Methodological Naturalism

Yea, Crash, I think it is a little bit nit picky too. However, it is correct that mass is the technically correct term.(PS - even with c**2 in there a neutron isn't going to level anything. (quick guess not calculated) )

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.

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.

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 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?

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

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.

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 onethe 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]

You're right, you didn't talk about CSI - I misremembered. 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

Actually I would take artificial selection, as in breeding of livestock, as an example of a laboratory experiment in evolution.

---

Common sense isn't

Huh? and the logic is?

---

Common sense isn't

Ah, no. The greyhound breeders do not do the design to make a dog that runs fast. That is what an engineer does when he designs the components of a F1 car's suspension or engine. That is not what a dog breeder does.A dog breeder lets the different "designs" happen through the reproductive process. He then picks what he likes -- applies selection.The difference between articficial and natural selection is not in the "design" part. It is, as the names make clear, in the selection part. In the case of dog breeding the breeder supplies only the selective pressures. Since we can see selective pressures applied in nature by purely natural means there is no need for additional entities.

---

Common sense isn't