Methodological Naturalism

Well, at least, LOL, you admit you aren't addressing them. If you want to ignore arguments and hope they are going away then I guess ignoring you is the right thing to do too.

What, you feel compelled to engage the boring diatribe of a dialectical materialist or a methodological naturalist? I feel people like that need some ignoring, it's good for them, I don't need that of course And still I would like to know if you don't also seriously share those doubts I talked about in supporting methodological naturalism.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

Do change my mind on using methodological naturalism as a way of learning about the world around me I'd have to be given an alternative approach. I have yet to see on articulated that seems to work as well.Can you suggest one and describe how I might apply it?

I'm not asking you to give it up, I'm just asking if you share those doubts about mn.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

I simply can't think of any alternative. I may doubt that we are smart enough to ever know "everything", I may doubt that some particular answer is right at this time, but I don't know how else to go about it.Can you give me some idea of that, then maybe I could wonder if it just might be better than NM?

In another thread Syamsu posted: I'm afraid I don't know what any of those 'isms' are. Nor do I have a clue how to use them to learn about how things work. If you have any idea at all on how I would do that, perhaps you could lay it out here?

Bumpity, bump bumpI did figure that someone who knows all about this would be able to answer.

It seems, Syamsu, that you aren't going to answer this question. Is that right?In fact, it wouldn't be the first time would it?

quote:

---

In fact, it wouldn't be the first time would it?

---

When I was a new member someone warned me not to bother arguing with Syamsu because he does this kind of thing. It ends up just not being worth the time.Being a person who believes anyone can change, I gave him a shot. I learned my lesson. And it looks like he still hasn't changed.------------------
holmes

I'm pretty close to putting him on my ignore list too. But as you say, you have to give someone a few chances.

Just give me a heads up if you're ever going to put me on your ignore list. You seem so reasonable, that would shake me up a bit.------------------
holmes[This message has been edited by holmes, 12-05-2003]

Thank you for that, Holmes. No, there isn't anyway I can see ever ignoring you. On some occasions I may disagree but your posts are much to interesting to miss.

Recent posts in various threads have made it clear that creationists can't accept the objectivity that scientific methodology is supposed to promote.Science isn't here to confirm our feel-good notions about the universe. Creationists want science to tell us our lives have meaning and purpose, but science has never successfully addressed philosophical concerns. Racial supremacists want science to support their prejudices, but the vast majority of the evidence refutes their claims. Liberals want science to paint a happy picture of human nature and potential, despite copious evidence that the nature/nurture debate is much more complex and problematic than they assume.Speaking in scientific terms forces us to accept the tentative nature of scientific endeavor. It forces us to deal with evidence in an empirical, inferential context. Creationists assert that their opposition to evolution is philosophical, but that doesn't excuse their ignorance of both the scientific basis of evolution and the foundations of the scientific model itself. If they can't follow the evidence where it leads, then they shouldn't be discussing science.

---

The dark nursery of evolution is very dark indeed.
Brad McFall

In short, science forces us to deal with the fact that we may not know everything.Faith, and faith-based science is the placebo that makes us feel like we really do.Perhaps we should have whole classes for children, where they can get comfortable saying the three most important words a human can utter: I don't know.

---

holmes

I actually don't think those three words are the most important for conveying science. It is not that we do not know anything or that our certitude is so constrained that we cannot progress. It is more that I don't know for sure rather than I don't know. But if reproducible evidence supports a specific hypothesis to the point it becomes an established theory, then I can operate with a high degree of certitude though I could never claim I know absolutely that the theory is correct or that all aspects are correct. It takes a huge effort to learn a scientific discipline and gauge the level of certitude of the main theories and the various hypotheses that fall under its umbrella. It also requires skepticism i.e. to avoid taking what authority figures say for granted and a willingness to discard an established fact when more compelling data call it into question....even if not everyone does at the same time leading to rather heated professional conflict.These are qualities completely lacking among creationists. They swallow hook line and sinker any statement that they feel supports their dogma from extremely dubious sources (Hovind anyone?). They make no effort to learn about the scientific disciplines they rail against and as you and Hambre point out, armed with this blunt set of weapons, they go forth into the land of absolutism and unquestioning certitude, immune to mountains of facts before their eyes that directly contradict their dogma.teach the kids :"I don't know for sure..but I am not going to accept what you say at face value either"