Methodological Naturalism

MrHambre,What I want to know is, how someone supporting MN could say this, from another post on this thread: As you describe it, MN is sensible science, except you aren't too specific about the methods. But hypothetico-deductive science is clearly a subclass under MN, with very specific methods.But, what does supernatural mean? Classically, the Greeks I think supposed some archetypical part of the universe from which our electro-magnetic world was derived, like a shadow. Thus, super-natural over natural like super-intendent over attendent. Superbowl game over bowl game. (Placing the meaning of college football as just a training ground for pro football).Anyway, since shadows are natural, formed by the reality of the super-natural, of course they can be studied in MN.Let us not forget that supernatural explanations led to the formation of Switzerland, still leading the pack as the most successful society on record as far as peace, health, and prosperity goes. And to the US, although we were back-pedaling pretty fast when the Constitution was written, which shows in our history, now drawing to a close.Stephen

warren,Darwin contrasted natural with artificial. and I still like that distinction. Natural selection vs artificial selection. Evolution vs evolition.Stephen

nosyned,You note, So much for the Origin of species by means of natural selection.Stephen

Nosyned,Well, let's see. A guy introduces a theory, tying it to natural selection, which basically says that, if a Creator had anything to do with creation, it was once upon a time, and involves no hands on contact and choices or design. It was all "natural." Not artificial, which the author of the theory makes clear he knows all about, but chooses not to involve in his theory. This theory becomes known eventually as evolution, "out of the life cycle." God, if He exists, is not necessary to explain why things appear designed. The theory of "intelligent design" as in, "a greyhound has been intelligently designed to run fast" by the dog breeders who artificially select dogs is widely criticized as a poor alternative to "evolution."But, you want to lump these two together, just like that. So much for Darwin's priority. And where does that put you re intelligent design?To my mind, it makes a huge difference. I don't have to even thank anyone for a species that has come about through natural selection, but I have to pay good money to buy a dog produced through artificial selection.Also, there is the evidence for descent, which it turns out says nothing about the distinction between intelligent design type creation and evolution. About natural or artificial selection. To do strong inference, I have to look for different data. Hence, the terms evolution and evolition, to retain this distinction. Darwin, I think, would be pleased.Otherwise, wouldn't we have to include Divinely directed artificial selection as an alternative in all text-books on the origin of species?

Nosyned,Is a sculpted statue designed or selected? To my mind, the main issue in design is a vision of the completed product in the mind of the person making willful choices to achieve that vision. But the sculptor only chooses what to eliminate from the piece of granite.But, give us time. Genetically engineered greyhounds must be right around the corner.Stephen

nosyned,OK, let's get down! There is, or was when the science was more respectable, a vision of an adaptive landscape, a topographic map of fitness or adaptive advantage. It was supposed that natural selection could always move you uphill, and you could get anywhere as long as you always took a step uphill, into a state of higher relative fitness.But, in real travel, it is expedient to sometimes move downhill before going uphill. There are mountain peaks that cannot be reached, or better, most paths to the peak go across, at least, a slope with a downside. Since natural selection cannot be expected to know any rare, existing path that only goes uphill, we suppose that certain peaks, certain phenotypes are almost certain to be unreachable. Natural selection naturally tends to go up the steepest climb available to it. As mutations are available, of course.Enter artificial selection. It knows where the peak is, and where the existing creature is, and therefore what the shortest line between the two is. It can artificially select intermediate phenotypes that get closer to the adaptive peak, but which are short-term disadvantageous in nature, are downhill. Naturally disadvantageous but artificially advantageous. (Thank God this is not sneer reviewed! "Free, Free, Thank God, we are free at last!")(Hey, check the date!)Where was I? Oh, yeah---The point is that you can certainly get places faster with artificial selection, and there are some places where paths that only go uphill are so rare that you would never get there. Hence, artificial selection takes you places you won't get naturally.Note that the evolutionists (who, I must point out sooner or later, are leagues ahead of creationists) when they thought about this, adopted an "evolutionary stable strategy" ESS, believing that most ecotypes were stranded on an adaptive peak. From such peaks, there was no way to change, because all directions of change were less adaptive, even if in the long run they took you to a higher peak. Unless you introduced, ta da, artificial selection. That could make you change in a way that was temporarily maladapted, in order to get you to another higher peak. (There are more greyhounds than wolves. Well, chihuahuas anyway.)But, from what Jehovah says in the Bible, independently discovered I think by Darwin, with one or the other, artificial or natural selection, the normal process of change is babysteps, descendence, from where you are to where you are going. But, with artificial selection, you often survive at some not so great intermediate step, and sometimes are simply "carried" by the Lord. (The wildly popular poem, Footsteps.) So it is we get to where we need to be to be really happy.Aren't you glad you asked?Need another glass of wine. More later.Stephen

Nosyned,I'll respond later to the details of your post, but thought you'd like to see this site:Ten major U.S. disasters on dates significant to treatment of Israel-Truth! - Truth or Fiction?reflecting artificial selection by Jehovah in action.Stephen

Sorry, haven't been around long enough to know what Means. And, while you're at it, how about LOL, and ... there's another common one....Thanks,Stephen

LOL,Are you a scoffer?Stephen

Nosyned,Choosing to be a skeptic puts you in some questionable company historically. Lots of lives lost to skepticism, and being lost. Love believes all things, or so I've heard.Stephen

Loudmouth,You say, Elaborate, please. Both Columbus and Einstein are famous for believing things that others thought impossible. A skeptical mind "just says no." Only with the double negative, "I am skeptical of the idea that what we know is right." does it makes sense.

Holmes,You say, There you go again, confusing yourself with me! I already told you that I believe MN, and use H-D, a subset of MN, to investigate dark matter living beings. Or maybe you were talking about something else.Stephen

Nosyned,You ask, Actually, that's what I try to do. I try to limit my doubts to my doubts. Yes, we are all skeptics. I call it original sin. The H-D method tries to find the truth in every statement, expand on it, and let the mistaken parts just fall by the wayside.Stephen

Holmes,You ask, The man who mentored me, and my grandmother, weren't lost. Francis of Assisi, Mother Teresa, .... Yeshua was the first fruits of those who escape death. Of course, their souls moved out of their bodies.But, I take it the doctors who knew about Semmelweis' hand-washing study, and wrote it off as a Jew trying to promote his religious agenda, who went on going from autopsies to deliveries with child-birth fever on their hands, these guys don't make you angry?Stephen

Holmes,You say, Hey, what about cargo cults? You were going to fill me in.As to MN, I thought it dis-allowed study of stuff that couldn't be directly detected, but had to be understood through its affect on stuff we could see. You straightened my out on that, and I changed my mind.Stephen