Methodological Naturalism

The effort to unite all science under the umbrella of methodological naturalism is something that is only prevalent with evolutionist scientists, or Darwinist scientists really, this is not prevalent in other sciences. Science is a creative effort, all the time new things must be considered, things such as "information" for instance. There's absolutely no use to box science into a simpleton one paragraph description, and severely limit any and all creativity within science that way. Let's be clear here, the only reason the evolutionists make this play for methodological naturalism, is because it allows them to use ridiculous terminology like "blind" and "purposeless" in their theories.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

This issue can be decided solely on circumstantial evidence IMO, as referred to before, there is no need to address the argument directly. The name methological naturalism is relatively new, but the simplistic initiative to unite all science under one umbrella isn't.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

Nonmaterial that would be energy for instance. Now you might object that "obviously" energy falls under material, but then does information also fall into the category of material? It is not so obvious and it must be difficult to think in terms of energy property when before you were thinking in terms of material property. So I submit most all science as denying your methodological naturalism.Naturalism requires it's opposite supernaturalism to be meaningful, otherwise naturalism would equate to existence and be meaningless. So then methodological naturalism would mean to acknowledge the supernatural, but to keep it outside of science. This could be understood as keeping questions of good and evil and the like outside of science.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

It seems you are just showing the prejudice I'm talking about. Sure information will appear to be only in our heads, if you first chain yourself to methodological naturalism before investigating it, then it likely will. I'm not convinced by evolutionist denials that DNA can't be viewed in terms of information, and it seems many evolutionists have started viewing DNA in terms of information as well, although this might just be a matter of evolutionists conveniently using the language of the day, and not being very serious about viewing DNA in terms of information.I guess my logic was wrong here, methodological naturalism simply limits to natural things and makes no mention of whether or not non-natural things exist also. It's not even neccesarily a dichotomy between natural and supernatural, since there could be many more non-natural things existing other then the supernatural, for instance information could be said to be both not natural, and not supernatural. Probably when you define natural not knowing about information, then information would fall outside the definition of what is natural. Likewise if you go back in time to where energy was first proposed, it would be doubtful whether or not energy fell within the definition of natural.Still, I believe if this methodological naturalism is not proposed as a dichotomy between natural and supernatural, that the supernatural is recognized, that it tends to undermine the rule to keep talk about good and evil out of scientific theories. This rule, or ideal, has been much more profitable to science then any other rule IMO. It keeps science safe from interference from politicians, and well the science is much more clear this way when you leave judgemental language out of it. It's no coincedence that the same people who propose methodological naturalism propose questionably judgemental words such as purposeless, purposeful, success etc. in science theories. Not recognizing good and evil and the supernatural etc. outside of methodological naturalism, they view good and evil as mechanics, and want us all to share the "enlightening" effects it has on one's conscience to view good and evil as mechanical.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu[This message has been edited by Syamsu, 11-16-2003]

It is not just my pet-peeve, the linkage between proposing to tie all scientists to mn, and the use of judgemental especially atheistic words such as purposeless, has been noticed by more creationists / theologians. It was an issue in the controversy over the NABT definition of evolution as blind, purposeless etc. And it's an issue in the ongoing controversy over evolutionary psychology. I suggest that in stead of using blind, evolutionists use the adjective stupid for evolution. I think this more precisely denotes the absence of intelligence, which is apparently required by MN. So in stead of the blind process of evolution, it's better to refer to the stupid proces of evolution. Only social convention precludes this more accurate definition.Basing claims on evidence is a common feature of every person that ever lived, it has nothing especially to do with the success of western science, as before that has more to do with the ideal I stated earlier, which is not as common but expressely advocated in "western" science. The focus on MN is a sad attempt to religionize a common function of the human mind as somehow something special, or should I say sacred, with the intention to attach meandering thoughts about good and evil as mechanical to "The Method".regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

Well we're all going to die, that says nothing much about purpose. I think you just don't understand about purpose.Where does your denial of the supernatural put your belief in good and evil, belief in choice and the like? You are just undermining a rule that has been most profitable to science, and replace it with a common notion that needs no special attention.As before, there is no problem for the supernatural to interfere in everything if we consider the supernatural playing a part in making decisions. Since science says everything, right down to the continued existence of the universe is an uncertainty, this gives unlimited scope of power to any supernatural beings.To Mr Hambre, my previous criticism about excluding energy and information as natural by adopting mn still stands. Tell me, is information natural? Why bother scientists with such esoteric questions, that really only have meaning in regards to how people deal with the relationship of science to religion in their personal lives.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

I remember now that Haeckel was also one of these evolutionists who harped on the "victory" of materialism / naturalism over theologiy etc. in science. He does it about 20 times in as many sentences, really a lot, in his book "Natural Creation History". Of course he also mixed talk about good and evil into his science, to an extreme extent.I think many of the postings in response show abnormal conceptions of good and evil, conceptions that don't occur so much in society. I conclude from circumstance that the abnormality follows from how they apply mn / evolutionism.edited to add: I think I should just ask who here ties his thoughts about good and evil fundamentally to methodological naturalism as being sort of mechanical, just like I said would happen?regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu[This message has been edited by Syamsu, 11-18-2003]

I've shown that the argument that the success of science is mainly founded on mn is bogus, for mn being common but success of science not being common.I've shown that adopting mn leads to problems in accepting new things like information, or energy, for it being hardly possible to make a definition of natural which anticipates these, and other things.I've shown that the motivation for adopting mn is to include talk about good and evil into science theories, for there being no place left for talk about good and evil other then in science theories when adopting mn.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

No it's Konrad Lorenz in his book the socalled evil, and Haeckel in his natural creation history, and Darwin in the Descent of Man who mix up science with judgementalism, I try to keep them apart.Your hateful attitude towards me is based on your inability to deal with the ideal of neutrality in science. Once again you've shown that what a scientist, like you, asserts as fact, can actually be nothing more then rancorous hatefilled bigotry.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

Go get some mental help there AdminNosy...you are the bozo trying to associate scorn with your deranged concepts of reasoning ability.... ...there are treatments for split personalities...consult your local doctor.I thought that having the same kinds of words aimed directly at you, may show more clearly the hatefulness. This is not scorn or any kind of genuine pity IMO, it's rancorous hatefulness from a guy who's been after me for a while now.My reasoning summarized a few posts before, is perfectly meritable IMO. I think it's more to the point that no criticism whatsoever of MN is tolerated at all. The criticism I have made of MN is the criticism that is most obvious.Of course when you require everybody to be chained to MN, then MN becomes like a religion, with the same kind of dynamics of religion, like extraordinarily skeptical attitudes towards unbelievers, or criticism of MN. I think that is what we can see in this thread now.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

I think you are much overconfident to think to be able to explain good and evil in a single paragraph. Anyway, I wasn't asking for an explanation of good and evil, I was just asking if you tie those thoughts fundamentally to MN. If good and evil falls within view of MN in a fundamental way, according to you.When you talk about "through methodological naturalism morality is...", obviously that tends to substantiate my argument, that the real motivation to bring all science into mn is to manipulate views of good and evil.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

But you do it also, you tend to substantiate my argument. It's not up to me to provide evidence that good and evil are fundamental in the universe or offer any explanation about good or evil whatsoever, you have to abide by the rule to leave talk about good and evil out of science, and realisticly that is only possible if you recognize them.Again, it's easy to see where this is heading, you are just going to include good and evil into mn as mechanisms just like the rest of nature, as happened before with influential evolutionist pontificating on the importance of mn or materialism.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

We strive for neutrality in science as an ideal, meaning to leave talk about good and evil out of science theories. I don't think that's quite the same as saying science is neutral on the existence of good and evil. It's supposed to be unmentioned in science theories, but it seems to me you do have to actually recognize it to keep it out of the theories. Good and evil are then recognized a priori to doing science, so they're still not part of science theories IMO, eventhough they are recognized in doing science.For as far as being threatened, I find it already quite intimidating that you give some definition of good and evil in a matter of fact way, which supposedly I have to accept, or else. And then you actually seem to allow talk about good and evil as it relates to violence and altruism in people in science. It seems you are including talk about good and evil into MN.Obviously there is much more to good and evil then in your one paragraph description, and the talk about these things is a lot closer to the truth of "what's it all about" then science IMO.There are temptations specific to science, I don't agree that science is of it self neutral.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

What we should avoid is for people to give definitions of good and evil as if it is science, and your insistent talk about it seems more like a science theory to me, so no, I won't debate good and evil this way.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

You are of course proposing a dogma, the dogma of methodological naturalism, which dogma leads to problems, as shown in this thread, in thinking about something like information as a fundamental property in the universe.If creationists are correct to view information as a fundamental property in the universe then they are more advanced then evolutionists on this point, and it seems a rather important point.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu