Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Methodological Naturalism
Stephen ben Yeshua
Inactive Member


Message 151 of 181 (79854)
01-21-2004 3:48 PM
Reply to: Message 150 by Silent H
01-21-2004 2:28 PM


Holmes,
Ah, persistence pays. We agree on the whole thing. I still think H-D is the "best" (i.e. gets the most truth the fastest) sub-class of MN, but agree that the conservative efforts to make an idea practically worthy are invaluable. I am glad we have microscopes to detect bacteria!
Stephen

This message is a reply to:
 Message 150 by Silent H, posted 01-21-2004 2:28 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 152 by Silent H, posted 01-21-2004 4:11 PM Stephen ben Yeshua has not replied

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


Message 152 of 181 (79857)
01-21-2004 4:11 PM
Reply to: Message 151 by Stephen ben Yeshua
01-21-2004 3:48 PM


But then you have to address everyone's criticims, including my own, of the studies you have mentioned.
The prayer studies are particularly weak, and I have already outlined (in another thread) how they would have to be tightened if they were going to gain any real scientific credibility.
And your dismissal of my results on tithing, as well as many failed prayer attempts by many millions of people, have to be explained better than "must not have been doing it right." This is were an ad hoc element enters your discussions of experiments.
I should have added that while you believe H-D is fastest at getting to the truth, one should remember the addage that haste makes waste. Of course it will get to the truth because it is a shotgun approach. It ends up hitting almost anything in front of it. The problem is then having to sort through the remnants to get to the actual truth out of the many possible truths that were bagged, when more carefully aimed shots using more precise "weapons" would have actually reduced the search time over all.
And in light of cargo cults and your own analogy to animals-humans, you have yet to admit your were wrong about occam's razor.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)< !--UE-->
[This message has been edited by holmes, 01-21-2004]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 01-21-2004 3:48 PM Stephen ben Yeshua has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 153 by Loudmouth, posted 01-21-2004 4:48 PM Silent H has replied

  
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 153 of 181 (79860)
01-21-2004 4:48 PM
Reply to: Message 152 by Silent H
01-21-2004 4:11 PM


quote:
I should have added that while you believe H-D is fastest at getting to the truth, one should remember the addage that haste makes waste. Of course it will get to the truth because it is a shotgun approach. It ends up hitting almost anything in front of it. The problem is then having to sort through the remnants to get to the actual truth out of the many possible truths that were bagged, when more carefully aimed shots using more precise "weapons" would have actually reduced the search time over all.
"Shotgun approach" reminds me of a statistical joke:
Three men were bird hunting, a biologist, a physicist, and a statistician. All of a sudden a pheasant bursts out of the underbrush. The biologist shoots and misses high, the physicist fires and misses low, and the statistician cries "We got him." Means and statistics are only accurate when the mechanisms of action are better ellucidated. Correlation alone does not always suffice. H-D is a great option when opening up a new area of research, but eventually H-D must actually point to a natural mechanism which then can be falsified or supported through MN.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 152 by Silent H, posted 01-21-2004 4:11 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 154 by Silent H, posted 01-21-2004 5:16 PM Loudmouth has not replied

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


Message 154 of 181 (79866)
01-21-2004 5:16 PM
Reply to: Message 153 by Loudmouth
01-21-2004 4:48 PM


quote:
Means and statistics are only accurate when the mechanisms of action are better ellucidated. Correlation alone does not always suffice. H-D is a great option when opening up a new area of research, but eventually H-D must actually point to a natural mechanism which then can be falsified or supported through MN.
Woohoo! I couldn't have said it better, though I have been trying to for the last couple of days.
I hope Steve reads your post and is convinced. I will certain be lifting it for my own use in future replies.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by Loudmouth, posted 01-21-2004 4:48 PM Loudmouth has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 161 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 01-22-2004 12:25 PM Silent H has replied

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


Message 155 of 181 (79887)
01-21-2004 6:46 PM
Reply to: Message 145 by Warren
01-21-2004 12:19 PM


Re: Natural / Supernatural
Warren,
Well, this doesn't apply to ID. The hypothesis that the first cells were products of advanced bioengineering doesn't require the postulation of any extra-natural mechanisms and is amenable to the scientific method.
Yes it does, & you know it. Who designed the designer? Take it back as far as you like like & you are left with three options:
1/ Life/designers eternally existed.
2/ Life/designers were ultimately designed by an eternal creator that using exactly the same assumptions we must also infer was designed. Thus relegating 1/ to the logical dustbin.
3/ Life arose without a designer.
ID is scientifically meaningless.
Mark

This message is a reply to:
 Message 145 by Warren, posted 01-21-2004 12:19 PM Warren has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 156 by Warren, posted 01-22-2004 12:00 AM mark24 has replied

  
Warren
Inactive Member


Message 156 of 181 (79954)
01-22-2004 12:00 AM
Reply to: Message 155 by mark24
01-21-2004 6:46 PM


Re: Natural / Supernatural
Warren<< The hypothesis that the first cells were products of advanced bioengineering doesn't require the postulation of any extra-natural mechanisms and is amenable to the scientific method.>>
Mark << Yes it does, & you know it. Who designed the designer? >>
Warren<< Why do I need to know this in order to hypothesize that the first life forms on earth were bioengineered?>>
Mark: "Take it back as far as you like..."
Warren<< Why do I have to take it back at all?
Do you accept the Big Bang? Do you accept Darwinian evolution?
As far as the Big Bang, where did the singularity - from which everything ultimately sprang forth - come from? Did cosmologists have to know the answer to this before proposing the Big Bang? No - and they still don't know the answer.
As far as Darwinian evolution, it contains the concept of common descent - that all life evolved from a common ancestral cell (now, possibly a community of cells). Did Darwin have to explain where that first cell came from in order to put forth his theory? No. Do we yet know "where" the first cell came from? No.
Thus, one can put forth a scientific theory without having to be able to follow it back through time to the absolute ultimate beginning - one does not need to first explain how the first thing (be it a singularity or a cell) came from.
So this kind of objection to ID is not really "valid" in the first place, as it is not applied to other areas of science. But just for the fun of it, here are some possiblities for solving the infinite regress problem.
(a) Less Complex: Perhaps the original extraterrestrial life form was simpler than the simplest Earth-bound bacterium. Maybe it did (does) not use a chiral organic molecule to store its genetic information (which would solve for them the homochirality and enantiomeric cross inhibition problems we find on Earth). Also, perhaps when it first arose (and before it became intelligent), that alien life did not possess any molecular machines.
(b) More Favorable Conditions. Perhaps the atmosphere on that "Planet X" really was highly-reduced, as Miller and others modeled (incorrectly) for Earth. The original idea of a prebiotic soup is tied closely to the assumption of a highly-reduced atmosphere (with methane & ammonia being the most important components). When the same experiments are performed with the current proposed prebiotic atmosphere, biologically-relevant organics comprise even less of the products - by a very large degree - than in the Miller/Urey experiments.
(c) More time could have been available on the other planet for life to arise. >>
(d) The ETI that bioengineered and seeded life on earth owes its origin to some divine intervention at some point in its history.
[This message has been edited by Warren, 01-22-2004]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 155 by mark24, posted 01-21-2004 6:46 PM mark24 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 157 by Taqless, posted 01-22-2004 12:39 AM Warren has not replied
 Message 158 by Mammuthus, posted 01-22-2004 2:58 AM Warren has replied
 Message 159 by mark24, posted 01-22-2004 4:54 AM Warren has not replied

  
Taqless
Member (Idle past 5914 days)
Posts: 285
From: AZ
Joined: 12-18-2003


Message 157 of 181 (79962)
01-22-2004 12:39 AM
Reply to: Message 156 by Warren
01-22-2004 12:00 AM


Re: Natural / Supernatural
Did Darwin have to explain where that first cell came from in order to put forth his theory? No.
I'm going to jump in and reiterate what I've seen posted many times on the forum evolution does not equal "where that first cell came from". So, there is a pretty obvious difference between ToE and ID.
1) ID, has the requirement of positing a source for this ID i.e. the Creator because those who believe in ID are by default trying to attribute everything to a single entity.
2) In contrast, since ToE's goal is not trying to attribute abilties/features to a single entity the theory is under no obligation to say "where that first cell came from"!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 156 by Warren, posted 01-22-2004 12:00 AM Warren has not replied

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


Message 158 of 181 (79982)
01-22-2004 2:58 AM
Reply to: Message 156 by Warren
01-22-2004 12:00 AM


Re: Natural / Supernatural
quote:
As far as Darwinian evolution, it contains the concept of common descent - that all life evolved from a common ancestral cell (now, possibly a community of cells). Did Darwin have to explain where that first cell came from in order to put forth his theory? No. Do we yet know "where" the first cell came from? No.
There is a vast difference between taking a phenomenon like evolution which can be observed in the present via population genetics experiments (particularly Richard Lenski's 20,000 generation bacterial evolution experiments), developmental biology, and through study of the fossil record and extrapolating to past events than there is with postulating a designer for which there is no evidence ,there is nothing in the historical/fossil record to suggest it existed and there is no way to test for it in any case. Darwin did not expound on the origin of the first cell but wisely focused on the process after the fact. None of this requires a designer and there is no reason to posit (and in fact no scientific way) to posit one for abiogenesis either.
However, you seem to be a proponent of panspermia or life arising somewhere else and seeding the earth as opposed to a standard ID creationist. But even then, you have not solved the problem of the non-testable non-falsifiable designer. You have merely moved the location of abiogenesis.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 156 by Warren, posted 01-22-2004 12:00 AM Warren has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 163 by Warren, posted 01-22-2004 2:09 PM Mammuthus has replied

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


Message 159 of 181 (79994)
01-22-2004 4:54 AM
Reply to: Message 156 by Warren
01-22-2004 12:00 AM


Re: Natural / Supernatural
Warren,
You completely miss the point. The point is that to remain consistent you have to infer ID on ANY designer if you are going to infer it at all. Somehow I think that's where most ID'ers get illogical & inconsistent. There comes a point where they will refuse to do it because it contradicts their religious beliefs, which is why they are proponents of ID in the first place. Catch 22.
Warren writes:
Well, this doesn't apply to ID. The hypothesis that the first cells were products of advanced bioengineering doesn't require the postulation of any extra-natural mechanisms and is amenable to the scientific method.
Although that is true, it does mean that if the first cells were bioengineered, then ultimately the supernatural must have been involved. Consider; life on earth was ID'ed by extraterrestrial life which in turn was ID'ed by extraterrestrial life, & so on. You have to concede that life continued like this forever, arose naturally, or the supernatural kicked it off.
Ultimately ID needs the supernatural which removes it from scientific investigation & puts it back in church, where it belongs.
Mark
[This message has been edited by mark24, 01-22-2004]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 156 by Warren, posted 01-22-2004 12:00 AM Warren has not replied

  
Warren
Inactive Member


Message 160 of 181 (80056)
01-22-2004 12:04 PM


Warren<< Well, this doesn't apply to ID. The hypothesis that the first cells were products of advanced bioengineering doesn't require the postulation of any extra-natural mechanisms and is amenable to the scientific method.>>
Mark24<< Although that is true, it does mean that if the first cells were bioengineered, then ultimately the supernatural must have been involved. >>
Warren<< Why? Didn't you see my scenario whereby the ultimate origin of life didn't involve the supernatural? Besides, whether or not the supernatural was involved in the ultimate origin of life is a question we may never be able to answer and we don't need to answer it in order to determine if the evidence points to life on earth originating via bioengineering. ID hypotheses have nothing to do with the supernatural. >>
[This message has been edited by Warren, 01-22-2004]

Replies to this message:
 Message 164 by mark24, posted 01-22-2004 4:35 PM Warren has replied

  
Stephen ben Yeshua
Inactive Member


Message 161 of 181 (80063)
01-22-2004 12:25 PM
Reply to: Message 154 by Silent H
01-21-2004 5:16 PM


Agreement is good.
Holmes and Loudmouth,
I also am remembering a humorous line, but vaguely. One of you, I am sure will remember it better.
The history of a new discovery goes like this: First critics say, "you are crazy!", (forgot second step; something like, "Your evidence for that is inadequate."), then finally, "We knew that all along."
I began this thread noting that, as I was taught it, science has three objectives: assess plausibility of ideas, and the impact of evidence on plausibility, control (with data, and methodological commitments) subjectivity, and increase understanding. Philosophy of science is the discipline that reviews the history of science, notes the approaches that "worked" the best, explains why those approaches work, and formulates them into a "most efficient agenda." H-D science, using strong inference and Bayesian Logic, was presented to me 35 years ago, as the philosopher's most advanced findings. What reading I have done since then hasn't changed that. I personally tested that conclusion, and found it correct.
I still find the "people are naturally inclined to delude themselves, unlike other living species." idea more complex than the, "mad behavior in living beings is normally caused by malignant parasites." idea. I used to concede that they were equally non-simple, because we have to suppose in humans that the parasites are spiritual, made of some substance ("spiritual") for which we have no evidence, outside the testimony of the crazy. That's circular. But the discovery of dark matter, the reports of out-of-body experiences, PEAR studies, prayer studies, and the reports that religious behavior tends to improve fitness, makes it less simple now, in my opinion. Cargo cults cannot have improved fitness, and turning a mirage into an oasis also would be unlikely to improve fitness. So, that some religious activities do improve fitness is not explained that way. It is simpler, I think, to suppose that the cargo cult people were demonized, and deceived. Only my opinion, of course.
Stephen

This message is a reply to:
 Message 154 by Silent H, posted 01-21-2004 5:16 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 162 by Silent H, posted 01-22-2004 1:41 PM Stephen ben Yeshua has replied

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


Message 162 of 181 (80082)
01-22-2004 1:41 PM
Reply to: Message 161 by Stephen ben Yeshua
01-22-2004 12:25 PM


quote:
The history of a new discovery goes like this: First critics say, "you are crazy!", (forgot second step; something like, "Your evidence for that is inadequate."), then finally, "We knew that all along."
The history of a failed discovery is at first people claim "you are crazy", then finally "we told you you were wrong all along."
Do not delude yourself into thinking that just because you have an unpopular theory you must have the right one.
quote:
Philosophy of science is the discipline...
Which I have spent the most time of my life researching professionally and for fun. So now I have to listen to you tell me what you learned 30+ years ago and swallow it hook line and sinker? Sorry Steve.
I am unsure where you were taught, but even 35 years ago they were teaching basics of research methods which we use today in science classes. If your professors of science were saying something else, then you did not get your money's worth.
If you did not change your mind after getting out of class then perhaps you are not reading the right material.
However, one must question this claim on your part since you are decrying modern scientific methods. This must mean that you have seen your original PoS professors were downright wrong if they were teaching anything other than MN. For all this research you are decrying is at least as old as that.
quote:
I personally tested that conclusion, and found it correct.
You cannot test a method against itself. You must test it over time against other methods. Given the MN has replaced the tenets of your H-D methodology centuries ago, one has to question why you found yours "correct".
quote:
I still find the "people are naturally inclined to delude themselves, unlike other living species." idea more complex than the, "mad behavior in living beings is normally caused by malignant parasites." idea.
This is contrary to reason. Your explanations are circular, even if you bring in dark matter or energy. I mean is this dark matter calculated to be in people? No. Does it have any contact with people? No. Does it have some theoretical connection to the behavior or thoughts by people (other than the physicists who postulate it based on calculations and expectations)? No.
Other than suddenly asserting here is something we do not understand and therefore it must explain what I need explaining wayyyyyyyyyy ovvvvverrrrr heeeeeeeere, it makes no sense at all.
quote:
Cargo cults cannot have improved fitness, and turning a mirage into an oasis also would be unlikely to improve fitness. So, that some religious activities do improve fitness is not explained that way. It is simpler, I think, to suppose that the cargo cult people were demonized, and deceived. Only my opinion, of course.
You have not shown that any other religions do provide fitness, much less what the proper mechanism is for that fitness. I should also note that the cargo cults did stay alive so how do you know they didn't live better than they used to after creating their religion?
You are ignoring the obvious and in order to come to your opinion. And what's more you are avoiding the question... what does Occam's razor say about this?
We can see that people made a religion regarding (ascribed extra characteristics to) something they did not understand. We know children do this same sort of thing all of the time until they are taught how to ask questions and understand the world around them.
We know that Xian scientists claim that prayer gets them along just as well as medicine... but it does not.
The simplest mechanism for this behavior is the anthropological one. Creating a class of entities with all sorts of diverse characteristics and powers (particularly when they have to take on ad hoc characteristics) is not in keeping with Occam's razor.
You can state it is your opinion that you are right about demons all you want. You can even claim that the unpopularity of your position makes you believe that you are probably right. But you CANNOT claim that Occam's razor will support you in this endeavor. To do so involves completely circular reasoning.
If we can agree on this, then we are getting somewhere.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 161 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 01-22-2004 12:25 PM Stephen ben Yeshua has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 168 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 01-24-2004 11:11 AM Silent H has replied

  
Warren
Inactive Member


Message 163 of 181 (80086)
01-22-2004 2:09 PM
Reply to: Message 158 by Mammuthus
01-22-2004 2:58 AM


Re: Natural / Supernatural
Mammuthus<< Darwin did not expound on the origin of the first cell but wisely focused on the process after the fact. >>
Warren<< Well, I'm interested in the origin of the first cells and that affects how I view evolution after the fact. Here is some further clarification of where I'm coming from. My position includes a tentative inference to bioengineering behind the original cells that were deposited on this earth. I don't rule out further instances of intelligent intervention, but I have not really looked into things such as the origin of multicellularity, body plans, etc. My position, however, allows me to think about evolution in a different light. That is, if indeed life was designed, there is no a priori reason to exclude ID as a possible mechanism behind some later aspect of evolution. The genie is out of the bottle and thus the privileged status of the blind watchmaker in evolution no longer exists. The blind watchmaker explanation must now compete against intelligent watchmaker models - that is the significance of ID behind the origin of life.>>
Mammuthus<< None of this requires a designer and there is no reason to posit (and in fact no scientific way) to posit one for abiogenesis either.>>
Warren<< You are under the impression that a design perspective is
useful or productive only if it is needed. I disagree. It is useful or
productive if it is capable of generating data and understanding about
the biological world. You may have no need to explain something in
terms of design, but I have no need to explain something as if it was not
designed. The utility of a design paradigm is not measured in terms of
need, but in terms of capabilities. Only if it is incapable of generating
hypotheses, experiments, results, and refined hypotheses, is the
perspective useless and nonproductive in science. That, at least, is my
opinion.>>
Mammuthus: "However, you seem to be a proponent of panspermia or life arising somewhere else and seeding the earth as opposed to a standard ID creationist. But even then, you have not solved the problem of the non-testable non-falsifiable designer. You have merely moved the location of abiogenesis."
Warren<< As I replied to Mark, ID is only concerned with how life originated on earth. The ultimate origin of life may be beyond human capability to discover. Besides, you act as if determining that life on earth was the result of bioengineering is of no account. I don't get this. If this were the case wouldn't you want to know it? Moving the location of abiogenesis adds to our knownledge of origins even if it leaves many questions unanswered. Having all the answers all at once isn't how science works.>>
[This message has been edited by Warren, 01-22-2004]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 158 by Mammuthus, posted 01-22-2004 2:58 AM Mammuthus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 166 by Mammuthus, posted 01-23-2004 3:16 AM Warren has not replied

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


Message 164 of 181 (80126)
01-22-2004 4:35 PM
Reply to: Message 160 by Warren
01-22-2004 12:04 PM


Warren,
Didn't you see my scenario whereby the ultimate origin of life didn't involve the supernatural?
No, which post?
Mark

This message is a reply to:
 Message 160 by Warren, posted 01-22-2004 12:04 PM Warren has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 165 by Warren, posted 01-22-2004 8:39 PM mark24 has replied

  
Warren
Inactive Member


Message 165 of 181 (80190)
01-22-2004 8:39 PM
Reply to: Message 164 by mark24
01-22-2004 4:35 PM


Warren<< Didn't you see my scenario whereby the ultimate origin of life didn't involve the supernatural? >>
Mark<< No, which post? >>
Warren<< Message 156. >>

This message is a reply to:
 Message 164 by mark24, posted 01-22-2004 4:35 PM mark24 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 167 by mark24, posted 01-23-2004 4:46 AM Warren has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024