the law of contradiction to be valid and are dependant upon its application. Now note this: the law of contradiction cannot be falsified without affirming it at the same time. The only method of falsifying the law of contradiction is to apply the law of contradiction, so it affirms itself. No test for authoritative revelation can be achieved with less than a triune character. Although our knowledge based upon this faith in logic is not comprehensive, it is our only light. We simply have no other authority for any form of objective revelation. That is not an ecclesiastical proclamation, but is the self evident and profound nature of logical propositions.

Edited by Rob, : No reason given.

Straggler:

In other words - Logic itself cannot be used to validate or invalidate the application of logic. Is that what you are saying?

:laugh:

Your a smart one Straggler. And as such, I cannot believe you are struggling with this so violently. Open your eyes man. Snap out of it.

For the record, that is not what I am saying. What I am saying is that logic is self validating.

Logic is the thing we (irrespective of our philosophy) demand of ourselves and others. And it is what underpins the entire scientific process.

You deny logic, and you've denied science as anything other than subjective pontificating.

We do not rely upon ecclesiastical proclamation imposed by men. We rest and rely upnon logic as self evident.

Can I ask you a question?

Did you even read my proposition for content? btw, I had an MD in Tillimook Oregon ask some questions at the site. Check them out!

http://rob-lock.livejournal.com/

Straggler:

Thus the application of logic is deemed to be inherently valid?

Think this through very hard Straggler...

As I said in the proposal; logic is our only scientific way, for the purposes of coming to terms with the real world (reality). Logic is the only possible truth. It is the only possible life.

Now hear me... It is not something we can prove. Rather, it is something we cannot deny without inferring that illogical applications and inferences would be valid alternatives.

No-one excepting perhaps Charles Manson would consciously infer such a thing.

Logic is the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to reality (God) but by logic.

The point of my proposition is to reveal the history of science which is anchored in this faith.

And as such, Jesus claim to be 'the way the truth and the life, and that no-one comes to the Father except by Him' is extraordinary.

It is an infinitely reasonable claim. But we would not accept it from just anyone. He would have to be an extraordinary figure. And indeed He is still, to this very day.

You don't have to read my proposition.... just read the Gospel according to John.

You see, real science will lead us to the truth, as long as we are willing to follow Him. If we are not willing, then that is another matter.

Edited by Rob, : No reason given.

Edited by Rob, : No reason given.

Thank you gentleman. I am very pleased with the results here. And I see no need to force you to agree, or base the credibility of my proposition upon your ability/inability to comprehend the matter.

My work is done here.

And no Percy I am not advocating any form of rationalism. Logic is self validating. The emprical is self validating. Howerver, on there own, they are circular. When the two are made to cohere, we have science.

I made it so clear in the proposition. If the empirical is coherent, then our philosophies (theories about it) must also have that same quality (coherence), if the 2 entities in the equation are to be fully and coherently compatible.

In fact, I made special note of the point in the proposition. I stated it, and then restated it.

I said:

This point begs to be repeated; if nature is ordered in an intelligible, logical, and coherent fashion, then our philosophical constructs (theories) regarding it, must also be coherent if they are to be compatible with the assumed empirical order.

( http://rob-lock.livejournal.com/ )

Now here's the problem gentleman, as per an actual court case on the debate:

“since the scientific revolution of the 16th and 17th centuries, science has been limited to the search for natural causes to explain natural phenomena. This revolution entailed the rejection of the appeal to authority, and by extension, revelation, in favor of empirical evidence. Since that time period, science has been a discipline in which testability, rather than any ecclesiastical authority or philosophical coherence, has been the measure of a scientific idea's worth”.

Intelligent design has a more coherent explanation for the new evidence compiled in the last several decades. Enough to make it reasonable to re-explore the other supposed evolutionary proofs, that were undertaken with a particular end in mind.

I am not going to plague myself with dragging every kicking and screaming detractor who will never believe it no matter what the arguments are. I am going to take it to those who are looking for the truth.