Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Methodological Naturalism
Warren
Inactive Member


Message 109 of 181 (79435)
01-19-2004 2:12 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by MrHambre
11-13-2003 12:23 PM


Methodological Naturalism
MrHambre<< This assumption is known as Methodological Naturalism (MN hereafter). This is science in its essence, and anything claiming to be scientific must follow this assumption. It differs from Ontological Naturalism (i.e., atheism), which claims that nothing exists that cannot be empirically detected or verified. Anyone who tries to conflate the two notions (like Phillip Johnson) does so out of a basic misunderstanding of the philosophy behind MN, an urge to decieve those who don’t know better, or both. ON is a philosophical position. MN is a methodology that science requires in order to generate testable hypotheses.>>
Please cite a reference where Phillip Johnson argues that the assumption of methodological naturalism in science is tantamount to a commitment to philosophical naturalism. I've never heard him say anything like that. I would be surprised if that is his position as ID is perfectly compatible with MN. If you think it isn't then let's hear you explain why..
MN by itself is no problem for ID, however, many scientists assert that methodological naturalism proceeds upon an a priori assumption of ateleology. This view is indistinguishable from philosophical naturalism and I suspect this is the point Phillip Johnson is trying to make.
[This message has been edited by Warren, 01-19-2004]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by MrHambre, posted 11-13-2003 12:23 PM MrHambre has not replied

  
Warren
Inactive Member


Message 111 of 181 (79449)
01-19-2004 3:42 PM
Reply to: Message 110 by Stephen ben Yeshua
01-19-2004 3:20 PM


Natural / Supernatural
There really is no useful scientific distinction between natural and supernatural unless we know all there is to know! Otherwise, we are left in the absurd position of calling supernatural all that is left to be discovered.
There is indeed a profoundly anti-scientific inclination in this attitude. It resists any advancement of science into domains previously unexplored and unknown. How in the world can that be justified scientifically?!
This has nothing to do with nature, but only with what we know about nature. The distinction between natural and supernatural is purely artificial. It is our own invention. Bounded, as always, by what we know and don’t know. Naturalism is as artificial as any such bound we place on what can be known. Science defies these bounds!
LOL One might say that science is continually reclaiming the supernatural to the natural. But that’s just calling the same thing by another name.
[This message has been edited by Warren, 01-19-2004]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 01-19-2004 3:20 PM Stephen ben Yeshua has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 112 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 01-19-2004 4:35 PM Warren has not replied
 Message 124 by Mammuthus, posted 01-20-2004 4:59 AM Warren has replied

  
Warren
Inactive Member


Message 131 of 181 (79599)
01-20-2004 3:16 PM
Reply to: Message 124 by Mammuthus
01-20-2004 4:59 AM


Re: Natural / Supernatural
Mammuthus<< The supernatural is not observable either directly or indirectly. It is niether testable nor falsifiable.>>
Your definition of the supernatural must be "that which does not exist." But unless you are omniscient you are not aware of everything that exists, therefore, how do you determine something is supernatural? I define anything that exists as natural. I see no reason to suspect that intelligent design of any kind requires some supernatural cause.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by Mammuthus, posted 01-20-2004 4:59 AM Mammuthus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 137 by Mammuthus, posted 01-21-2004 3:06 AM Warren has replied

  
Warren
Inactive Member


Message 145 of 181 (79810)
01-21-2004 12:19 PM
Reply to: Message 137 by Mammuthus
01-21-2004 3:06 AM


Re: Natural / Supernatural
Mammuthus<< Nope, my definition is that for which there is no evidence, no possible way to test or gather evidence, and cannot be falsified either logically or empirically. >>
Well, this doesn't apply to ID. The hypothesis that the first cells were products of advanced bioengineering doesn't require the postulation of any extra-natural mechanisms and is amenable to the scientific method.
[This message has been edited by Warren, 01-21-2004]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by Mammuthus, posted 01-21-2004 3:06 AM Mammuthus has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 155 by mark24, posted 01-21-2004 6:46 PM Warren has replied

  
Warren
Inactive Member


Message 156 of 181 (79954)
01-22-2004 12:00 AM
Reply to: Message 155 by mark24
01-21-2004 6:46 PM


Re: Natural / Supernatural
Warren<< The hypothesis that the first cells were products of advanced bioengineering doesn't require the postulation of any extra-natural mechanisms and is amenable to the scientific method.>>
Mark << Yes it does, & you know it. Who designed the designer? >>
Warren<< Why do I need to know this in order to hypothesize that the first life forms on earth were bioengineered?>>
Mark: "Take it back as far as you like..."
Warren<< Why do I have to take it back at all?
Do you accept the Big Bang? Do you accept Darwinian evolution?
As far as the Big Bang, where did the singularity - from which everything ultimately sprang forth - come from? Did cosmologists have to know the answer to this before proposing the Big Bang? No - and they still don't know the answer.
As far as Darwinian evolution, it contains the concept of common descent - that all life evolved from a common ancestral cell (now, possibly a community of cells). Did Darwin have to explain where that first cell came from in order to put forth his theory? No. Do we yet know "where" the first cell came from? No.
Thus, one can put forth a scientific theory without having to be able to follow it back through time to the absolute ultimate beginning - one does not need to first explain how the first thing (be it a singularity or a cell) came from.
So this kind of objection to ID is not really "valid" in the first place, as it is not applied to other areas of science. But just for the fun of it, here are some possiblities for solving the infinite regress problem.
(a) Less Complex: Perhaps the original extraterrestrial life form was simpler than the simplest Earth-bound bacterium. Maybe it did (does) not use a chiral organic molecule to store its genetic information (which would solve for them the homochirality and enantiomeric cross inhibition problems we find on Earth). Also, perhaps when it first arose (and before it became intelligent), that alien life did not possess any molecular machines.
(b) More Favorable Conditions. Perhaps the atmosphere on that "Planet X" really was highly-reduced, as Miller and others modeled (incorrectly) for Earth. The original idea of a prebiotic soup is tied closely to the assumption of a highly-reduced atmosphere (with methane & ammonia being the most important components). When the same experiments are performed with the current proposed prebiotic atmosphere, biologically-relevant organics comprise even less of the products - by a very large degree - than in the Miller/Urey experiments.
(c) More time could have been available on the other planet for life to arise. >>
(d) The ETI that bioengineered and seeded life on earth owes its origin to some divine intervention at some point in its history.
[This message has been edited by Warren, 01-22-2004]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 155 by mark24, posted 01-21-2004 6:46 PM mark24 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 157 by Taqless, posted 01-22-2004 12:39 AM Warren has not replied
 Message 158 by Mammuthus, posted 01-22-2004 2:58 AM Warren has replied
 Message 159 by mark24, posted 01-22-2004 4:54 AM Warren has not replied

  
Warren
Inactive Member


Message 160 of 181 (80056)
01-22-2004 12:04 PM


Warren<< Well, this doesn't apply to ID. The hypothesis that the first cells were products of advanced bioengineering doesn't require the postulation of any extra-natural mechanisms and is amenable to the scientific method.>>
Mark24<< Although that is true, it does mean that if the first cells were bioengineered, then ultimately the supernatural must have been involved. >>
Warren<< Why? Didn't you see my scenario whereby the ultimate origin of life didn't involve the supernatural? Besides, whether or not the supernatural was involved in the ultimate origin of life is a question we may never be able to answer and we don't need to answer it in order to determine if the evidence points to life on earth originating via bioengineering. ID hypotheses have nothing to do with the supernatural. >>
[This message has been edited by Warren, 01-22-2004]

Replies to this message:
 Message 164 by mark24, posted 01-22-2004 4:35 PM Warren has replied

  
Warren
Inactive Member


Message 163 of 181 (80086)
01-22-2004 2:09 PM
Reply to: Message 158 by Mammuthus
01-22-2004 2:58 AM


Re: Natural / Supernatural
Mammuthus<< Darwin did not expound on the origin of the first cell but wisely focused on the process after the fact. >>
Warren<< Well, I'm interested in the origin of the first cells and that affects how I view evolution after the fact. Here is some further clarification of where I'm coming from. My position includes a tentative inference to bioengineering behind the original cells that were deposited on this earth. I don't rule out further instances of intelligent intervention, but I have not really looked into things such as the origin of multicellularity, body plans, etc. My position, however, allows me to think about evolution in a different light. That is, if indeed life was designed, there is no a priori reason to exclude ID as a possible mechanism behind some later aspect of evolution. The genie is out of the bottle and thus the privileged status of the blind watchmaker in evolution no longer exists. The blind watchmaker explanation must now compete against intelligent watchmaker models - that is the significance of ID behind the origin of life.>>
Mammuthus<< None of this requires a designer and there is no reason to posit (and in fact no scientific way) to posit one for abiogenesis either.>>
Warren<< You are under the impression that a design perspective is
useful or productive only if it is needed. I disagree. It is useful or
productive if it is capable of generating data and understanding about
the biological world. You may have no need to explain something in
terms of design, but I have no need to explain something as if it was not
designed. The utility of a design paradigm is not measured in terms of
need, but in terms of capabilities. Only if it is incapable of generating
hypotheses, experiments, results, and refined hypotheses, is the
perspective useless and nonproductive in science. That, at least, is my
opinion.>>
Mammuthus: "However, you seem to be a proponent of panspermia or life arising somewhere else and seeding the earth as opposed to a standard ID creationist. But even then, you have not solved the problem of the non-testable non-falsifiable designer. You have merely moved the location of abiogenesis."
Warren<< As I replied to Mark, ID is only concerned with how life originated on earth. The ultimate origin of life may be beyond human capability to discover. Besides, you act as if determining that life on earth was the result of bioengineering is of no account. I don't get this. If this were the case wouldn't you want to know it? Moving the location of abiogenesis adds to our knownledge of origins even if it leaves many questions unanswered. Having all the answers all at once isn't how science works.>>
[This message has been edited by Warren, 01-22-2004]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 158 by Mammuthus, posted 01-22-2004 2:58 AM Mammuthus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 166 by Mammuthus, posted 01-23-2004 3:16 AM Warren has not replied

  
Warren
Inactive Member


Message 165 of 181 (80190)
01-22-2004 8:39 PM
Reply to: Message 164 by mark24
01-22-2004 4:35 PM


Warren<< Didn't you see my scenario whereby the ultimate origin of life didn't involve the supernatural? >>
Mark<< No, which post? >>
Warren<< Message 156. >>

This message is a reply to:
 Message 164 by mark24, posted 01-22-2004 4:35 PM mark24 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 167 by mark24, posted 01-23-2004 4:46 AM Warren 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