Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,808 Year: 3,065/9,624 Month: 910/1,588 Week: 93/223 Day: 4/17 Hour: 1/1


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 61 of 181 (67901)
11-20-2003 4:30 AM
Reply to: Message 58 by sidelined
11-19-2003 8:49 AM


Re: More of the Same
We strive for neutrality in science as an ideal, meaning to leave talk about good and evil out of science theories. I don't think that's quite the same as saying science is neutral on the existence of good and evil. It's supposed to be unmentioned in science theories, but it seems to me you do have to actually recognize it to keep it out of the theories. Good and evil are then recognized a priori to doing science, so they're still not part of science theories IMO, eventhough they are recognized in doing science.
For as far as being threatened, I find it already quite intimidating that you give some definition of good and evil in a matter of fact way, which supposedly I have to accept, or else. And then you actually seem to allow talk about good and evil as it relates to violence and altruism in people in science. It seems you are including talk about good and evil into MN.
Obviously there is much more to good and evil then in your one paragraph description, and the talk about these things is a lot closer to the truth of "what's it all about" then science IMO.
There are temptations specific to science, I don't agree that science is of it self neutral.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by sidelined, posted 11-19-2003 8:49 AM sidelined has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by mark24, posted 11-20-2003 4:37 AM Syamsu has not replied
 Message 63 by sidelined, posted 11-20-2003 5:28 AM Syamsu has replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 62 of 181 (67903)
11-20-2003 4:37 AM
Reply to: Message 61 by Syamsu
11-20-2003 4:30 AM


Re: More of the Same
Syamsu,
We strive for neutrality in science as an ideal, meaning to leave talk about good and evil out of science theories.
We don't strive to keep good & evil out of science, we just don't talk about these subjectives in science. I don't know why you think there is some sort of mental struggle or dilemma going on in scientists minds.
I repeat: "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?"
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by Syamsu, posted 11-20-2003 4:30 AM Syamsu has not replied

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


Message 63 of 181 (67911)
11-20-2003 5:28 AM
Reply to: Message 61 by Syamsu
11-20-2003 4:30 AM


Re: More of the Same
Syamsu
I posted this
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.
To which you replied
Obviously there is much more to good and evil then in your one paragraph description, and the talk about these things is a lot closer to the truth of "what's it all about" then science IMO.
Explain to me how good and evil are anything but the choices of human beings.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by Syamsu, posted 11-20-2003 4:30 AM Syamsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by Syamsu, posted 11-21-2003 2:04 AM sidelined has replied

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


Message 64 of 181 (68242)
11-21-2003 2:04 AM
Reply to: Message 63 by sidelined
11-20-2003 5:28 AM


Re: More of the Same
What we should avoid is for people to give definitions of good and evil as if it is science, and your insistent talk about it seems more like a science theory to me, so no, I won't debate good and evil this way.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by sidelined, posted 11-20-2003 5:28 AM sidelined has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by mark24, posted 11-21-2003 5:32 AM Syamsu has not replied
 Message 66 by sidelined, posted 11-21-2003 7:16 AM Syamsu has not replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 65 of 181 (68253)
11-21-2003 5:32 AM
Reply to: Message 64 by Syamsu
11-21-2003 2:04 AM


Re: More of the Same
We agree at last.
It logically follows that good & evil are outside the scope of science, & MN, right?
Mark

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by Syamsu, posted 11-21-2003 2:04 AM Syamsu has not replied

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


Message 66 of 181 (68263)
11-21-2003 7:16 AM
Reply to: Message 64 by Syamsu
11-21-2003 2:04 AM


Re: More of the Same
Syamsu
I posted this.
Explain to me how good and evil are anything but the choices of human beings.
Now you state
your insistent talk about it seems more like a science theory to me
Can you please defend your statement?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by Syamsu, posted 11-21-2003 2:04 AM Syamsu has not replied

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


Message 67 of 181 (68276)
11-21-2003 9:58 AM


Let There Be Light
The process of empirical evidential inquiry, in the context of MN, is the time-tested method of expanding our knowledge about the natural world. Historically, understanding natural phenomena through supernatural mechanisms led to the dead end of dogmatism and has long since given way to the more effective methodology of MN.
Creationists don't have the same outlook when it comes to scientific understanding. Since the creationist model depends on religious belief and Biblical authority, its foundation is by definition ascientific. The notion of 'theory' in Creationism (when not used pejoratively in an attempt to dismiss a valid scientific framework as 'just a wild guess') is simply a collection of factoids painstakingly removed from their larger scientific context, presented as support for a vague set of assumptions whose only common factor is a supernatural entity of some kind.
This type of 'theory' is comparable to a bucket full of data. The creationists claim that the contents of their bucket are all that's necessary to support the validity of their assumptions. Thus, we're presented a factoid like 'polonium haloes' that is supposed to invalidate the rest of what we know about physics and radioactive isotopes. Also, they may pull a factoid like 'gaps in the fossil record' or 'seashells in the mountains' out of the bucket, to refute everything else we know about paleontology, geology, etc. The problem with their view of evidential inquiry is that they merely ignore everything that they did not deign to put in their bucket. Their theory in its entirety is aimed toward supporting the existence of supernatural factors, regardless of whether such factors can even be detected through naturalistic inquiry. The failure of creationism as science is made even more obvious by the movement's emphasis on being included in the educational system as an alternate theory despite its glaring lack of success in the lab or field.
The more useful concept of a 'theory' (I'm indebted to Robert Pennock for this metaphor) is comparable to a flashlight that illuminates what we see in the world. Our framework for understanding natural phenomena is something that makes sense of the patterns and complexity inherent in our universe. The more our theory allows us to understand, the better we can say it is. If there are areas that the theory can't currently illuminate, it may need to be strengthened or adjusted.
Creationists should at least admit that everything we understand concerning natural phenomena, we owe to empirical evidential inquiry. In addition, they should admit that even a comprehensive scientific framework has been modified when the evidence demanded it. The geocentric solar system gained validation through being able to predict both solar and lunar motion. The flashlight of geocentrism, then, did illuminate certain phenomena. Its inability to predict planetary motion, however, was a problematic blind spot. Only the flashlight of the heliocentric model was sufficiently bright to illuminate solar, lunar, and planetary movement.
Evolution is a comprehensive theoretical framework with explanatory power, based on testable mechanisms and supported by evidence from various scientific fields of study. Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection has served as the basis for successful scientific research and ongoing programs of inquiry. The continuing reliance on empirical evidential inquiry and methodological naturalism is not a philosophical presupposition but the realistic reliance on methods that have proven successful in expanding our understanding of natural phenomena.
------------------
The dark nursery of evolution is very dark indeed.
Brad McFall

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by Syamsu, posted 11-29-2003 5:33 AM MrHambre has replied

  
JIM
Inactive Member


Message 68 of 181 (68430)
11-21-2003 6:26 PM


First, let's consider a very trivial case. Let us suppose that the universe is, in fact, a supernaturalistic one. In fact, it contains a God that is directly concerned with human affairs, and is helpful and loving to the point that it will answer clearly, fully, and honestly, and question submitted to it in earnest prayer. In this universe, methodological naturalism would not be able to compete in the slightest degree with methodological supernaturalism. The best way to acquire new data and formulate correct explanations for them would be to use the method of praying earnestly to God, and accepting the explanations he offers as the real picture of the universe. So obviously, it is not true that there is no conceivable way for the aims of science to be fulfilled except through methodological naturalism, because a supernaturalistic universe may be more amenable to methodological supernaturalism.
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.
Finally, I want to note the existence of a class of supernaturalistic methodologies that overlap almost perfectly with methodological naturalism. These, I will classify under the name of "methodological deism" - the practice of employing the kind of methodology a deist would use to fulfill the goals of science. Deists are people who believe that there is a God who set everything in motion in accordance with natural law and no longer interferes. So such methodologies would entail the seeking of naturalistic explanations when dealing with anything except the origin of the universe, and the seeking of supernaturalistic explanations when dealing with the origin of the universe. So for a person working in any field except for cosmology, methodological deism and methodological naturalism will be identical, because both rely upon empirical investigations and an initial search for naturalistic explanations in just about every subject investigated. Hence, the two methodologies have exactly the same virtues in most areas, and in the realm of cosmology methodological deism will have the same potential virtues that the previous class of supernaturalistic methodologies we examined have. I note the existence of methodological deism to underscore exactly how divorced methodological naturalism is from dogmatic commitment to metaphysical naturalism - methodological naturalism is almost exactly the same type of methodology a certain class of through-and-through supernaturalists would use to investigate and explain the universe.
------------------
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

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by MrHambre, posted 11-23-2003 1:36 PM JIM has not replied
 Message 70 by Mammuthus, posted 11-24-2003 2:57 AM JIM has not replied

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


Message 69 of 181 (68748)
11-23-2003 1:36 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by JIM
11-21-2003 6:26 PM


Deja Vu All Over Again
Jim,
My assumption, when I read your post #2, was that you were conducting an elaborate parlor game intended to make a point about the impracticality of Methodological Supernaturalism. Asserting that the supernaturalist could only succeed if he collected his data empirically seemed to miss the point of supernaturalism anyway, but I gave you the benefit of the doubt.
My assumption, when I read essentially the same argument in your post #68, is that you're taking the piss.
------------------
The dark nursery of evolution is very dark indeed.
Brad McFall

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by JIM, posted 11-21-2003 6:26 PM JIM has not replied

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


Message 70 of 181 (68906)
11-24-2003 2:57 AM
Reply to: Message 68 by JIM
11-21-2003 6:26 PM


quote:
Deists are people who believe that there is a God who set everything in motion in accordance with natural law and no longer interferes. So such methodologies would entail the seeking of naturalistic explanations when dealing with anything except the origin of the universe, and the seeking of supernaturalistic explanations when dealing with the origin of the universe.
However, this is not an overlap of MD and MN. Those invoking the supernatural work under the framework of MN until confronted with an issue that is in conflict with their beliefs and then cease to do science. It is like Micheal Behe. His biochemical studies are conducted via MN...his ramblings on intelligent design are nothing more than ramblings with no testable or falsifiable hypothesis. It is like saying, I will be a scientist on Tuesdays and a raving lunatic the rest of the week.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by JIM, posted 11-21-2003 6:26 PM JIM has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by MrHambre, posted 11-24-2003 5:47 AM Mammuthus has replied

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


Message 71 of 181 (68914)
11-24-2003 5:47 AM
Reply to: Message 70 by Mammuthus
11-24-2003 2:57 AM


Days Off from that Science Stuff
JIM seems to be good as gold except on Thursdays and Fridays. Hey, you gotta do laundry some time.
------------------
The dark nursery of evolution is very dark indeed.
Brad McFall

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by Mammuthus, posted 11-24-2003 2:57 AM Mammuthus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by Mammuthus, posted 11-24-2003 6:30 AM MrHambre has not replied

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


Message 72 of 181 (68915)
11-24-2003 6:30 AM
Reply to: Message 71 by MrHambre
11-24-2003 5:47 AM


Re: Days Off from that Science Stuff
quote:
JIM seems to be good as gold except on Thursdays and Fridays
and he has to practice alchemy on Wednesdays to prepare for his gold status.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by MrHambre, posted 11-24-2003 5:47 AM MrHambre has not replied

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


Message 73 of 181 (69850)
11-29-2003 5:33 AM
Reply to: Message 67 by MrHambre
11-21-2003 9:58 AM


Re: Let There Be Light
You are of course proposing a dogma, the dogma of methodological naturalism, which dogma leads to problems, as shown in this thread, in thinking about something like information as a fundamental property in the universe.
If creationists are correct to view information as a fundamental property in the universe then they are more advanced then evolutionists on this point, and it seems a rather important point.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by MrHambre, posted 11-21-2003 9:58 AM MrHambre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by MrHambre, posted 11-29-2003 1:26 PM Syamsu has replied

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


Message 74 of 181 (69877)
11-29-2003 1:26 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by Syamsu
11-29-2003 5:33 AM


My Dogma is Better than Your Dogma
Syamsu,
Anyone with a lick of sense or an ounce of shame would hesitate to continue this line of argument, since you still have not proven that there's anything supernatural about information or that there's any rational alternative to MN. It's clear you have neither.
If information is so fundamental a force in the universe, how have you managed to avoid it so far?
------------------
The dark nursery of evolution is very dark indeed.
Brad McFall

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by Syamsu, posted 11-29-2003 5:33 AM Syamsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by Syamsu, posted 11-29-2003 9:14 PM MrHambre has not replied

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


Message 75 of 181 (69957)
11-29-2003 9:14 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by MrHambre
11-29-2003 1:26 PM


Re: My Dogma is Better than Your Dogma
I don't need to prove those things, I don't need to directly address your argument much as I wouldn't have to directly adress the arguments of a dialectical materialist, which is similar to methodological naturalist. I guess that all proposals to use "one way" to understand much of everything suffer from the problems I set out before, an inability to deal with new concepts, and a tendency to include talk about good and evil in the "one way". I would be surprised if there was anyone on this forum who really doesn't share these doubts about supporting methodological naturalism.
regards,
Mohamad Nor Syamsu

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by MrHambre, posted 11-29-2003 1:26 PM MrHambre has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by NosyNed, posted 11-29-2003 9:27 PM Syamsu has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024