Methodological Naturalism

This is definitely a Post of the Month Mr.Hambre.
And as if to punctuate the relevance of your post, Syamsu demonstrated his misunderstanding/misuse/anti-science bias exactly as you portrayed it among creationists in your first paragraph as he immediatley conflated MN and ON in his heated reaction to what you wrote.This also gets at the crux of the complete failure of the intelligent design movement. In order for intelligent design to function, it has to presuppose supernatural, unmeasurable, undetectable entities to explain any given biological observation and thus is entirely unable to formulate a testable hypothesis. It is truly closet creationism.

quote:

---

Glad you approve. Intelligent Design Creationists are like people who think they could be chess grandmasters just as long as they don't have to abide by the rules of chess. They could even beat Kasparov if he had to play by the rules and they could move the pieces any way they want. Call it creativity, call it a paradigm shift, whatever. But you can't call it chess.

---

Actually they are more like people who claim that they are following the normal rules of chess even as they use their He-Man action figure with the kung fu grip to clear the board of the opponents pieces while spraying mace in his eyes (since this is the rule that popped out of the blue. And then when it is explained that it is not chess when they make up rules, they claim you are cheating.Look at the ID movement. What have they proposed? That everything in nature is intelligently designed. The evidence? 1) it is self evident 2) it is too complex for me and my fellow chums in church to understand. The testable or falsifiable hypothesis? Answer: 1) why don't you tell us how evolution can explain that structure and if any detail in your scenario is something I don't understand then it was clearly designed 2) this is just a conspiracy by the scientific establishment to prevent our message from getting out.

Sy, among others, also conflates what cannot be directly observed with the supernatural which is false. Something that leaves behind no evidence of its effects is supernatural. However, direct observation of something is not required to measure it and in fact most scientific measurements, almost all in molecular biology, are via proxy markers. I have never directly observed a DNA sequencing reaction at the chemical level. However, I indirectly observe the results of said catalytic event almost every day. However, sequencing is based on a set of experiments from the 70's that best explains said reaction and does not require me to believe that a pink unicorn is putting peaks in my trace files where they should be or for the old farts out there, bands on an autoradiogram.

I'm not at all disagreeing with you (though many results while reproducible often show scatter and background). In Sy's rant about "energy" falling outside the realm of natural, he conflates what is not directly observed the supernatural. This is false.That testable and falsifiable hypotheses in science
supported by emperical evidence and reproducible observations have been the only way that science has progressed appreciably is the support of MN. That bizarro religious inspired musings such as intelligent design have contributed nothing to scientific investigation and have no explanatory power is a testament to the overwhelming absence of evidence for the existence or at least the intervention of the supernatural. Whether one needs the crutch of the supernatural to overcome a fear of death or a feeling of insignificance is a personal choice or problem.

And here is the circular argument of the week and yet another reason why invoking the supernatural is a waste of time

quote:

---

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.

---

The first sentence says that one can assume a role for the supernatural if one assumes a role for the supernatural. That argument would make a nice spare tire for my car it is so nice and circular. This is identical to the ID movements proclamation that evidence for ID is self evident. The second sentence rests on claiming that anything that is either uncertain or that science has not proposed a hypothesis for must be supernatural...thus the supernatural will continue to shrink as MN is applied and theories for these phenomenon are developed.Syamsu has unwittingly demonstrated why MN is important by showing that to invoke the supernatural in exlaining natural phenomenon is intellecually barren and gives the researcher no point from which to proceed i.e. no testable and falsifiable hypothesis.

quote:

---

I've shown that the argument that the success of science is mainly founded on mn is bogus,

---

Oh really? Where exactly was this?

quote:

---

for mn being common but success of science not being common.

---

The fact that you are using a computer, have access to antibiotics, that anything is known about genetics, that there are cars are a testament to the common success of science. That you cannot grasp even the simplest scientific concepts and in your current state will never make a single contribution to science is a testament to the futility of appealing to pink unicorns and other non-existent entities.

quote:

---

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.

---

Except that MN is what has lead to our understanding of all of these concepts...unless you will now show how a fundamentalist belief in Allah has furthered our knowledge in quantum mechanics.

quote:

---

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.

---

Get some mental help there Syamsu...you are the bozo trying to associate science with your deranged concepts of good and evil...and then you claim that it is scientist using MN trying to do so....there are treatments for split personalities...consult your local doctor.

I would not want to compare doctors since that might lead to Konrad Lorenz and nazism.

quote:

---

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.

---

Ok, then can you summarize each of their scientific discoveries? So far it seems you are nothing but confused regarding the scientists and the science they studied.

quote:

---

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.

---

I don't hate you. I pity you. You are so wrapped up in your zealotry that you cannot even think logically or absorb a single fact. I can certainly deal with the ideal of neutrality in science which methodological naturalism is a key component. It is you who fail to separate the personalities of scientists from the facts and theories they discover or develope.It seems your little rant is another attempt to derail the thread and distract from the fact that you really have absolutely no comprehension of science or scientific methodology but wish to believe that you do and that you are some poor victim. Nobody is buying it.

quote:

---

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.

---

Sounds like your way of thinking has lead you to judgementalism Sy..time for you to repent..or be doomed to follow Lorenz like his ducks. The irony is you attacked NosyNed rather than me.

quote:

---

My reasoning summarized a few posts before, is perfectly meritable IMO.

---

Your reasoning is that you do not like Darwin, science in general, or the language of a field that you have never studied and clearly have not even the slightest grasp of. That you think it is perfectly meritable is a joke. That is like polling a school for the blind as to whether they think Cameron Diaz or Nina Hagen has a prettier face. You have not presented a compelling argument against MN. Merely that you don't understand it and that you wish to invoke the supernatural as responsible for all aspects of science without EVER showing how you would test for this, verifiy, falsify it, or even gather information. Mr. Hambre has asked you repeatedly to supply examples (EVEN JUST ONE) where pleading to superstition has actually aided in a scientific discovery and you have avoided this issue like a coward.

quote:

---

I think it's more to the point that no criticism whatsoever of MN is tolerated at all.

---

LOL! If this were true we would not be having this debate and there would be no EvC forum. You would merely be banned and your posts erased like almost all of the religious based web sites that argue these topics.

quote:

---

The criticism I have made of MN is the criticism that is most obvious.

---

That you do not like or even understand MN or anything about science? Yes, that is obvious.

quote:

---

Deists are people who believe that there is a God who set everything in motion in accordance with natural law and no longer interferes. So such methodologies would entail the seeking of naturalistic explanations when dealing with anything except the origin of the universe, and the seeking of supernaturalistic explanations when dealing with the origin of the universe.

---

However, this is not an overlap of MD and MN. Those invoking the supernatural work under the framework of MN until confronted with an issue that is in conflict with their beliefs and then cease to do science. It is like Micheal Behe. His biochemical studies are conducted via MN...his ramblings on intelligent design are nothing more than ramblings with no testable or falsifiable hypothesis. It is like saying, I will be a scientist on Tuesdays and a raving lunatic the rest of the week.

quote:

---

JIM seems to be good as gold except on Thursdays and Fridays

---

and he has to practice alchemy on Wednesdays to prepare for his gold status.

I actually don't think those three words are the most important for conveying science. It is not that we do not know anything or that our certitude is so constrained that we cannot progress. It is more that I don't know for sure rather than I don't know. But if reproducible evidence supports a specific hypothesis to the point it becomes an established theory, then I can operate with a high degree of certitude though I could never claim I know absolutely that the theory is correct or that all aspects are correct. It takes a huge effort to learn a scientific discipline and gauge the level of certitude of the main theories and the various hypotheses that fall under its umbrella. It also requires skepticism i.e. to avoid taking what authority figures say for granted and a willingness to discard an established fact when more compelling data call it into question....even if not everyone does at the same time leading to rather heated professional conflict.These are qualities completely lacking among creationists. They swallow hook line and sinker any statement that they feel supports their dogma from extremely dubious sources (Hovind anyone?). They make no effort to learn about the scientific disciplines they rail against and as you and Hambre point out, armed with this blunt set of weapons, they go forth into the land of absolutism and unquestioning certitude, immune to mountains of facts before their eyes that directly contradict their dogma.teach the kids :"I don't know for sure..but I am not going to accept what you say at face value either"

Hi holmes,
As usual, a very good post from you. A reason for my sad attempt to qualify your statement of "I don't know" is that among the science illiterate, there is a tendency to equate the tentativity of scientific hypotheses and theories with a fundamental lack of knowledge. Often enough on this site I see creationists claim their fanciful conjecturing based on myth or personal belief is equivalent to a scientific hypothesis based on empirical research gathered from multiple disciplines merely because said research has yet to account for every single possible variable. The transitional fossil debates are a case in point...a creationist will easily accept creation ex nihilo without a second thought or a shred of evidence from any scientific discipline. However, they will not accept that any fossil is represents an intermediate and are basically demanding that every breeding pair that ever existed since two species separated must be accounted for in the fossil record before they will "believe" in evolution. Imagine if the FDA required pharmaceutical companies to test every single individual on the planet, who ever lived, and everyone who ever will live before clearing a drug because of unpredictable and unknown side effects based on genetic and epigenetic variation in the population? There would be no drugs on the market (actually there would be no market period) using the lopsided burden of evidence that creationists claim for evolution alone. What they fail to see is that everything from physics to protein chemistry to engineering is based on the same tentativity of MN as evolution and that the theories that lead to developments that allow them to drive their car to work are as tentative as those of any other discipline and subject to revision. That is why I felt that "I don't know" was to strong...but as a starting point as you describe it, I think it would be an effective challenge for young minds and might fuel a desire to know that is complety absent among those who cling to religious dogma.

...not only that, these guys went on to claim that it is well preserved, and therefore likely contains DNA, and could be used to clone a mammoth....I figured the person they quoted must be a Patriot U alum since they believe and say anything.Chances that it has trace amounts of endogenous DNA, low...chances of cloning a mammoth from any DNA found, zero.However, if any DNA could be retrieved, I would also be very interested in what a columbian mammoth sequence looks like relative to M. primigenius....I tried in the past but all my colombi samples were crap...literally ..coprolites don't work very well except for sloths and goats. M. primigenius DNA is dime a dozen, as are mammoth bone finds, however, so I am surprised this story made it into the news.

quote:

---

there's too much mammoth shit, and nothing good ever comes out of it.

---

There is a little laundromat in Indonesia that specializes in removing mammoth feces stains from clothes. The proprieter does not actually clean the clothes at all since it might introduce judgmentalism with such concepts as "removing" or "stains". But I keep going there anyway since the owner has a wonderful collection of book covers and the ripped out first pages of the prefaces of dozens of popular science books that he has never read. For some reason the word "selfish" is underlined multiple times in bright red on one of the covers and "now I'll show mark24!" written next to it.

quote:

---

"God sense"

---

I think this is a comic book superhero power that grants those who have it the immunity to common sense, education, or any higher brain function.

quote:

---

Is this an implicit admission from the creationists that, indeed, the evidence supports evolution? I can't think of any other reason that the posters seem so dedicated to exhibiting their misunderstanding of the philosophy and methodology of science.

---

I think the implicit admission of creationists that the evidence does support evolution comes from the fact that with the exception of the unsuccessful attempt by Warren (to be fair he was trying this with ID), not a single one has attempted to come up with a testable and falsifiable hypothesis of creation. When constrained by the scientific method, they find that their mythology is not science. Thus, many attack scientific methodology in general in the ways that you mention.The creationists don't want to debate evidence because they have none for their position and do not even vaguely comprehend the scientific evidence for evolution. Their only recourse is to make philosophical arguments based on personal incredulity, circular reasoning, or misconceptions and mischaracterizations of science and those who practice science.