Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 59 (9025 total)
78 online now:
(78 visitors)
Newest Member: JustTheFacts
Post Volume: Total: 883,317 Year: 963/14,102 Month: 366/597 Week: 144/96 Day: 12/27 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   NvC-1: What is the premise of Naturalism in Biology?
Ben!
Member (Idle past 183 days)
Posts: 1161
From: Hayward, CA
Joined: 10-14-2004


Message 229 of 452 (876631)
05-24-2020 2:36 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by Tangle
05-07-2020 5:00 PM


Re: The DN’s premise (continued 1)
Science studies what it can observe. It makes no assumptions. The concept of naturalism in science is a conclusion not a premise - you have it all the wrong way round.

Sorry, is this correct? If science did not assume that life consists only of matter, then wouldn't we have satisfactory answers to any and all data? With no constraints on theory, it's simple to overfit any finite set of data.

I think science only works because we assume that all things are guided by natural laws, and aim to discover the laws.

Edited by Ben!, : No reason given.

Edited by Ben!, : gotta get the quoting right!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Tangle, posted 05-07-2020 5:00 PM Tangle has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 230 by AZPaul3, posted 05-24-2020 2:54 PM Ben! has responded

  
Ben!
Member (Idle past 183 days)
Posts: 1161
From: Hayward, CA
Joined: 10-14-2004


(1)
Message 231 of 452 (876636)
05-24-2020 3:02 PM
Reply to: Message 230 by AZPaul3
05-24-2020 2:54 PM


Re: The DN’s premise (continued 1)
Science did not assume the conclusion that everything in matter/energy before its studies.

Hate to be pedantic, but could you provide some support for this? As a scientist, I believe this is incorrect. Here's why:

quote:
The process of the scientific method involves making conjectures (hypotheses), deriving predictions from them as logical consequences, and then carrying out experiments or empirical observations based on those predictions.

Source: Scientific method - Wikipedia


In science, we have to start with a hypothesis. I believe the underlying hypothesis of science is: we can explain the observable universe via empirical laws. When we fail to do so, we never EVER jump to "it must be metaphysical". Instead, we keep iterating on empirical laws.

Science concluded that everything is matter/energy after observing a whole big bunch of things and never finding anything that is not matter/energy.

Easy counter-example: consciousness. No physical theories, sorry. Yet, we have not moved to assuming there's a "soul", nor accepted eastern explanations for consciousness.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 230 by AZPaul3, posted 05-24-2020 2:54 PM AZPaul3 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 235 by AZPaul3, posted 05-24-2020 4:02 PM Ben! has not yet responded

  
Ben!
Member (Idle past 183 days)
Posts: 1161
From: Hayward, CA
Joined: 10-14-2004


Message 237 of 452 (876643)
05-24-2020 4:11 PM
Reply to: Message 230 by AZPaul3
05-24-2020 2:54 PM


Re: The DN’s premise (continued 1)
Thanks for the replies, I appreciate the time. At the same time, my general feeling is that you're not only getting my point, you don't want to get my point.

I find good conversations steel-man each other's arguments before finding counter-examples. It's not happening here, and I have way too limited time to engage at the depth necessary to get what I wish out of this conversation.

Again, appreciate the efforts, and will look elsewhere for more collaborative conversations.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 230 by AZPaul3, posted 05-24-2020 2:54 PM AZPaul3 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 239 by AZPaul3, posted 05-24-2020 5:15 PM Ben! has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2021