Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   For Joralex - Metaphysics, Science, & Evolution
mark24
Member (Idle past 5194 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 1 of 33 (59590)
10-05-2003 8:21 PM


Joralex,
Why are the conclusions of evolutionary theory, & presumably science in general, in some way violated enough by the implicit "underpinning" presence of metaphysics?
Enough to make this comment, anyway.
Please, no appeals to authority.
Mark
------------------
"I can't prove creationism, but they can't prove evolution. It is [also] a religion, so it should not be taught....Christians took over the school board and voted in creationism. That can be done in any school district anywhere, and it ought to be done." Says Kent "consistent" Hovind in "Unmasking the False Religion of Evolution Chapter 6."

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by MrHambre, posted 10-05-2003 11:59 PM mark24 has not replied
 Message 7 by Joralex, posted 10-06-2003 3:11 PM mark24 has replied
 Message 12 by Loudmouth, posted 10-06-2003 8:45 PM mark24 has not replied

  
MrHambre
Member (Idle past 1392 days)
Posts: 1495
From: Framingham, MA, USA
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 2 of 33 (59622)
10-05-2003 11:59 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by mark24
10-05-2003 8:21 PM


Under the amateurish spell of Phillip Johnson, many of our correpondents here assert that metaphysical assumptions form the basis of any worldview, in particular that of scientific investigation. This is used in an attempt to convince themselves that scientific objectivity is a sham, and that 'naturalism' is a religion in the tattered costume of empirical evidential inquiry.
The not-quite-as-dramatic truth is that methodological naturalism is the only principle that allows for objectivity of any kind in the first place. Only by excluding all factors from our inquiry except those which can be verified and understood can we even begin to frame relevant hypotheses concerning natural phenomena. All scientific progress in the past three hundred years has been accomplished because of the 'constraint' of MN, not despite it.
Methodological naturalism does not assume that nothing exists except that which can be scientifically verified. What it assumes is that without scientific verification, a factor is meaningless in an experimental framework. Johnson and his misguided acolytes criticize MN by saying (quite rightly) that if factors exist which cannot be empirically verified, MN would exclude them from scientific inquiry. However, the fact that they cannot be empirically detected is hardly reason to assume that they even exist in the first place. What the anti-naturalists are asking is that their philosophical assumptions be accepted as scientific in the absence of any scientific evidence supporting the validity of these assumptions.
I'm not aware of any instance in which metaphysical naturalism was insufficient in determining the relevant variables in an experimental framework. If anyone would like to offer a situation in which scrapping the foundation of contemporary scientific methodology has aided scientific progress, I'd like to hear it.
------------------
I would not let the chickens cross the antidote road because I was already hospitlized for trying to say this!-Brad McFall

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by mark24, posted 10-05-2003 8:21 PM mark24 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by PaulK, posted 10-06-2003 3:59 AM MrHambre has not replied
 Message 6 by Loudmouth, posted 10-06-2003 1:47 PM MrHambre has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 3 of 33 (59652)
10-06-2003 3:59 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by MrHambre
10-05-2003 11:59 PM


One point worth mentioning.
Johnson's equation of metaphysical and methodological naturalism implicitly assumes scientism - in the form of the view that science can successfully investigate anything that exists. Most scientists would not agree (and therefore even if they were "wrong", Johnson's argument does not apply to them). Johnson has yet to demonstrate the truth of this assumption, or even produce a strong argument for it.
I would further note that Johnson's claim amounts to the assertion that there is (or at least can be) a successful evidential apologetic, which contradicts the Presuppositionalist view.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by MrHambre, posted 10-05-2003 11:59 PM MrHambre has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 4 of 33 (59689)
10-06-2003 10:05 AM


Maybe we could expand the topic a bit for others who have criticised the scientific metaphysical presuppositions.
I'd like a creationist to propose their alternate methodology/epistomology that they feel is superior to materialism. The challenge is, such a methodology can't just say what can be known - it has to say, like naturalism does, how it is that you know what you know.
So, Joralex, or anybody else who cares to challenge naturalism: if your methodology is so great at finding out things that naturalism can't, what methodology do you use to determine the difference between those additional bits of knowledge that are true and those that are made up?

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by John, posted 10-06-2003 11:24 AM crashfrog has replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 5 of 33 (59717)
10-06-2003 11:24 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by crashfrog
10-06-2003 10:05 AM


Joralex was so gung-ho that I am stunned he hasn't already contributed.
Here is my tae, just for fun.
I don't like the term 'naturalism' if only because it feels loaded. What I think happened is that people realized that claims to knowledge that are not connected to our senses quickly become games of "I say it is. You say it isn't." There is no way out of the mess without appeal to something shared, or at least, apparently shared. The only thing even remotely shared is the world of sensation. Thus, it becomes the default standard. It is the only standard, even if not a particularly good one.
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by crashfrog, posted 10-06-2003 10:05 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by crashfrog, posted 10-06-2003 4:29 PM John has not replied

  
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 6 of 33 (59769)
10-06-2003 1:47 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by MrHambre
10-05-2003 11:59 PM


I'm not aware of any instance in which metaphysical naturalism was insufficient in determining the relevant variables in an experimental framework. If anyone would like to offer a situation in which scrapping the foundation of contemporary scientific methodology has aided scientific progress, I'd like to hear it.
I find it helpful in such arguments to cut things down to the bare minimum. For example, methodological naturalism (MN) has found that 2+2=4. Is it possible, through a metaphysical framework, that 2+2=not 4 because we are not looking at all the variables including those not covered by MN? If we start to assume that 2+2=not 4, then even the foundation of all science/physical experience is thrown into chaos and not reliable even for basic observations. If metaphysics is able to prove that 2+2=4, at what point are metaphysics and physical observation at odds? Is there an obvious border where physical observation loses meaning and metaphysics must be taken into account?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by MrHambre, posted 10-05-2003 11:59 PM MrHambre has not replied

  
Joralex
Inactive Member


Message 7 of 33 (59778)
10-06-2003 3:11 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by mark24
10-05-2003 8:21 PM


Why are the conclusions of evolutionary theory, & presumably science in general, in some way violated enough by the implicit "underpinning" presence of metaphysics?
Which specific metaphysic are you referring to?
Answering your question directly (and skipping over many relevant/important points) : in a sense, they aren't. However, it must be understood that these conclusions do have a metaphysical foundation. Most Naturalists aren't even aware of, let alone acknowledge, this foundation.
Joralex writes:
If you are unaware of the metaphysical foundations of your pet theory then just let it go.
Please, no appeals to authority.
I am responding here out of courtesy only. It has been an observation of mine that Naturalists constantly contort words to make something appear out of nothing - must be all that practice with making macroevolution appear "possible".
Specifically, I am troubled with the insinuation that I am "appealing to authority". If it were possible to insult me, I'd find that insinuation 'insulting'. Pointing out that someone is 'ignorant' about something is merely just that. Ignorance is no sin - pride is.
Joralex

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by mark24, posted 10-05-2003 8:21 PM mark24 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by mark24, posted 10-06-2003 5:04 PM Joralex has not replied
 Message 10 by John, posted 10-06-2003 5:19 PM Joralex has not replied
 Message 11 by Coragyps, posted 10-06-2003 5:47 PM Joralex has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 8 of 33 (59782)
10-06-2003 4:29 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by John
10-06-2003 11:24 AM


hat I think happened is that people realized that claims to knowledge that are not connected to our senses quickly become games of "I say it is. You say it isn't." There is no way out of the mess without appeal to something shared, or at least, apparently shared.
Yeah, exactly. I guess I'd like Joralex or any other anti-naturalist to propose a better standard for objectivity than "if we both can't see it, it probably isn't real." (That's the simple version. ) I have yet to hear a better standard - certainly "if it's in the Bible, it's real" or "you won't know it's real until you believe it's real" don't even begin to cut it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by John, posted 10-06-2003 11:24 AM John has not replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5194 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 9 of 33 (59784)
10-06-2003 5:04 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Joralex
10-06-2003 3:11 PM


Joralex,
Which specific metaphysic are you referring to?
The one that evolution, but no other science is guilty of. You tell me.
Answering your question directly (and skipping over many relevant/important points) : in a sense, they aren't. However, it must be understood that these conclusions do have a metaphysical foundation. Most Naturalists aren't even aware of, let alone acknowledge, this foundation.
So basically, evolution is OK because it is as metaphysical as the rest of science?
Specifically, I am troubled with the insinuation that I am "appealing to authority". If it were possible to insult me, I'd find that insinuation 'insulting'.
Are you really? It's much worse than a common or garden appeal to authority, you haven't even established that the people concerned agree with you.
Your argument is of the form: I assert XXX, here is a list of names.
Lest you forget:
quote:
You would do well to read Rudolf Carnap, Carl Hempel, Thomas Kuhn, Max Black, Ernest Nagel, Baruch Brody, Karl Popper, Grover Maxwell, John Kemeny, P.K. Feyerabend, Marshal Spector, and Israel Scheffler - to name just a few. The writings of these 20th century men went a long way towards establishing the philosophical foundations of modern science.
Why do they agree with you? Or don't they assert that evolutionary theory suffers from metaphysics any more than the rest of science, after all?
Mark

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Joralex, posted 10-06-2003 3:11 PM Joralex has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by mark24, posted 10-07-2003 4:55 PM mark24 has not replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 10 of 33 (59787)
10-06-2003 5:19 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Joralex
10-06-2003 3:11 PM


quote:
Which specific metaphysic are you referring to?
You brought it up; you are the one who should know.
quote:
Answering your question directly (and skipping over many relevant/important points) : in a sense, they aren't. However, it must be understood that these conclusions do have a metaphysical foundation. Most Naturalists aren't even aware of, let alone acknowledge, this foundation.
So, in other words, your objection was a bluff.
quote:
I am responding here out of courtesy only.
hmmm... something is not adding up. You are behaving as if you've been drawn against your will into some distasteful debate, while the fact is that it was your own rather uncourteous quip that started this issue.
quote:
It has been an observation of mine that Naturalists constantly contort words to make something appear out of nothing - must be all that practice with making macroevolution appear "possible".
We are waiting. Set us straight, or is this yet another claim you can't support?
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Joralex, posted 10-06-2003 3:11 PM Joralex has not replied

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 734 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 11 of 33 (59797)
10-06-2003 5:47 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Joralex
10-06-2003 3:11 PM


Ignorance is no sin - pride is.
That's good to know.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Joralex, posted 10-06-2003 3:11 PM Joralex has not replied

  
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 12 of 33 (59823)
10-06-2003 8:45 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by mark24
10-05-2003 8:21 PM


Since Joralex won't give us a brief summary, I have found a brief introduction to metaphysics here.
From the opening page:
"What is Metaphysics?
Metaphysics is the branch of philosophy responsible for the study of existence. It is the foundation of a worldview. It answers the question "What is?" It encompasses everything that exists, as well as the nature of existence itself. It says whether the world is real, or merely an illusion. It is a fundamental view of the world around us.
Why is Metaphysics important?
Metaphysics is the foundation of philosophy. Without an explanation or an interpretation of the world around us, we would be helpless to deal with reality. We could not feed ourselves, or act to preserve our lives. The degree to which our metaphysical worldview is correct is the degree to which we are able to comprehend the world, and act accordingly. Without this firm foundation, all knowledge becomes suspect. Any flaw in our view of reality will make it more difficult to live.
What are the key elements of a rational metaphysics?
Reality is absolute. It has a specific nature independent of our thoughts or feelings. The world around us is real. It has a specific nature and it must be consistent to that nature. A proper metaphysical worldview must aim to understand reality correctly.
The physical world exists, and every entity has a specific nature. It acts according to that nature. When different entities interact, they do so according to the nature of both. Every action has a cause and an effect. Causality is the means by which change occurs, but the change occurs via a specific nature. "
An important point from the first page is "The degree to which our metaphysical worldview is correct is the degree to which we are able to comprehend the world, and act accordingly" which says to me that not all worldviews are equal.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by mark24, posted 10-05-2003 8:21 PM mark24 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by sidelined, posted 10-07-2003 11:33 AM Loudmouth has not replied

  
sidelined
Member (Idle past 5907 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 13 of 33 (59910)
10-07-2003 11:33 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by Loudmouth
10-06-2003 8:45 PM


Loudmouth I find it interesting how different the actual world is from the assumptions made at this website . I have found 3 errors just in a light skim through the site.Perhaps the people who put the site together did not do serious investigations into their assertions.I find it amazing how uncritcal these people can be.
[This message has been edited by sidelined, 10-07-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Loudmouth, posted 10-06-2003 8:45 PM Loudmouth has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by PaulK, posted 10-07-2003 12:04 PM sidelined has not replied
 Message 15 by John, posted 10-07-2003 2:52 PM sidelined has not replied
 Message 16 by NosyNed, posted 10-07-2003 4:07 PM sidelined has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 14 of 33 (59922)
10-07-2003 12:04 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by sidelined
10-07-2003 11:33 AM


It's an Objectivist (Randian) site. So I'm afraid you have to expect that they'll put Objectivist dogma forward over fact.
If you look at the Q&A page they even label one person a "relativist" for suggesting that some Objectivist claims are NOT objective truths.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by sidelined, posted 10-07-2003 11:33 AM sidelined has not replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 15 of 33 (59958)
10-07-2003 2:52 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by sidelined
10-07-2003 11:33 AM


I agree. The site is pretty amateurish.
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by sidelined, posted 10-07-2003 11:33 AM sidelined 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