Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Methodological Naturalism
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 91 of 181 (78216)
01-13-2004 12:49 PM
Reply to: Message 90 by Mammuthus
01-13-2004 3:16 AM


For the price of a soundbite, I purchased something that could be misunderstood.
What I meant was that to begin in science, one has to be capable and get comfortable saying "I don't know". It is from that position that real curiosity emerges. I mean if you think you know something, all you do is seek proof that it is real. This is exactly what we see with Creationists, where the "knowledge" simply needs to be proven, and they believe that is what scientists are doing (witness Steve's equating electrons and God).
However, if you truly feel "I don't know X" that puts a fire under your tail to do what is NECESSARY to find out, and be sceptical of approaches that might lead to failure.
You are correct, that as models are built "I don't know" is a little strong. It becomes for those things "I don't know for sure." But I believe that the basic DISCIPLINE of science has at its roots the wide-eyed wonder of someone that admits they have no clue what's going on, but is determined to find out.
My last defense of this position is that MN comes from a sceptical philosophy, which made its greatest headway when Descartes set an example of starting with nothing. How do you get from nothing to knowledge? It's no wonder that Dembski and co hate Descartes and want to return to Greek and Dark Age concepts that one must first recognize the Truth, before seeking knowledge... why they want to overturn MN.
So I say, tell the kids to admit they don't know anything... clear their minds to start fresh... and then move toward knowledge. As they do I agree with what you said... I don't know for sure, etc etc
I hope this is more clear, and more acceptable?
[This message has been edited by holmes, 01-13-2004]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by Mammuthus, posted 01-13-2004 3:16 AM Mammuthus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by Mammuthus, posted 01-14-2004 3:36 AM Silent H has replied

  
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6476 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 92 of 181 (78333)
01-14-2004 3:36 AM
Reply to: Message 91 by Silent H
01-13-2004 12:49 PM


Hi holmes,
As usual, a very good post from you. A reason for my sad attempt to qualify your statement of "I don't know" is that among the science illiterate, there is a tendency to equate the tentativity of scientific hypotheses and theories with a fundamental lack of knowledge. Often enough on this site I see creationists claim their fanciful conjecturing based on myth or personal belief is equivalent to a scientific hypothesis based on empirical research gathered from multiple disciplines merely because said research has yet to account for every single possible variable. The transitional fossil debates are a case in point...a creationist will easily accept creation ex nihilo without a second thought or a shred of evidence from any scientific discipline. However, they will not accept that any fossil is represents an intermediate and are basically demanding that every breeding pair that ever existed since two species separated must be accounted for in the fossil record before they will "believe" in evolution. Imagine if the FDA required pharmaceutical companies to test every single individual on the planet, who ever lived, and everyone who ever will live before clearing a drug because of unpredictable and unknown side effects based on genetic and epigenetic variation in the population? There would be no drugs on the market (actually there would be no market period) using the lopsided burden of evidence that creationists claim for evolution alone. What they fail to see is that everything from physics to protein chemistry to engineering is based on the same tentativity of MN as evolution and that the theories that lead to developments that allow them to drive their car to work are as tentative as those of any other discipline and subject to revision. That is why I felt that "I don't know" was to strong...but as a starting point as you describe it, I think it would be an effective challenge for young minds and might fuel a desire to know that is complety absent among those who cling to religious dogma.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by Silent H, posted 01-13-2004 12:49 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by Silent H, posted 01-14-2004 10:35 AM Mammuthus has replied

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


Message 93 of 181 (78398)
01-14-2004 10:35 AM
Reply to: Message 92 by Mammuthus
01-14-2004 3:36 AM


Danke schon... sorry no umlauts. Have you heard that they found mammoth remains in Bush's home state of Texas? An initial conservative estimate has placed the find at 38K years old, but conservatives estimate that a proper revision of science will bring that number down quite a bit.

holmes

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by Mammuthus, posted 01-14-2004 3:36 AM Mammuthus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by Mammuthus, posted 01-14-2004 10:56 AM Silent H has not replied

  
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6476 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 94 of 181 (78407)
01-14-2004 10:56 AM
Reply to: Message 93 by Silent H
01-14-2004 10:35 AM


...not only that, these guys went on to claim that it is well preserved, and therefore likely contains DNA, and could be used to clone a mammoth....I figured the person they quoted must be a Patriot U alum since they believe and say anything.
Chances that it has trace amounts of endogenous DNA, low...chances of cloning a mammoth from any DNA found, zero.
However, if any DNA could be retrieved, I would also be very interested in what a columbian mammoth sequence looks like relative to M. primigenius....I tried in the past but all my colombi samples were crap...literally ..coprolites don't work very well except for sloths and goats. M. primigenius DNA is dime a dozen, as are mammoth bone finds, however, so I am surprised this story made it into the news.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by Silent H, posted 01-14-2004 10:35 AM Silent H has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by MrHambre, posted 01-14-2004 11:22 AM Mammuthus has replied

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


Message 95 of 181 (78415)
01-14-2004 11:22 AM
Reply to: Message 94 by Mammuthus
01-14-2004 10:56 AM


I can hear the admins now: there's too much mammoth shit, and nothing good ever comes out of it. As es la vida, hermano.
My recent complaint is that the creationists here don't seem to want to debate evidence. All we hear is that evidence is all subjective, our "God sense" tells us that creationism is true, or that evolution is a religion based on naturalistic dogma. When we try to explain that MN is the only way we can approach objectivity, we either hear that scientists are stacking the deck, that there's no objective reason to disqualify the supernatural, or that objectivity shouldn't be the aim of science in the first place.
Is this an implicit admission from the creationists that, indeed, the evidence supports evolution? I can't think of any other reason that the posters seem so dedicated to exhibiting their misunderstanding of the philosophy and methodology of science.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by Mammuthus, posted 01-14-2004 10:56 AM Mammuthus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by Mammuthus, posted 01-14-2004 11:44 AM MrHambre has not replied

  
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6476 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 96 of 181 (78418)
01-14-2004 11:44 AM
Reply to: Message 95 by MrHambre
01-14-2004 11:22 AM


quote:
there's too much mammoth shit, and nothing good ever comes out of it.
There is a little laundromat in Indonesia that specializes in removing mammoth feces stains from clothes. The proprieter does not actually clean the clothes at all since it might introduce judgmentalism with such concepts as "removing" or "stains". But I keep going there anyway since the owner has a wonderful collection of book covers and the ripped out first pages of the prefaces of dozens of popular science books that he has never read. For some reason the word "selfish" is underlined multiple times in bright red on one of the covers and "now I'll show mark24!" written next to it.
quote:
"God sense"
I think this is a comic book superhero power that grants those who have it the immunity to common sense, education, or any higher brain function.
quote:
Is this an implicit admission from the creationists that, indeed, the evidence supports evolution? I can't think of any other reason that the posters seem so dedicated to exhibiting their misunderstanding of the philosophy and methodology of science.
I think the implicit admission of creationists that the evidence does support evolution comes from the fact that with the exception of the unsuccessful attempt by Warren (to be fair he was trying this with ID), not a single one has attempted to come up with a testable and falsifiable hypothesis of creation. When constrained by the scientific method, they find that their mythology is not science. Thus, many attack scientific methodology in general in the ways that you mention.
The creationists don't want to debate evidence because they have none for their position and do not even vaguely comprehend the scientific evidence for evolution. Their only recourse is to make philosophical arguments based on personal incredulity, circular reasoning, or misconceptions and mischaracterizations of science and those who practice science.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by MrHambre, posted 01-14-2004 11:22 AM MrHambre has not replied

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


Message 97 of 181 (78854)
01-16-2004 10:49 AM
Reply to: Message 88 by MrHambre
01-12-2004 6:22 AM


Mr Hambre wrote:
"Speaking in scientific terms forces us to accept the tentative nature of scientific endeavor."
But of course evolutionists don't generally speak in scientific terms, and especially supporters of methodological naturalism are very bad at this.
You have it the wrong way round. Creationists tend to endorse objectivity of scientific inquiry as an ideal to keep judgements about the value of things outside of science, while evolutionists tend to pervert objectivity into the only right way of knowing about anything.
As an example the NABT (USA's National Association of Biology Teachers) statement on evolution some years ago read:
(former NABT definition of evolution) "The diversity of life on earth is the outcome of evolution: an unsupervised, impersonal, unpredictable and natural process of temporal descent with genetic modification that is affected by natural selection, chance, historical contingencies and changing environments."
Unsupervised, impersonal and even unpredictable, and natural are not really objective descriptions. What is really so impersonal about evolution? How did they measure the impersonality? Isn't evolution somewhat predictably patterned? (incidentally fundamental unpredictability would according to modern philosphy denote choice / intelligence operating) How was the naturalness of evolution measured anyway?
The statement was really just atheism in another disguise. Some theologians (evolutionists themselves) then objected to the statement saying it was subjective, and the statement was revised to exclude impersonal and unsupervised, for reasons of political expediency. That is the credentialled scientists of the NABT thought impersonal and unsupervised were objective descriptions, but thought better of using the words for not estranging the 40 percent or so of theistic evolutionist Americans, on top of the other 40 percent straightforward creationists who already think they're misguided. Some of the scientists are grumpy that they caved in to the demands of theologians, still thinking they can measure the impersonality of evolution.
The authors of the NABT statement are heavily into promoting methodological naturalism, which, as explained before in this thread, is what leads to incorporate subjective language into supposedly objective discourse. Other examples of this incorporation are Lorenz and his book "the socalled evil", or Dawkins and his book "selfish genes", or Haeckel and his monism, and the evolutionist community at large for talking about "goodness", and "success" etc.
Syamsu's Law: The measure of endorsement of methodological naturalism corresponds positively with the measure of subjective language in supposedly scientific discourse.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by MrHambre, posted 01-12-2004 6:22 AM MrHambre has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by NosyNed, posted 01-16-2004 11:15 AM Syamsu has replied
 Message 99 by mark24, posted 01-16-2004 11:20 AM Syamsu has not replied

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


Message 98 of 181 (78859)
01-16-2004 11:15 AM
Reply to: Message 97 by Syamsu
01-16-2004 10:49 AM


Welcome back
Glad you're back!
Perhaps you've had time to think about the outstanding things you were going to help with:
the definitions of complexity and specficity was one
the better alternative to methodological naturalism and how I would use one of those things you listed but didn't define was another.

Common sense isn't
[This message has been edited by NosyNed, 01-16-2004]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by Syamsu, posted 01-16-2004 10:49 AM Syamsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by Syamsu, posted 01-16-2004 9:54 PM NosyNed has replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5196 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 99 of 181 (78862)
01-16-2004 11:20 AM
Reply to: Message 97 by Syamsu
01-16-2004 10:49 AM


Syamsu,
Ned writes:
Glad you're back!
Perhaps you've had time to think about the outstanding things you were going to help with:
the definitions of complexity and specficity was one
And answering the question posed here is another.
Mark

"Physical Reality of Matchette’s EVOLUTIONARY zero-atom-unit in a transcendental c/e illusion" - Brad McFall

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by Syamsu, posted 01-16-2004 10:49 AM Syamsu has not replied

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


Message 100 of 181 (78966)
01-16-2004 9:54 PM
Reply to: Message 98 by NosyNed
01-16-2004 11:15 AM


Re: Welcome back
Thanks for your welcome, I'm glad I am back.
I never talked about complexity and specifity as far as I can remember.
I wouldn't give an alternative to MN, because it would essentially still be the same as MN. What matters is that MN is one way, focused on one thing, and an alternative would also be one way focused on one thing, and therefore lead to much the same errors as MN. I could say as an alternative there are many different ways, but I prefer to say that it's a complicated issue, because not saying what the scientific standards are leaves the least room for anyone misusing scientific standards IMO, and the most room for unknowns to be investigated. So you can then talk meaningfully about what falls within scientific standards and what falls outside them, but those standards would be essentially democratic, and not essentially the outcome of a logical formula.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by NosyNed, posted 01-16-2004 11:15 AM NosyNed has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by NosyNed, posted 01-17-2004 1:20 AM Syamsu has replied

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


Message 101 of 181 (78996)
01-17-2004 1:20 AM
Reply to: Message 100 by Syamsu
01-16-2004 9:54 PM


Re: Welcome back
You're right, you didn't talk about CSI - I misremembered.
not saying what the scientific standards are leaves the least room for anyone misusing scientific standards IMO, and the most room for unknowns to be investigated. So you can then talk meaningfully about what falls within scientific standards and what falls outside them, but those standards would be essentially democratic, and not essentially the outcome of a logical formula.
This is, to me, a bit confusing.
Let me see if I understand. You think there should be alternatives to MN. But you don't what to pick any.
And the reasons you don't want to pick any standards is that no one can misuse them if they don't know what they are?
But somehow you think you can talk "meaningfully" about what is inside and outside these unspecificed standards?
And lastly you think these standards, which we can't tell anyone, should be decided by somesort of vote rather than logic?
I guess that takes me back to the question I was asking. You want someone to use something other than MN now how do I use this to learn something that has a reasonable chance of being right? It seems to have gotten harder than ever since now I don't even know what the methodology is, much less how to apply it.
For some reason this sounds like gobbleDygook to me. ????

Common sense isn't

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by Syamsu, posted 01-16-2004 9:54 PM Syamsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by Syamsu, posted 01-17-2004 10:24 AM NosyNed has not replied

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


Message 102 of 181 (79026)
01-17-2004 10:24 AM
Reply to: Message 101 by NosyNed
01-17-2004 1:20 AM


Re: Welcome back
Right, you understand, but don't see that this will work, or maybe you just don't like it. What it comes down to is saying that personal judgement is a neccesary part of maintaining the ideal of objectivity in science. Acknowledging this personal judgement will not lead to more subjectivity, because it is in service towards the ideal of objectivity. Your alternative of positing a formula for doing science will lead to prejudice in the ways as explained before.
What about describing the skincolor of the USA prison population compared to the population as a whole? What "objective" conclusions can you reach with that, while still remaining within MN. What's going to drop out of the formula of MN I wonder? Conclusions which can then be blandly asserted as being objective just for passing the MN test.
Your position looks fairly obviously ultra-rationalist to me. It's rather obviously religious, having *one* way as the only *right* way, to understand basicly *everything*. Isn't your acceptance of MN just based on a combination of laziness and a fear to fail in personal judgement, rather then the result of evidence that this methodology was the only way that has worked in science?
And I didn't say I wanted to discard MN, or rather I would discard it in favour of the common standard to substiantiate what you say with evidence, as has been practiced throughout human history. I remember now the ridiculous fairytales of methodological naturalists that the Greeks once adopted MN for a while only to discard it later on, as if they were the only ones in history. I don't see how any society could function even minimally, without employing the standard to substantiate what you say with evidence to some extent. The practice is noted in several ancient religions and cultures I know of. However the practice to systemize knowledge with an ideal to leave judgements about the worth of things out of it, that's more uncommon in cultures I believe.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by NosyNed, posted 01-17-2004 1:20 AM NosyNed has not replied

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


Message 103 of 181 (79089)
01-17-2004 4:24 PM


Note to Ned and Mark
I guess the pages of the calendar can change, but some things stay the same. I wish you guys the best of luck in getting answers from the Pride of Nganjuk concerning his asinine ideas, but I think holmes offered him a challenge that is much more relevant here:
holmes writes:
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.
Any betting folks out there?

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

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by Syamsu, posted 01-18-2004 3:44 AM MrHambre has not replied

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


Message 104 of 181 (79197)
01-18-2004 3:44 AM
Reply to: Message 103 by MrHambre
01-17-2004 4:24 PM


Re: Note to Ned and Mark
But it's a strawman, I would still use evidence to substantiate my hypotheses, I just wouldn't limit myself to mn, like some ideologial zealot, and then begin talking about the soul of atoms like Haeckel did, as describing some form of future state of an atom. As explained before, the reinterpretation of spiritual things as natural phenomena follows directly from exclusivist claims of mn or materialism. That is why we can see so many evolutionist racists in history talking about a creative force being based in the blood of people, in stead of contigently placed in the minds of people as a matter of choice.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by MrHambre, posted 01-17-2004 4:24 PM MrHambre has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by Mammuthus, posted 01-19-2004 4:04 AM Syamsu has replied

  
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6476 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 105 of 181 (79364)
01-19-2004 4:04 AM
Reply to: Message 104 by Syamsu
01-18-2004 3:44 AM


Re: Note to Ned and Mark
Since you have made it clear that you are either to lazy or to intelectually dishonest to actually read books like the Selfish Gene or any basic text on genetics, general biology, psychology or evolution, I will add to what holmes said but make it easier for you...please give us a list of ANY scientific discovery or invention that has EVER been achieved invoking the supernatural and NOT via MN...
I'll make it easy for you..there are none
Second, you claim you would test your hypotheses but not exclude the supernatural
1. give us your testable hypothesis then (about the 100th time asked)
2. show how it is falsifiable
3. show what evidence supports it
4. show how it better explains the data then other hypotheses or theories.
answer for Sy the lazy fool...you cannot answer 1, 2 will also be impossible so therefore 3 will never be possible either i.e. you will never have evidence for your fairytale religious myths and 4. evolutionary theory will trump you lame laundry butt every time.
Evolutionary theory does not lead to racism Sy...being willifully ignorant fool like you is the clear pathway to Dachau of the early 1940's.
But since you are a person of zero principles i.e. claiming that everyone else is a nazi/racist/etc. while evading EVERY challenge to support your statements, I have made it easy for you in this post...I have answered the questions for you...so now run along and start the next wash...I am sure your customers are getting impatient.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by Syamsu, posted 01-18-2004 3:44 AM Syamsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 106 by MrHambre, posted 01-19-2004 7:11 AM Mammuthus has not replied
 Message 107 by Syamsu, posted 01-19-2004 7:47 AM Mammuthus 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