Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Methodological Naturalism
MrHambre
Member (Idle past 1393 days)
Posts: 1495
From: Framingham, MA, USA
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 1 of 181 (66262)
11-13-2003 12:23 PM


Creationists have a persistent habit of framing scientific methodology in a purely philosophical light. Many assert that the presuppositions of science and logic are no more valid than those of religion, and that as a result naturalism is a religion in and of itself. They criticize 'naturalism-of-the-gaps' as being a prejudice that scientists harbor without cause.
Certainly there are presuppositions at the basis of empirical evidential inquiry, which is the foundation of scientific knowledge. Such inquiry assumes that all relevant factors in the explanation of a phenomenon are detectable and verifiable. Any factor that is neither detectable nor verifiable is considered meaningless in the experimental framework. It is important to note that MN does not assume that such factors do not exist, merely that they can’t be considered until it is proven that they can have any bearing on the experimental setting.
This assumption is known as Methodological Naturalism (MN hereafter). This is science in its essence, and anything claiming to be scientific must follow this assumption. It differs from Ontological Naturalism (i.e., atheism), which claims that nothing exists that cannot be empirically detected or verified. Anyone who tries to conflate the two notions (like Phillip Johnson) does so out of a basic misunderstanding of the philosophy behind MN, an urge to decieve those who don’t know better, or both. ON is a philosophical position. MN is a methodology that science requires in order to generate testable hypotheses.
It is not true in the least that believers such as Newton and Pasteur did not subscribe to MN. Newton’s work demonstrates MN in its most distilled form. All of the mechanisms postulated by Newtonian physics are natural and verifiable. Despite being superseded by quantum mechanics, Newton’s science helped put a man on the moon. Similarly, Pasteur’s work was guided by MN in asserting that a material mechanism in the form of microorganisms was responsible for disease and putrefaction. His work has led to vaccines that have saved the lives of millions, and fermentation industries that reap billion-dollar profits.
No scientific inquiry is conceivable without MN. It would be impossible to frame a hypothesis concerning even the most basic physical phenomenon without being able to limit the variables to those which can be detected or verified. There is no end to the imaginary, undetectable factors which could be listed by wishful thinkers, and there is no basis for disqualifying any of them without the constraint of MN. Despite the fact that Creationists portray it as a scientific loophole of some kind, MN actually demands that experimenters frame their hypotheses in a realistic, verifiable way. It tries to ensure that the same conclusion will be produced given a specific set of experimental variables, regardless of the philosophical differences between researchers.
To criticize the concept of MN is to criticize science itself. Through MN, material mechanisms have been discovered for natural phenomena. The conclusion to be drawn is that MN and science will continue to be useful in doing so. Therefore, naturalism-of-the-gaps is a valid assumption, since it is the only thing that has succeeded in increasing our understanding of the physical universe.
------------------
America is like watching a symphony conducted by the tuba player. -Dow Mossman, The Stones of Summer

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by JIM, posted 11-13-2003 12:45 PM MrHambre has replied
 Message 4 by Syamsu, posted 11-14-2003 12:32 AM MrHambre has replied
 Message 5 by Mammuthus, posted 11-14-2003 2:49 AM MrHambre has replied
 Message 15 by Rrhain, posted 11-14-2003 4:58 PM MrHambre has not replied
 Message 109 by Warren, posted 01-19-2004 2:12 PM MrHambre has not replied
 Message 110 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 01-19-2004 3:20 PM MrHambre has not replied
 Message 174 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 01-27-2004 8:56 PM MrHambre has not replied

  
JIM
Inactive Member


Message 2 of 181 (66264)
11-13-2003 12:45 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by MrHambre
11-13-2003 12:23 PM


Naturalism gets associated with science because natural explanations have such a good track record for explaining observed phenomena. To date, natural explanations have been determined for very, very many previously unknown areas, and supernatural explanations have been determined for none. When exploring another unknown area, the possibility of a natural explanation is the way to bet. Researchers bet that way routinely, and as a result the human race has benefitted with incredible advances in medicine, agriculture, electronics, materials science, and more. Supernatural explanations, on the other hand, have led nowhere.
Indeed, many supernatural explanations are rejected not because they are supernatural but because they cannot or do not lead anywhere. It is possible to come up with any number of possible explanations for anything -- lost socks could be caused by extradimensional vortices which our observations prevent from forming; hiccups could be caused by evil spirits inside us trying to escape; stock market fluctuations could be caused by the secret manipulations of powerful extraterrestrials. Scientists reject such claims on the grounds of parsimony. All of those claims are possible, but they require adding complicated entities which there is no adequate evidence for. To make matters worse, the nature of those entities effectively prevents investigation of them, and the impossibility of investigation prevents us from learning anything new about them. We cannot conclude that any of those explanations are wrong. But from a scientific standpoint, they are worse than wrong; they are useless.
1. Methodological naturalism leaves no room for appeals to the supernatural.
2. Science must follow the procedures of methodological naturalism to accomplish its aims.
Hence, the consensus seems to be that there is not, and cannot be (even in principle), any overlap between science and the supernatural.
To criticize the concept of MN is to criticize science itself. Through MN, material mechanisms have been discovered for natural phenomena. The conclusion to be drawn is that MN and science will continue to be useful in doing so. Therefore, naturalism-of-the-gaps is a valid assumption, since it is the only thing that has succeeded in increasing our understanding of the physical universe.
A supernaturalistic methodology, of course, need not rely upon a non-empirical means of discovery of phenomena, as long as it assigns on average a higher prima facie probability to supernaturalistic explanations than it does to naturalistic ones. The methodological naturalist may object to this type of methodology on grounds that, in tending to seize upon supernatural forces and entities, the methodological supernaturalist is likely to posit far more entities in the universe than actually exist. This objection, however, only holds force if there is already good reason to believe that the universe is naturalistic - the methodological supernaturalist may just as easily say that the methodological naturalist, in lending too little prima facie possibility to the existence of supernatural forces and entities, will end up positing far fewer entities in the universe than actually exist. And it cannot be the case that the hypothesis that accounts for observations with fewer entities is always the more parsimonious one, otherwise naturalists should be far more hospitable to the suggestion by Wheeler and Feynman that there may be only one electron in the universe, which appears to be many because it zig-zags back and forth through time as well as space. A more pressing worry is whether such a supernaturalistic methodology would be a "science stopper"; say, for instance, some methodological supernaturalist appeals to the psychic powers of invisible dwarves as an explanation for why various atoms stick together - wouldn't this prevent any progress in chemistry from every being made, because it buries all interesting phenomena under the first stupid hypothesis one dreams up of? Not necessarily, I think. If the methodological supernaturalist remains devoted to empiricism as a means of collecting data, I would expect him to eventually end up with a whole pantheon of different dwarves that correspond to the different types of chemical bonds that can exist, and this could actually pave a path for fruitful future research and technological developments in the same way that a naturalistic understanding of chemical bonds does. Just because one posits a supernatural force as the explanation of a phenomenon, does not mean that one ceases to examine the phenomenon and refinine her explanations.
Good entry, man.
------------------
At two-tenths the speed of light, dust and atoms might not do significant damage even in a voyage of 40 years, but the faster you go, the worse it is--space begins to become abrasive. When you begin to approach the speed of light, hydrogen atoms become cosmic-ray particles, and they will fry the crew. ...So 60,000 kilometers per second may be the practical speed limit for space travel. ---Isaac Asimov
[This message has been edited by JIM, 11-13-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by MrHambre, posted 11-13-2003 12:23 PM MrHambre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by MrHambre, posted 11-13-2003 5:25 PM JIM has not replied

  
MrHambre
Member (Idle past 1393 days)
Posts: 1495
From: Framingham, MA, USA
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 3 of 181 (66334)
11-13-2003 5:25 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by JIM
11-13-2003 12:45 PM


quote:
say, for instance, some methodological supernaturalist appeals to the psychic powers of invisible dwarves as an explanation for why various atoms stick together - wouldn't this prevent any progress in chemistry from every being made, because it buries all interesting phenomena under the first stupid hypothesis one dreams up of? Not necessarily, I think. If the methodological supernaturalist remains devoted to empiricism as a means of collecting data, I would expect him to eventually end up with a whole pantheon of different dwarves that correspond to the different types of chemical bonds that can exist, and this could actually pave a path for fruitful future research and technological developments in the same way that a naturalistic understanding of chemical bonds does.
Oh. Kay.
The point, though, is that the 'methodological supernaturalist' would never be able to get even that far, because he'd have no reason to exclude any factor as a variable in his experimental setting. Once we allow invisible dwarves into the equation, we have no reason to exclude the Flatulent Pink Unicorn and baby Jesus and everything else on the quite literally endless list of non-verifiable factors.
We don't pick material mechanisms because we like them best. We're forced to do so by Methodological Naturalism because we want to make the exclusion of the irrelevant factors as non-arbitrary as possible. After all, if factors are in fact detectable and verifiable, we have no reason to exclude them.
The Creationist claims that set A, all detectable and verifiable things, is a subset of set B, all things that exist. The ontological naturalist says that sets A and B are exactly the same. MN ignores the philosophical differences by stating that only items in set A are meaningful in a scientific setting, regardless of whether there exist things outside set A.
------------------
America is like watching a symphony conducted by the tuba player. -Dow Mossman, The Stones of Summer

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by JIM, posted 11-13-2003 12:45 PM JIM has not replied

  
Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5590 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 4 of 181 (66427)
11-14-2003 12:32 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by MrHambre
11-13-2003 12:23 PM


The effort to unite all science under the umbrella of methodological naturalism is something that is only prevalent with evolutionist scientists, or Darwinist scientists really, this is not prevalent in other sciences. Science is a creative effort, all the time new things must be considered, things such as "information" for instance. There's absolutely no use to box science into a simpleton one paragraph description, and severely limit any and all creativity within science that way. Let's be clear here, the only reason the evolutionists make this play for methodological naturalism, is because it allows them to use ridiculous terminology like "blind" and "purposeless" in their theories.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by MrHambre, posted 11-13-2003 12:23 PM MrHambre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by MrHambre, posted 11-14-2003 5:54 AM Syamsu has replied

  
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6475 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 5 of 181 (66435)
11-14-2003 2:49 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by MrHambre
11-13-2003 12:23 PM


This is definitely a Post of the Month Mr.Hambre.
And as if to punctuate the relevance of your post, Syamsu demonstrated his misunderstanding/misuse/anti-science bias exactly as you portrayed it among creationists in your first paragraph as he immediatley conflated MN and ON in his heated reaction to what you wrote.
This also gets at the crux of the complete failure of the intelligent design movement. In order for intelligent design to function, it has to presuppose supernatural, unmeasurable, undetectable entities to explain any given biological observation and thus is entirely unable to formulate a testable hypothesis. It is truly closet creationism.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by MrHambre, posted 11-13-2003 12:23 PM MrHambre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by MrHambre, posted 11-14-2003 6:05 AM Mammuthus has replied

  
MrHambre
Member (Idle past 1393 days)
Posts: 1495
From: Framingham, MA, USA
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 6 of 181 (66450)
11-14-2003 5:54 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by Syamsu
11-14-2003 12:32 AM


Syamsu,
quote:
There's absolutely no use to box science into a simpleton one paragraph description, and severely limit any and all creativity within science that way.
I realize you consider this to be true merely because Syamsu says so. I deplore the way you're once again turning EvCForum into Syamsu's Big Top thread by thread, making unsupported assertions and refusing to respond to challenges to your claims.
The truth is, as I stated above, that methodological naturalism is the only tool that has produced results in the scientific arena. If you don't agree, it's irrelevant to point out your philosophical objection to MN. It's beside the point that you feel certain terminology is unwarranted. All you need to do is demonstrate one way, one instance, in which it has been useful to science to introduce unverifiable factors into its methodology.
Give us one example of a non-material mechanism that scientific investigation has produced for any natural phenomenon.
------------------
America is like watching a symphony conducted by the tuba player. -Dow Mossman, The Stones of Summer

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Syamsu, posted 11-14-2003 12:32 AM Syamsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Syamsu, posted 11-14-2003 11:37 AM MrHambre has replied

  
MrHambre
Member (Idle past 1393 days)
Posts: 1495
From: Framingham, MA, USA
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 7 of 181 (66452)
11-14-2003 6:05 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by Mammuthus
11-14-2003 2:49 AM


Queen's Bishop, Corner Pocket
Mammuthus,
Glad you approve. Intelligent Design Creationists are like people who think they could be chess grandmasters just as long as they don't have to abide by the rules of chess. They could even beat Kasparov if he had to play by the rules and they could move the pieces any way they want. Call it creativity, call it a paradigm shift, whatever. But you can't call it chess.
------------------
America is like watching a symphony conducted by the tuba player. -Dow Mossman, The Stones of Summer

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Mammuthus, posted 11-14-2003 2:49 AM Mammuthus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by Mammuthus, posted 11-14-2003 6:46 AM MrHambre has replied

  
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6475 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 8 of 181 (66454)
11-14-2003 6:46 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by MrHambre
11-14-2003 6:05 AM


Re: Queen's Bishop, Corner Pocket
quote:
Glad you approve. Intelligent Design Creationists are like people who think they could be chess grandmasters just as long as they don't have to abide by the rules of chess. They could even beat Kasparov if he had to play by the rules and they could move the pieces any way they want. Call it creativity, call it a paradigm shift, whatever. But you can't call it chess.
Actually they are more like people who claim that they are following the normal rules of chess even as they use their He-Man action figure with the kung fu grip to clear the board of the opponents pieces while spraying mace in his eyes (since this is the rule that popped out of the blue. And then when it is explained that it is not chess when they make up rules, they claim you are cheating.
Look at the ID movement. What have they proposed? That everything in nature is intelligently designed. The evidence? 1) it is self evident 2) it is too complex for me and my fellow chums in church to understand. The testable or falsifiable hypothesis? Answer: 1) why don't you tell us how evolution can explain that structure and if any detail in your scenario is something I don't understand then it was clearly designed 2) this is just a conspiracy by the scientific establishment to prevent our message from getting out.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by MrHambre, posted 11-14-2003 6:05 AM MrHambre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by MrHambre, posted 11-14-2003 11:29 AM Mammuthus has not replied

  
MrHambre
Member (Idle past 1393 days)
Posts: 1495
From: Framingham, MA, USA
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 9 of 181 (66480)
11-14-2003 11:29 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by Mammuthus
11-14-2003 6:46 AM


What a Load of ...Laundry
Let's be clear here, the only reason you evolutionists make this play for methodological naturalism, is because it allows you to use ridiculous terminology like "reality" and "conclude" in your theories.
------------------
The dark nursery of evolution is very dark indeed.
Brad McFall

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Mammuthus, posted 11-14-2003 6:46 AM Mammuthus has not replied

  
Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5590 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 10 of 181 (66482)
11-14-2003 11:37 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by MrHambre
11-14-2003 5:54 AM


This issue can be decided solely on circumstantial evidence IMO, as referred to before, there is no need to address the argument directly. The name methological naturalism is relatively new, but the simplistic initiative to unite all science under one umbrella isn't.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by MrHambre, posted 11-14-2003 5:54 AM MrHambre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by sidelined, posted 11-14-2003 11:54 AM Syamsu has not replied
 Message 12 by MrHambre, posted 11-14-2003 11:56 AM Syamsu has replied

  
sidelined
Member (Idle past 5908 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 11 of 181 (66483)
11-14-2003 11:54 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by Syamsu
11-14-2003 11:37 AM


Syamsu
Science isn't free to simply conjecture whatever it wants out of the blue.All new ideas must be weighed in relation to what we already know.You cannot just come along and propose a line of thinking which is contrary to established reality.For instance,the models of gravity produced from Einstein predicted numerous phenomena before they were observed in nature.You don't further scientific knowledge without going from the foundations that are already there.
If you have an idea which is contradictory to present models that is good,however,this does not mean it is right.Your model must not only either explain the same range of phenomena better than the present one it must also have predictive powers as well that can show us what to look for in the natural world that establishes some level of certainty to its "correctness".
[This message has been edited by sidelined, 11-14-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Syamsu, posted 11-14-2003 11:37 AM Syamsu has not replied

  
MrHambre
Member (Idle past 1393 days)
Posts: 1495
From: Framingham, MA, USA
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 12 of 181 (66484)
11-14-2003 11:56 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by Syamsu
11-14-2003 11:37 AM


More of the Same
Syamsu,
Regardless of your philosophical issues with MN or your hatred for Darwinism, you still need to support your assertion that:
quote:
There's absolutely no use to box science into a simpleton one paragraph description, and severely limit any and all creativity within science that way.
I've listed ways in which even believers like Pasteur and Newton worked within MN and produced results that revolutionized our view of the world. If you can't name even one instance where science has benefitted from proposing non-material mechanisms or used non-verifiable factors in experiments, I think your assertion is effectively refuted.
------------------
The dark nursery of evolution is very dark indeed.
Brad McFall

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Syamsu, posted 11-14-2003 11:37 AM Syamsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by Syamsu, posted 11-14-2003 1:03 PM MrHambre has not replied

  
Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5590 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 13 of 181 (66489)
11-14-2003 1:03 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by MrHambre
11-14-2003 11:56 AM


Re: More of the Same
Nonmaterial that would be energy for instance. Now you might object that "obviously" energy falls under material, but then does information also fall into the category of material? It is not so obvious and it must be difficult to think in terms of energy property when before you were thinking in terms of material property. So I submit most all science as denying your methodological naturalism.
Naturalism requires it's opposite supernaturalism to be meaningful, otherwise naturalism would equate to existence and be meaningless. So then methodological naturalism would mean to acknowledge the supernatural, but to keep it outside of science. This could be understood as keeping questions of good and evil and the like outside of science.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by MrHambre, posted 11-14-2003 11:56 AM MrHambre has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by sidelined, posted 11-14-2003 2:07 PM Syamsu has not replied
 Message 16 by Loudmouth, posted 11-14-2003 5:16 PM Syamsu has replied
 Message 17 by Silent H, posted 11-15-2003 1:10 PM Syamsu has not replied

  
sidelined
Member (Idle past 5908 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 14 of 181 (66495)
11-14-2003 2:07 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by Syamsu
11-14-2003 1:03 PM


Re: More of the Same
Syamsu
"Nonmaterial that would be energy for instance"
What do you define energy to be then?
------------------
"Nature uses only the longest threads to weave her patterns, so that each small piece of her fabric reveals the organization of the entire tapestry."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Syamsu, posted 11-14-2003 1:03 PM Syamsu has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 15 of 181 (66513)
11-14-2003 4:58 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by MrHambre
11-13-2003 12:23 PM


As an example of the difference between excluding factors that are irrelevant and the claim that such irrelevancies don't exist, I often use the following example:
Did I have anything to do with what you had for breakfast today? Did I plant the food? Grow it? Harvest it? Transport it? Process it? Package it? Ship it? Market it? Purchase it? Select it? Prepare it? Serve it?
No?
Does that mean I don't exist?
One of the fundamental questions that those who cannot handle methodological naturalism need to answer is this:
Is there anything that happens on its own or is god required for everything?
For example, if I were to take a handful of change and toss it on the ground, do those coins land where they do all on their own or does god come down and personally, deliberately, and consciously place them?
Science does not deny the existence of conscious entities making things happen. However, science is interested in finding out things behave all on their own. If I were to take some hydrogen and oxygen gas, put them in a tube, and then leave the lab for two hours, my return to the lab to find the cylinder containing water does not lead me to conclude that leaving the gases alone in a cylinder for two hours causes them to react. My lab partner could quite easily have done it and the job was to find out what happens when the gases are left alone.
------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by MrHambre, posted 11-13-2003 12:23 PM MrHambre has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024