Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Methodological Naturalism
Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5589 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 31 of 181 (67056)
11-17-2003 11:13 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by MrHambre
11-17-2003 7:08 AM


Re: The World According to Syamsu
It is not just my pet-peeve, the linkage between proposing to tie all scientists to mn, and the use of judgemental especially atheistic words such as purposeless, has been noticed by more creationists / theologians. It was an issue in the controversy over the NABT definition of evolution as blind, purposeless etc. And it's an issue in the ongoing controversy over evolutionary psychology. I suggest that in stead of using blind, evolutionists use the adjective stupid for evolution. I think this more precisely denotes the absence of intelligence, which is apparently required by MN. So in stead of the blind process of evolution, it's better to refer to the stupid proces of evolution. Only social convention precludes this more accurate definition.
Basing claims on evidence is a common feature of every person that ever lived, it has nothing especially to do with the success of western science, as before that has more to do with the ideal I stated earlier, which is not as common but expressely advocated in "western" science. The focus on MN is a sad attempt to religionize a common function of the human mind as somehow something special, or should I say sacred, with the intention to attach meandering thoughts about good and evil as mechanical to "The Method".
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

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 32 by MrHambre, posted 11-17-2003 11:30 AM Syamsu has not replied
 Message 33 by Darwin's Terrier, posted 11-17-2003 11:54 AM Syamsu has replied

  
MrHambre
Member (Idle past 1392 days)
Posts: 1495
From: Framingham, MA, USA
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 32 of 181 (67057)
11-17-2003 11:30 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by Syamsu
11-17-2003 11:13 AM


Blah Blah Blah
Syamsu,
Like I said, your harping on your favorite subject is not required or useful here. The philosophy of Darwinism is not the issue, only scientific methodology.
If you'd like to offer any example of the leaps in scientific knowledge that supernaturalism has produced, be my guest. Otherwise your assertion that MN is invalid is absolutely pointless.
------------------
The dark nursery of evolution is very dark indeed.
Brad McFall

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Syamsu, posted 11-17-2003 11:13 AM Syamsu has not replied

  
Darwin's Terrier
Inactive Member


Message 33 of 181 (67063)
11-17-2003 11:54 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by Syamsu
11-17-2003 11:13 AM


Re: The World According to Syamsu
It is not just my pet-peeve, the linkage between proposing to tie all scientists to mn, and the use of judgemental especially atheistic words such as purposeless, has been noticed by more creationists / theologians.
But the history of life amply demonstrates purpose-less-ness (eek that’s a horrible word). Why else the seven mass extinctions and countless smaller extinctions? Why else are 99.9% of all species that have ever lived now dead? If there were a purpose to life’s history, it would seem to be for life to die out.
I suggest that in stead of using blind, evolutionists use the adjective stupid for evolution. I think this more precisely denotes the absence of intelligence, which is apparently required by MN. So in stead of the blind process of evolution, it's better to refer to the stupid proces of evolution. Only social convention precludes this more accurate definition.
I agree. 'Blind' doesn’t connote the absence of thought behind evolution. However, rather than 'stupid', I would suggest 'unthinking' or 'thought-less'. 'Stupid' suggests foolish, implying intelligence but low intelligence. Since evolution requires no intelligence at all, stupid is not quite right.
However, if a designer is the alternative, I wholeheartedly concur. Stupid is exactly the word we’re looking for to describe the designer of these things.
Basing claims on evidence is a common feature of every person that ever lived,
Not true. Theologians manage without evidence all the time.
it has nothing especially to do with the success of western science, as before that has more to do with the ideal I stated earlier, which is not as common but expressely advocated in "western" science. The focus on MN is a sad attempt to religionize a common function of the human mind as somehow something special, or should I say sacred, with the intention to attach meandering thoughts about good and evil as mechanical to "The Method".
Speaking of meandering thoughts, that was an impressively meandering paragraph!
What you seem to be missing is that, if the supernatural were part of ‘how the world works’, then science would have to investigate that too. It would be a case of We’ve got these laws of nature... but ooh look, here and there they don’t apply. Let’s try and find out why they don’t apply.
I maintain that there is no such thing as the supernatural. Not that the things generally called supernatural don’t exist, but rather that it is science’s job to find out about the world -- even if that includes weird anomalies to the normal running of things. So if telekinesis, telepathy, spoon-bending or gods were part of how the world works, then science would have to try to find out about them, because these things would be part of the universe we’re trying to find out about.
The problem with the supernatural is not that it’s rejected necessarily by science (or ‘methodological naturalism’ if you prefer), it’s just that it’s so damned slippery. Supernaturalism falls at the first hurdle, because whenever you try to look into it, it vanishes. The more you try to eliminate the trickery, fakery and delusion possibilities, the scanter becomes the evidence for the supernatural.
And on the other hand, whenever a non-supernatural explanation can be proposed, over and over again it turns out to fit the facts better.
Just what are we to do in such a situation, other than to leave supernaturalism as the explanation of last resort?
TTFN, DT

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Syamsu, posted 11-17-2003 11:13 AM Syamsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by Syamsu, posted 11-17-2003 2:29 PM Darwin's Terrier has not replied

  
Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5589 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 34 of 181 (67091)
11-17-2003 2:29 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by Darwin's Terrier
11-17-2003 11:54 AM


Re: The World According to Syamsu
Well we're all going to die, that says nothing much about purpose. I think you just don't understand about purpose.
Where does your denial of the supernatural put your belief in good and evil, belief in choice and the like? You are just undermining a rule that has been most profitable to science, and replace it with a common notion that needs no special attention.
As before, there is no problem for the supernatural to interfere in everything if we consider the supernatural playing a part in making decisions. Since science says everything, right down to the continued existence of the universe is an uncertainty, this gives unlimited scope of power to any supernatural beings.
To Mr Hambre, my previous criticism about excluding energy and information as natural by adopting mn still stands. Tell me, is information natural? Why bother scientists with such esoteric questions, that really only have meaning in regards to how people deal with the relationship of science to religion in their personal lives.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Darwin's Terrier, posted 11-17-2003 11:54 AM Darwin's Terrier has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by sidelined, posted 11-17-2003 3:00 PM Syamsu has not replied
 Message 37 by Mammuthus, posted 11-18-2003 3:19 AM Syamsu has not replied

  
sidelined
Member (Idle past 5907 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 35 of 181 (67097)
11-17-2003 3:00 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by Syamsu
11-17-2003 2:29 PM


Re: The World According to Syamsu
Syamsu
Well we're all going to die, that says nothing much about purpose. I think you just don't understand about purpose.
Purpose is constructed not given. So you are going to die,big deal, you only have to face it once. Ride hard die fast and leave a good looking corpse. Why do you belittle the wonder of life because it is temporary? Why make yourself miserable?
Where does your denial of the supernatural put your belief in good and evil, belief in choice and the like?
It puts it where it belongs,squarely in our laps.We are the ones who determine what is good and evil in our lives.The laws of society are a result of a balancing out or averaging the relative views of good and evil by the population as a whole into a "working" system.
Since science says everything, right down to the continued existence of the universe is an uncertainty
Science says there are varying levels of certainty but this does not mean we are without understanding.It only means that there is no precise way in which we can show how nature works absolutely because nature does not work with absolutes. The laws of gravitational acceleration state that if you step off an 80 story building you will accelerate at 9.8 meters per second for every second you are in flight. The electromagnetic force will bring your acceleration to a screeching halt an instant after contact all in accordance with laws that we are not 100% sure of. The laws of inertia which we are really in the dark about will continue to accelerate your organs and the trailing edge of your body even as the part of your body first contacting the ground accelerates in the opposite direction as per Newtonian laws.
Of course you may pray to God to allow you and any people you wish to convince that He can demonstrate to the whole world that these laws are at His command and convince everybody beyond a reasonable shadow of a doubt.Have him alter one of these laws to prevent your being killed.
Then find yourself a nice tall building and fly.
------------------
"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 has been edited by sidelined, 11-17-2003]
[This message has been edited by sidelined, 11-17-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Syamsu, posted 11-17-2003 2:29 PM Syamsu has not replied

  
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 36 of 181 (67175)
11-17-2003 5:23 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by Syamsu
11-16-2003 9:37 AM


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.
Perhaps you coudl start a separate thread on information and we could discuss specific issues there. For the sake of this thread, what you call information and what I call information in reference to DNA is probably quite different. We could all go into the old arguments of "no new information" and the whole bit, but I think it would stray away from the real question of it's importance to MN. Tell me if I'm wrong, but by observing Information (Big I, in reference to something that can be attributted to an Intelligence) in DNA you hope to prove the existence of a creator? Am I very far off here? So, you presuppose that there is a creator and look for the effects and then tell us we are being selective in our thinking. If you can provide proof or evidence of supernatural code/information that is testable and verifiable then maybe we could start to talk about other entities. All you can infer from the Informatin article is that another natural, physical being started the process of life on this planet. Oops, starting to wander already. Perhaps you could point to the argument behind information in DNA and how it refutes methodological naturalism in any way?
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.
This is starting to look like a "god of the gaps" explanation. There is the explained (natural), the unexplained (not natural), and the unexplainable (supernatural). Taking energy as the example, it was found to be natural and physical in nature. It is measurable and verifiable. At one time nothing was really known of energy, but now we do know quite a bit about it due to the use of MN. Funny how that works, isn't it. How would calling on a deity help us with understanding energy if we knew nothing about it? Could you read the Bible and then build a 60Hz transformer, for instance. Or perhaps Mr. Newton recieved devine messages from God when he came up with his theories on gravity and inertia. Please tell me, how has supernaturalism extended our knowledge of the physical world we live in, because I have not seen it.
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.
It's the information that we use to judge that is important. Relying on supernatural evidence has led to nothing but suffering and injustice. Take the Salem Witch Trials, for example. People were put to death because some girls pointed a finger at them and shouted WITCH. Compare that to today, where we use naturalistic explanations in court which include DNA and fibers for naturalistic crimes. Which would you rather be judged for and judged by? Which one leads us closer to the truth?
Also, do you believe that good and evil are absolute and do not change between cultures and societies, or even over time? Today we look at the Salem Witch Trials as a great injustice and "evil", but at the time it was deemed "good". Why should science be grounded in something so flimsy and fluid with no secure foundation?

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 38 by Syamsu, posted 11-18-2003 5:08 AM Loudmouth has replied

  
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6474 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 37 of 181 (67288)
11-18-2003 3:19 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by Syamsu
11-17-2003 2:29 PM


Re: The World According to Syamsu
And here is the circular argument of the week and yet another reason why invoking the supernatural is a waste of time
quote:
As before, there is no problem for the supernatural to interfere in everything if we consider the supernatural playing a part in making decisions. Since science says everything, right down to the continued existence of the universe is an uncertainty, this gives unlimited scope of power to any supernatural beings.
The first sentence says that one can assume a role for the supernatural if one assumes a role for the supernatural. That argument would make a nice spare tire for my car it is so nice and circular. This is identical to the ID movements proclamation that evidence for ID is self evident. The second sentence rests on claiming that anything that is either uncertain or that science has not proposed a hypothesis for must be supernatural...thus the supernatural will continue to shrink as MN is applied and theories for these phenomenon are developed.
Syamsu has unwittingly demonstrated why MN is important by showing that to invoke the supernatural in exlaining natural phenomenon is intellecually barren and gives the researcher no point from which to proceed i.e. no testable and falsifiable hypothesis.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Syamsu, posted 11-17-2003 2:29 PM Syamsu has not replied

  
Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5589 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 38 of 181 (67290)
11-18-2003 5:08 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by Loudmouth
11-17-2003 5:23 PM


Re: More of the Same
I remember now that Haeckel was also one of these evolutionists who harped on the "victory" of materialism / naturalism over theologiy etc. in science. He does it about 20 times in as many sentences, really a lot, in his book "Natural Creation History". Of course he also mixed talk about good and evil into his science, to an extreme extent.
I think many of the postings in response show abnormal conceptions of good and evil, conceptions that don't occur so much in society. I conclude from circumstance that the abnormality follows from how they apply mn / evolutionism.
edited to add: I think I should just ask who here ties his thoughts about good and evil fundamentally to methodological naturalism as being sort of mechanical, just like I said would happen?
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu
[This message has been edited by Syamsu, 11-18-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Loudmouth, posted 11-17-2003 5:23 PM Loudmouth has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by MrHambre, posted 11-18-2003 6:16 AM Syamsu has replied
 Message 48 by Loudmouth, posted 11-18-2003 12:08 PM Syamsu has replied

  
MrHambre
Member (Idle past 1392 days)
Posts: 1495
From: Framingham, MA, USA
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 39 of 181 (67292)
11-18-2003 6:16 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by Syamsu
11-18-2003 5:08 AM


Strawman and his Brother
Syamsu,
You're dragging out this discussion of 'judgmental language' to your traditionally futile and meaningless end. What Loudmouth was saying was that MN is meant to keep notions of morality, whether they derive from religious fanaticism or not, out of science. Regardless of our individual conceptions of good and evil, MN ensures that we can all conduct and benefit from research because it should be as philosophically neutral as possible.
No one here bases his morality on Methodological Naturalism. It's merely the only way that science can frame hypotheses concerning natural phenomena. Your predictable inability to point to any useful research founded on supernaturalism has sent you back to your ranting against the evil Darwinists and their judgmental language, but that is not the point here.
The point of this thread was to discuss the creationist misconception of MN, specifically the way they confuse MN with the philosophical positions of atheism and amorality. The only question left is whether your inability to deal with the reality and relevance of MN is a sign of ignorance or deceit.
------------------
The dark nursery of evolution is very dark indeed.
Brad McFall

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Syamsu, posted 11-18-2003 5:08 AM Syamsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by Syamsu, posted 11-18-2003 7:09 AM MrHambre has not replied

  
Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5589 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 40 of 181 (67294)
11-18-2003 7:09 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by MrHambre
11-18-2003 6:16 AM


Re: Strawman and his Brother
I've shown that the argument that the success of science is mainly founded on mn is bogus, for mn being common but success of science not being common.
I've shown that adopting mn leads to problems in accepting new things like information, or energy, for it being hardly possible to make a definition of natural which anticipates these, and other things.
I've shown that the motivation for adopting mn is to include talk about good and evil into science theories, for there being no place left for talk about good and evil other then in science theories when adopting mn.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by MrHambre, posted 11-18-2003 6:16 AM MrHambre has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by Mammuthus, posted 11-18-2003 8:42 AM Syamsu has replied

  
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6474 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 41 of 181 (67302)
11-18-2003 8:42 AM
Reply to: Message 40 by Syamsu
11-18-2003 7:09 AM


Re: Strawman and his Brother
quote:
I've shown that the argument that the success of science is mainly founded on mn is bogus,
Oh really? Where exactly was this?
quote:
for mn being common but success of science not being common.
The fact that you are using a computer, have access to antibiotics, that anything is known about genetics, that there are cars are a testament to the common success of science. That you cannot grasp even the simplest scientific concepts and in your current state will never make a single contribution to science is a testament to the futility of appealing to pink unicorns and other non-existent entities.
quote:
I've shown that adopting mn leads to problems in accepting new things like information, or energy, for it being hardly possible to make a definition of natural which anticipates these, and other things.
Except that MN is what has lead to our understanding of all of these concepts...unless you will now show how a fundamentalist belief in Allah has furthered our knowledge in quantum mechanics.
quote:
I've shown that the motivation for adopting mn is to include talk about good and evil into science theories, for there being no place left for talk about good and evil other then in science theories when adopting mn.
Get some mental help there Syamsu...you are the bozo trying to associate science with your deranged concepts of good and evil...and then you claim that it is scientist using MN trying to do so....there are treatments for split personalities...consult your local doctor.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Syamsu, posted 11-18-2003 7:09 AM Syamsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by MrHambre, posted 11-18-2003 8:50 AM Mammuthus has replied
 Message 44 by Syamsu, posted 11-18-2003 10:20 AM Mammuthus has replied

  
MrHambre
Member (Idle past 1392 days)
Posts: 1495
From: Framingham, MA, USA
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 42 of 181 (67305)
11-18-2003 8:50 AM
Reply to: Message 41 by Mammuthus
11-18-2003 8:42 AM


I Couldn't Resist
quote:
Get some mental help there Syamsu...consult your local doctor.
Would that be Dr. Haeckel?
------------------
The dark nursery of evolution is very dark indeed.
Brad McFall

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Mammuthus, posted 11-18-2003 8:42 AM Mammuthus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by Mammuthus, posted 11-18-2003 9:03 AM MrHambre has not replied

  
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6474 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 43 of 181 (67307)
11-18-2003 9:03 AM
Reply to: Message 42 by MrHambre
11-18-2003 8:50 AM


Re: I Couldn't Resist
I would not want to compare doctors since that might lead to Konrad Lorenz and nazism.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by MrHambre, posted 11-18-2003 8:50 AM MrHambre has not replied

  
Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5589 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 44 of 181 (67322)
11-18-2003 10:20 AM
Reply to: Message 41 by Mammuthus
11-18-2003 8:42 AM


Re: Strawman and his Brother
No it's Konrad Lorenz in his book the socalled evil, and Haeckel in his natural creation history, and Darwin in the Descent of Man who mix up science with judgementalism, I try to keep them apart.
Your hateful attitude towards me is based on your inability to deal with the ideal of neutrality in science. Once again you've shown that what a scientist, like you, asserts as fact, can actually be nothing more then rancorous hatefilled bigotry.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Mammuthus, posted 11-18-2003 8:42 AM Mammuthus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by Mammuthus, posted 11-18-2003 10:36 AM Syamsu has not replied
 Message 46 by AdminNosy, posted 11-18-2003 11:11 AM Syamsu has replied
 Message 49 by Loudmouth, posted 11-18-2003 12:17 PM Syamsu has not replied

  
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6474 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 45 of 181 (67326)
11-18-2003 10:36 AM
Reply to: Message 44 by Syamsu
11-18-2003 10:20 AM


Re: Strawman and his Brother
quote:
No it's Konrad Lorenz in his book the socalled evil, and Haeckel in his natural creation history, and Darwin in the Descent of Man who mix up science with judgementalism, I try to keep them apart.
Ok, then can you summarize each of their scientific discoveries? So far it seems you are nothing but confused regarding the scientists and the science they studied.
quote:
Your hateful attitude towards me is based on your inability to deal with the ideal of neutrality in science. Once again you've shown that what a scientist, like you, asserts as fact, can actually be nothing more then rancorous hatefilled bigotry.
I don't hate you. I pity you. You are so wrapped up in your zealotry that you cannot even think logically or absorb a single fact. I can certainly deal with the ideal of neutrality in science which methodological naturalism is a key component. It is you who fail to separate the personalities of scientists from the facts and theories they discover or develope.
It seems your little rant is another attempt to derail the thread and distract from the fact that you really have absolutely no comprehension of science or scientific methodology but wish to believe that you do and that you are some poor victim. Nobody is buying it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Syamsu, posted 11-18-2003 10:20 AM Syamsu 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