Methodological Naturalism

Holmes,Why do you keep saying this? As defined, MN is a good idea. Dogmatically opinionated people who mis-use MN to hide from the truth, and dogmatic opinionation itself, are bad.Stephen

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

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

Holmes,You say, Astonishing remark. You posted, some time back, a set of research protocols that struck me as extremely limiting, applicable to only the most boring of ideas. It was straight out of Kuhn, and his contention that most scientists, not being interested in the truth, only in maintaining established paradigms, restrict themselves so that no new ideas ever get into their heads or the literature that they read. But, with all that research, do you understand, even, H-D science? How about the English language? I have said, several times, that H-D science is a subset of MN, and yet you continue to see the two in conflict. I don't get it. I don't agree with this, but I'm a naturalist, not an anthropologist. To me, inventing new, ad hoc, deus ex machina explanations is not all that smart, although it can work. Mad dogs and mad humans are infected. That invents nothing. I find the subjective pressure to pretend that we are the highest, most intelligent, most powerful living beings on the earth, coupled with the clear fact that every other species has to live otherwise, still a simple explanation for your persistent reluctance to look squarely at the data, and do experiments yourself.So, we don't yet agree.Stephen

Holmes,Well, we seem to be at an impasse, which only more data can settle. Even though I personally still find it simpler to invoke demons in the dark matter, than humans being "simply mistaken." maybe that's a personal choice. As an ecologist, there are endless debates about how you measure complexity. Not all that important, in my opinion anyway.But, help me out, slowly here. State a foundational protocol for MN. How does an MN scientific endeavor begin, in your understanding of the term.Or, if you like, give me a good reference to it. I'm obviously under-informed.Stephen

Holmes,I get the feeling that you know nothing about science, except some terms you don't understand. But, are in denial about your ignorance, playing some sort of game here. You won't describe what you mean by MN because you don't mean anything.Meanwhile, do the google on Hypothetico-deductive. See how many, many scientists think it's the best thing going.Stephen

MrHambre,You say, referring to MN, that Don't you mean "detectable or verifiable." Or, really, "somehow verifiable." There are lots of things out there in physics that cannot be detected, but they do have an influence on detectable things, and so can be verifiable. As long as we have the way they influence the detectable right.Just wondering.Stephen

P.You say, So, in MN, detectable and verifiable are the same things, and no distinction is made?S.

M.You seem unaware of the difference between an ad hominem, and a well deserved insult.But I appreciate your posts. They amply demonstrate my point about the study of evolution making people behave badly.S.