Methodological Naturalism

I don't see any hatefulness. I see scorn for a lack of reasoning ability and an apparent inability to even read. Amusement too. Hate is much to strong an emotion to be applicable here.

Go get some mental help there AdminNosy...you are the bozo trying to associate scorn with your deranged concepts of reasoning ability.... ...there are treatments for split personalities...consult your local doctor.I thought that having the same kinds of words aimed directly at you, may show more clearly the hatefulness. This is not scorn or any kind of genuine pity IMO, it's rancorous hatefulness from a guy who's been after me for a while now.My reasoning summarized a few posts before, is perfectly meritable IMO. I think it's more to the point that no criticism whatsoever of MN is tolerated at all. The criticism I have made of MN is the criticism that is most obvious.Of course when you require everybody to be chained to MN, then MN becomes like a religion, with the same kind of dynamics of religion, like extraordinarily skeptical attitudes towards unbelievers, or criticism of MN. I think that is what we can see in this thread now.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

Morals are not mechanical, just societal contrivances. IMO, there are no absolute morals, no absolute concept of good and evil. Take Islamic terrorism. What they do in the name of Allah is thought of as good by fundamentalist Islamists, but evil by almost everyone else. Pre-emptive war to stop further terrorism is thought to be evil by some, and good by others. The only mechanical views of good and evil are seen within religions where dieties are thought to instill absolute concepts of good and evil through inspired text. At this point, people leave their personal concepts of morals behind and mechanically follow the proscribed morality. Obediance is seen as pious while thinking for oneself has been looked upon as heresy.I would say that through methodologic naturalism morality is actually less mechanical than in a supernatural setting. Supernaturalism requires presupposition followed by blind obediance, quite the opposite of MN.

Judgementalism in science has a lot to do with how you judge the evidence. If you look through the lens of a presupposed diety as being a major factor in physical phenomenon, you are being much more judgemental than Lorenz or Darwin.Darwin looked at the evidence and made his judement from that. You presuppose an entity without evidence and exclude physical evidence because of it. Which is more judgemental?

quote:

---

Go get some mental help there AdminNosy...you are the bozo trying to associate scorn with your deranged concepts of reasoning ability.... ...there are treatments for split personalities...consult your local doctor.

---

I wonder if this would qualify as 'judgmental language'.

Syamsu,

quote:

---

My reasoning summarized a few posts before, is perfectly meritable IMO. I think it's more to the point that no criticism whatsoever of MN is tolerated at all. The criticism I have made of MN is the criticism that is most obvious.

---

As always, you consider any assertion you make true, not because it's true, but because you made it. Of course you think it's perfectly meritable. Methodological Naturalism should guide scientific inquiry because it's been the only tool that has produced results to date. If you can't point to the successes of any supernatural scientific methodology, we'll stick with MN.With typical creationist paranoia, you say that the problem is that no criticism of MN is allowed here. Why is it that when the subject is Darwinism or scientific methodology, the only reason we evolutionists defend it is because we're brainwashed by materialism? Could it possibly be that we haven't been presented with viable alternatives to MN?You've only criticized MN by ranting against the same philosophical bias that MN is intended to limit. The truth is that MN is the basis of science, whether the research is being conducted by believers or atheists. It says nothing about supernatural factors merely because such factors have never been useful in conducting empirical evidential inquiry.------------------
The dark nursery of evolution is very dark indeed.
Brad McFall

I think he intended it to be that way as an example not to actually try to be nasty. Just as in many other areas I will go with the evidence.

Syamsu, You are shitting me, right?YOU are the man that tells us that variation, differential reproductive success are falsely associated with natural selection. Then agree to an example where differential reproductive success due to variation is acted upon by NS.Split personality? A better descriptor of yourself, methinks? Do you have no shame?! I wouldn't be at all surprised to learn that you hear voices in your head, hence your apparent schizophrenia regarding your contradictory claims & admissions regarding natural selection, differential reproductive success, & variation. And as for "deranged concepts of reasoning ability", again this is a better descriptor of yourself, as regards your ability to agree to something & then in some wierd FUBAR way continue as if it never happened & at the same time disagreed.What utterly inappropriate, hypocritical charges to lay on someone other than yourself.The rest of the world could learn from Indonesia & the kind, understanding, & benevolent way it treats its mental patients. Or would that be unfair given your comments above?Mark------------------
"The primary purpose of a liberal education is to make one's mind a pleasant place in which to spend one's time" - Thomas Henry Huxley

quote:

---

I thought that having the same kinds of words aimed directly at you, may show more clearly the hatefulness. This is not scorn or any kind of genuine pity IMO, it's rancorous hatefulness from a guy who's been after me for a while now.

---

Sounds like your way of thinking has lead you to judgementalism Sy..time for you to repent..or be doomed to follow Lorenz like his ducks. The irony is you attacked NosyNed rather than me.

quote:

---

My reasoning summarized a few posts before, is perfectly meritable IMO.

---

Your reasoning is that you do not like Darwin, science in general, or the language of a field that you have never studied and clearly have not even the slightest grasp of. That you think it is perfectly meritable is a joke. That is like polling a school for the blind as to whether they think Cameron Diaz or Nina Hagen has a prettier face. You have not presented a compelling argument against MN. Merely that you don't understand it and that you wish to invoke the supernatural as responsible for all aspects of science without EVER showing how you would test for this, verifiy, falsify it, or even gather information. Mr. Hambre has asked you repeatedly to supply examples (EVEN JUST ONE) where pleading to superstition has actually aided in a scientific discovery and you have avoided this issue like a coward.

quote:

---

I think it's more to the point that no criticism whatsoever of MN is tolerated at all.

---

LOL! If this were true we would not be having this debate and there would be no EvC forum. You would merely be banned and your posts erased like almost all of the religious based web sites that argue these topics.

quote:

---

The criticism I have made of MN is the criticism that is most obvious.

---

That you do not like or even understand MN or anything about science? Yes, that is obvious.

I think you are much overconfident to think to be able to explain good and evil in a single paragraph. Anyway, I wasn't asking for an explanation of good and evil, I was just asking if you tie those thoughts fundamentally to MN. If good and evil falls within view of MN in a fundamental way, according to you.When you talk about "through methodological naturalism morality is...", obviously that tends to substantiate my argument, that the real motivation to bring all science into mn is to manipulate views of good and evil.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

Syamsu, Except that would be the "ye olde creationist misrepresentation", wouldn't it? Taken in context, Loudmouth disagrees with you. Are you that deluded, & such a compartmentalised thinker to think he didn't?I think it is up to you to show there is something fundamental about the universe that is good & evil, rather than subjective claims by humans of what they consider beastly & beautiful. But we both know you can't, & that therefore your whole argument regarding methodological naturalism & good & evil is nothing but the rambings of Syamsu who sees what he wants to see. Unsubstantiated rubbish, once again.Methodological naturalism allows for gods. They just need to exist in order to make them amenable for study. If they exist they can be tested, & if they don't they should be knowably shown not to exist. Failure to meet both criteria above renders gods to the same intellectual level as fairies & unicorns.Your problem, along with all anti-intellectual creationists is that you are sore that your god excludes itself from legitimate study by acting as though it doesn't exist. Vent your spleen on it, not a tried & tested method of getting closer to the truth.Maybe we should bend logic, suspend requirements of testability & falsification so we can "prove" your god? Fine by me, it's just that you "prove" all other gods at the same time, plus a limitless possibility of anything else I care to invent.Pleased with yourself? Are you going to substantiate your sad delusions?You see, the philosophy of science understands what a naturalistic fallacy is. Clearly you don't, & it leads you to laughably erroneous conclusions. See your ridiculous & pointless claims that evolutionary theory leads to morality. The point is, that when you claim an ought from an is, you have made a fallacious claim. Hence Hitler is wrong to kill Jews on the basis of "survival of the fittest", simply because he has learned a little about Darwin.Or do you actually think he's right?No? Perhaps the blame for such morality rests with those who make it, & not an accurate description of the natural world, then.Perhaps you would be so kind as to support your contention that "that the real motivation to bring all science into mn is to manipulate views of good and evil" with a peer reviewed paper that does exactly that, without committing a naturalistic fallacy?"*What was that noise?* ""Oh, nothing, just Syamsu making ridiculous assertions & failing to support them again, when will he realise that such claims have a value of zero?"Mark------------------
"The primary purpose of a liberal education is to make one's mind a pleasant place in which to spend one's time" - Thomas Henry Huxley

But you do it also, you tend to substantiate my argument. It's not up to me to provide evidence that good and evil are fundamental in the universe or offer any explanation about good or evil whatsoever, you have to abide by the rule to leave talk about good and evil out of science, and realisticly that is only possible if you recognize them.Again, it's easy to see where this is heading, you are just going to include good and evil into mn as mechanisms just like the rest of nature, as happened before with influential evolutionist pontificating on the importance of mn or materialism.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

SyamsuI do not understand what you mean by leaving good and evil out of science since science is neutral on the subject except perhaps when we try to understand the biological basis of violence and altruism and how the brain mediates these aspects of our lives.Surely you do not believe scientists are incapable of good or evil.They are but this is not because they are scientists but because they are human.All good and evil is the result of human beings making choices.That an act is evil is because it is not accepted by society as a whole even if you as an individual do believe the action to be evil.You seem to believe that the material world is unimportant.How so? The universe is immensely vast and a great deal of that vastness is off limits to human beings either through distance or through lethal factors present therein.Why would the material world dwarf us so if it had no value?Why would we ignore our ability to understand its inner workings?Why are you so threatened?------------------
"Physics is like sex. Sure, it may give some practical results, but that's not why we do it."[This message has been edited by sidelined, 11-19-2003][This message has been edited by sidelined, 11-20-2003]

Syamsu, I don't accept there is any objective thing as good & evil to include or omit from MN, rendering your argument moot. Nope, I'm going to ignore them entirely because such notions are entirely irrelevant to how MN works within the scientific method.Good & evil is a red herring.Mark------------------
"The primary purpose of a liberal education is to make one's mind a pleasant place in which to spend one's time" - Thomas Henry Huxley

MN sees good and evil as subjective because it can't measure it and there are no absolutes. This is what I was trying to say. So through MN we can discern what is subjective and not absolute. However, through invoking an infallible god you impose absolutes which makes morality mechanistic, i.e. it is written therefore I must do it this way.If you don't believe that morals are relative to the society, culture, or time then I could list several examples if you would like. The morality that people take away from theories constructed through MN are often a reflection of their own morals and society. It's not MN's fault that you find science preaching morals through theories, it's your own fear and prejudice that attaches morals to it. If you don't believe me, find one aspect of the theory of biological evolution that proscribes a list of morals. I sure haven't seen any lists.