For Joralex - Metaphysics, Science, & Evolution

I have to say I am uncertain that any particular metaphysic acts as an underpinning for science, much less evolutionary theory.As far as I understand it, "naturalism" is an epistemology and not a metaphysic. It only states what counts as knowledge and through what proper channels knowledge is acquired. It makes no statements regarding "what is" beyond positing that humans have inputs from their senses, and that these are the most reliable and consistent methods to gain beliefs which hold up over time (ie knowledge).It does not make statements that those things which cannot be known are false, or that do not count as knowedge are false. It is merely stated that they cannot be considered known.MrH did a fantastic job of outlining this misread of what naturalism is, which IDers like Johnson live on, but I just thought it might be good to get terminology straightened out. It really is just an epistemology.Knowledge gained from this epistemology may help one create a more concrete metaphysic, but that is never a certainty.------------------
holmes

Not to be cute, but I didn't say science makes NO metaphysical assumptions AT ALL. I said there are no specific metaphysical assumptions made by science beyond sensory inputs being our mind's only window into what the world is.This does entail their being an objective world, and "real" as long as one does not mean physical. Several philosophers accepted scientific method, yet held they were nothing more than describing rules attached to our inputs, and nothing existed beyond them in any real tangible sense.Thus the metaphysical constraints of science are so slim that it cannot possibly exclude religious metaphysics at all, which is all I was arguing against. It seemed joralex felt that science was based on a metaphysic which required the nonexistence of supernatural beings.------------------
holmes

Science is natural philosophy, ergo some philosophers do experiment.Or conversely, theoretical scientists may never experiment at all, would that mean scientists don't experiment?Pretty much it comes down to this, there are those who experiment and there are those who theorize. One might point out that just because a person does not experiment does not make that person wrong or their theories fallable.In fact, there are many times that theories must remain just that until physical means are invented to be able to conduct experiments based upon the theory.My only problem with theorists, are those who create theories that are wholly untestable... even in theory. That is scientists or pure philosophers (like mathematicians) who DESIGN theories for which no experiments can ever be constructed, for the purpose of leaving their theory invulnerable to evidentiary attack, and then shoot arrows at other theories for each potential evidentiary failure.In fact, some such philosophers have even found it necessary to DESIGN new theories about how logic itself must be conducted, so as to leave their metaphysic (and their epistemology) beyond logical attack as well.Please do not demean philosophy by lumping those bunch of thumbtwiddlers into our ranks. They are neither scientists nor philosophers.------------------
holmes

This is why mathematians are pure philosophers and not scientists. The latter are natural philosophers, which study (and theorize regarding) only those things with empirical content.I didn't mean my comment as a dissing of mathematicians. I don't have a problem with "pure philosophy", just as long as it allows for some practical/empirical application... which mathematics generally does.------------------
holmes