Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


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


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Methodological Naturalism
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 16 of 181 (66515)
11-14-2003 5:16 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by Syamsu
11-14-2003 1:03 PM


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.
Energy manipulates material things in a measurable and predictable manner. Also, E=MC^2 equates the two as well.
Information, however, is all in our heads. The material aspect of speech is the sound waves passing through the air, for instance. I know that Shannon Information equates information with laws of thermodynamics, but the two couldn't be more different in a material sense. You might as well equate horoscopes with weather forecasts. They both try and predict events (with about the same accuracy at times) but their methodology is quite different.
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.
Take the old adage "apples and oranges" for example, which refers to things that are different and not comparable. For the word "apple" to have meaning, do "oranges" have to exist? I think not. For matter to exist, does a vacuum have to exist? Probably not. The opposites that you contrive in your mind (or minds in general) are not binding in the actual universe. Just because we name something doesn't mean it has to exist. So for you to say that naturalism, something we can see and measure, needs supernaturalism, a contrivance of our minds and immeasurable, is stretching things quite a bit.
How about this question: Does monotheism need the existence of polytheism in order for monotheism to have meaning? Or even better yet, does the belief in a god rely on the existence of no god?
Not only does this mean "questions of good and evil" being kept outside of science, but there existence is meaningless and unnecessary in the scope of science, as is the existence of a diety.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Syamsu, posted 11-14-2003 1:03 PM Syamsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by Syamsu, posted 11-16-2003 9:37 AM Loudmouth has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 17 of 181 (66643)
11-15-2003 1:10 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by Syamsu
11-14-2003 1:03 PM


e=mc^2
quote:
Now you might object that "obviously" energy falls under material, but then does information also fall into the category of material?
As has been pointed out, e=mc^2. Energy and matter are convertable entities. And what's more important, energy is verifiable (another condition MrH mentioned).
I might suggest that you take a chemistry course with laboratory work. When you enter the lab, inform teachers and classmates that you do not believe in MN (so they can get a good distance) and try to complete the labwork using the "supernatural" or "information" theories. Bunsen Burners and Heavy acids/bases in particular may be quite "informative".
If you succeed in finishing a lab without recourse to MN, please let me know.
quote:
Naturalism requires it's opposite supernaturalism to be meaningful, otherwise naturalism would equate to existence and be meaningless.
About the only thing you seem to be saying here is that knowledge requires ignorance to be meaningful. I will agree to that. Thanks for bringing meaning to all of our lives.
------------------
holmes
[This message has been edited by holmes, 11-15-2003]

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

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by sidelined, posted 11-15-2003 1:49 PM Silent H has replied

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


Message 18 of 181 (66659)
11-15-2003 1:49 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by Silent H
11-15-2003 1:10 PM


Re: e=mc^2
Holmes
I need to reiterate here that energy and matter are not interchangeable.The equation states that energy is equal to massmultiplied by the velocity of light squared.
------------------
"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 17 by Silent H, posted 11-15-2003 1:10 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Silent H, posted 11-15-2003 5:23 PM sidelined has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 19 of 181 (66709)
11-15-2003 5:23 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by sidelined
11-15-2003 1:49 PM


quote:
...energy and matter are not interchangeable
The boys at Fermilab beg to disagree. That equation does run both ways.
I got my ass handed to me in a lecture hall when I said what you just said, and was amazed at the variety of proof they have for it.
You can produce much larger masses than what you started out with, by running them into each other at high (enough) speeds.
That's when I learned a chemist should not immediately argue with a physicist that has fulltime access to a supercollider.
------------------
holmes

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by sidelined, posted 11-15-2003 1:49 PM sidelined has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by sidelined, posted 11-15-2003 8:17 PM Silent H has replied

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


Message 20 of 181 (66737)
11-15-2003 8:17 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by Silent H
11-15-2003 5:23 PM


holmes
Mass is the measure of inertia and is a property of matter.As I said the equation deals with energy and mass being interchangeable not energy and matter.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Silent H, posted 11-15-2003 5:23 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by crashfrog, posted 11-15-2003 8:40 PM sidelined has not replied
 Message 24 by Silent H, posted 11-15-2003 11:27 PM sidelined has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 21 of 181 (66739)
11-15-2003 8:40 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by sidelined
11-15-2003 8:17 PM


Mass is the measure of inertia and is a property of matter.As I said the equation deals with energy and mass being interchangeable not energy and matter.
I don't understand the distinction. If I take the mass of a neutron and turn it into enough energy to level Hiroshima, what part of the neutron's matter do you think is left?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by sidelined, posted 11-15-2003 8:17 PM sidelined has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by NosyNed, posted 11-15-2003 9:15 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 22 of 181 (66744)
11-15-2003 9:15 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by crashfrog
11-15-2003 8:40 PM


Yea, Crash, I think it is a little bit nit picky too. However, it is correct that mass is the technically correct term.
(PS - even with c**2 in there a neutron isn't going to level anything. (quick guess not calculated) )

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by crashfrog, posted 11-15-2003 8:40 PM crashfrog has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by sidelined, posted 11-15-2003 11:26 PM NosyNed has not replied

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


Message 23 of 181 (66766)
11-15-2003 11:26 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by NosyNed
11-15-2003 9:15 PM


NosyNed
Actually as I understand it the distinction is necessary in physics.
Matter has properties such as volume,weight,density as well as mass.Now if we substitute matter for mass in E=MC*2 we must then assume that these properties are included in the equivalence transfer and I am sure that is wrong.
For example when a bullet is fired from a gun it gains mass in exact relation to the amount of energy introduced but the other properties remain unchanged.If these other properties did change I believe we would live in a very different world.Suppose these other properties of matter were to change in same way as mass what would the effect be?
------------------
"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 22 by NosyNed, posted 11-15-2003 9:15 PM NosyNed has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by Silent H, posted 11-16-2003 12:49 PM sidelined has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 24 of 181 (66767)
11-15-2003 11:27 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by sidelined
11-15-2003 8:17 PM


Okay, I see what you are saying, but that still makes energy interchangeable with matter. That is... out of a mass of matter you get an amount of energy, and out of an amount of energy you will get matter (and as it turns out some anti-matter) of a certain mass.
The place I got my ass handed to me was a class specifically dedicated to the latest matter/anti-matter research at Fermilab, and the scientist was quite firm that it was matter coming out of those tests. Yes the m in the equation is mass, but the direct implication is that energy and matter are exchangable.
------------------
holmes

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by sidelined, posted 11-15-2003 8:17 PM sidelined has not replied

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


Message 25 of 181 (66805)
11-16-2003 9:37 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by Loudmouth
11-14-2003 5:16 PM


Re: More of the Same
It seems you are just showing the prejudice I'm talking about. Sure information will appear to be only in our heads, if you first chain yourself to methodological naturalism before investigating it, then it likely will. I'm not convinced by evolutionist denials that DNA can't be viewed in terms of information, and it seems many evolutionists have started viewing DNA in terms of information as well, although this might just be a matter of evolutionists conveniently using the language of the day, and not being very serious about viewing DNA in terms of information.
I guess my logic was wrong here, methodological naturalism simply limits to natural things and makes no mention of whether or not non-natural things exist also. It's not even neccesarily a dichotomy between natural and supernatural, since there could be many more non-natural things existing other then the supernatural, for instance information could be said to be both not natural, and not supernatural. Probably when you define natural not knowing about information, then information would fall outside the definition of what is natural. Likewise if you go back in time to where energy was first proposed, it would be doubtful whether or not energy fell within the definition of natural.
Still, I believe if this methodological naturalism is not proposed as a dichotomy between natural and supernatural, that the supernatural is recognized, that it tends to undermine the rule to keep talk about good and evil out of scientific theories. This rule, or ideal, has been much more profitable to science then any other rule IMO. It keeps science safe from interference from politicians, and well the science is much more clear this way when you leave judgemental language out of it. It's no coincedence that the same people who propose methodological naturalism propose questionably judgemental words such as purposeless, purposeful, success etc. in science theories. Not recognizing good and evil and the supernatural etc. outside of methodological naturalism, they view good and evil as mechanics, and want us all to share the "enlightening" effects it has on one's conscience to view good and evil as mechanical.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu
[This message has been edited by Syamsu, 11-16-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Loudmouth, posted 11-14-2003 5:16 PM Loudmouth has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by MrHambre, posted 11-17-2003 7:08 AM Syamsu has replied
 Message 36 by Loudmouth, posted 11-17-2003 5:23 PM Syamsu has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 26 of 181 (66844)
11-16-2003 12:49 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by sidelined
11-15-2003 11:26 PM


quote:
For example when a bullet is fired from a gun it gains mass in exact relation to the amount of energy introduced but the other properties remain unchanged.
When you introduce energy to a bullet, it is in a way stored as "potential matter" because what you've just given the bullet is acceleration to a greater momentum.
In order to release the energy added to the bullet, it must stop and stop in a way that it is not going to release the energy as energy imparted to other mass (which is normally what happens).
You also have to remember how huge an amount of energy is required for creation of the smallest amount of mass (matter). This is why they have those supercolliders. the level of energy and the specific conditions required are not your every day man shoots bullet.
But in a way supercolliders may very well be viewed as men shooting bullets. They shoot a subatomic "bullet" and accelerate it to near the speed of light and collide it into a substance, or another accelerated particle. Matter and anti-matter greater than the sum of the matter that went in, comes out. What I found fascinating is that there were subatomic particles almost as large as atomic particles that chemistry never talks about (because they aren't stable).
At near the speed of light (and remember that c is speed of light) all sorts of weird things do happen. Thankfully bullets and cars don't go that fast.
------------------
holmes

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by sidelined, posted 11-15-2003 11:26 PM sidelined has not replied

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


Message 27 of 181 (67014)
11-17-2003 7:08 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by Syamsu
11-16-2003 9:37 AM


The World According to Syamsu
Syamsu,
Once again you've steered the discussion to your disdain for the 'judgmental language of Darwinism,' which has absolutely nothing to do with this thread. I won't discuss your pet peeve here.
Methodological Naturalism neither assumes nor denies the supernatural. What MN does is limit any factor to those which can be verified or detected in an experimental setting. The utility of this constraint has been proven by centuries of scientific progress, through experiments conducted by researchers of every conceivable philosophical and religious stripe. Their work is based on the realistic assumption that if a factor cannot be detected, measured, or verified, it's not a meaningful factor in the experiment. As has been pointed out to you already, many different forms of energy can be measured. Information in the Shannon engineering sense has also been measured in terms of bits and bytes. Neither of these qualifies as supernatural.
If your objection to MN were substantial in the least, you'd be able to point to some significant research that has been conducted using supernatural or undetectable forces and mechanisms. Since you've never defined what form such 'creativity' takes in the lab, it's safe to say that MN is a justified assumption.
------------------
The dark nursery of evolution is very dark indeed.
Brad McFall

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Syamsu, posted 11-16-2003 9:37 AM Syamsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by Mammuthus, posted 11-17-2003 7:26 AM MrHambre has replied
 Message 31 by Syamsu, posted 11-17-2003 11:13 AM MrHambre has replied

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


Message 28 of 181 (67016)
11-17-2003 7:26 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by MrHambre
11-17-2003 7:08 AM


Re: The World According to Syamsu
Sy, among others, also conflates what cannot be directly observed with the supernatural which is false. Something that leaves behind no evidence of its effects is supernatural. However, direct observation of something is not required to measure it and in fact most scientific measurements, almost all in molecular biology, are via proxy markers. I have never directly observed a DNA sequencing reaction at the chemical level. However, I indirectly observe the results of said catalytic event almost every day. However, sequencing is based on a set of experiments from the 70's that best explains said reaction and does not require me to believe that a pink unicorn is putting peaks in my trace files where they should be or for the old farts out there, bands on an autoradiogram.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by MrHambre, posted 11-17-2003 7:08 AM MrHambre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by MrHambre, posted 11-17-2003 9:07 AM Mammuthus has replied

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


Message 29 of 181 (67025)
11-17-2003 9:07 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by Mammuthus
11-17-2003 7:26 AM


The Tool of MN
Mammuthus,
What I'm trying to establish is that MN is valid because it works, regardless of whether it constitutes fence-sitting on the supernatural question. If we can conduct experiments with the same verifiable factors and always arrive at the same conclusions concerning atomic polarity, molecular structure, etc., then it seems that we don't see the effects of supernatural entities. We'd expect to see all sorts of wacky things in the lab and get wildly divergent results if supernatural mechanisms were intervening, and that's just not what we see. The quotidian, predictable regularity of science at least makes a strong case that supernatural entities aren't necessary to explain material reality. Whether they're necessary to explain anything at all seems to be up to the individual.
------------------
The dark nursery of evolution is very dark indeed.
Brad McFall

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Mammuthus, posted 11-17-2003 7:26 AM Mammuthus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by Mammuthus, posted 11-17-2003 9:39 AM MrHambre has not replied

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


Message 30 of 181 (67031)
11-17-2003 9:39 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by MrHambre
11-17-2003 9:07 AM


Re: The Tool of MN
I'm not at all disagreeing with you (though many results while reproducible often show scatter and background). In Sy's rant about "energy" falling outside the realm of natural, he conflates what is not directly observed the supernatural. This is false.
That testable and falsifiable hypotheses in science
supported by emperical evidence and reproducible observations have been the only way that science has progressed appreciably is the support of MN. That bizarro religious inspired musings such as intelligent design have contributed nothing to scientific investigation and have no explanatory power is a testament to the overwhelming absence of evidence for the existence or at least the intervention of the supernatural. Whether one needs the crutch of the supernatural to overcome a fear of death or a feeling of insignificance is a personal choice or problem.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by MrHambre, posted 11-17-2003 9:07 AM 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