Methodological Naturalism

Creationists have a persistent habit of framing scientific methodology in a purely philosophical light. Many assert that the presuppositions of science and logic are no more valid than those of religion, and that as a result naturalism is a religion in and of itself. They criticize 'naturalism-of-the-gaps' as being a prejudice that scientists harbor without cause.Certainly there are presuppositions at the basis of empirical evidential inquiry, which is the foundation of scientific knowledge. Such inquiry assumes that all relevant factors in the explanation of a phenomenon are detectable and verifiable. Any factor that is neither detectable nor verifiable is considered meaningless in the experimental framework. It is important to note that MN does not assume that such factors do not exist, merely that they can’t be considered until it is proven that they can have any bearing on the experimental setting.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.It is not true in the least that believers such as Newton and Pasteur did not subscribe to MN. Newton’s work demonstrates MN in its most distilled form. All of the mechanisms postulated by Newtonian physics are natural and verifiable. Despite being superseded by quantum mechanics, Newton’s science helped put a man on the moon. Similarly, Pasteur’s work was guided by MN in asserting that a material mechanism in the form of microorganisms was responsible for disease and putrefaction. His work has led to vaccines that have saved the lives of millions, and fermentation industries that reap billion-dollar profits.No scientific inquiry is conceivable without MN. It would be impossible to frame a hypothesis concerning even the most basic physical phenomenon without being able to limit the variables to those which can be detected or verified. There is no end to the imaginary, undetectable factors which could be listed by wishful thinkers, and there is no basis for disqualifying any of them without the constraint of MN. Despite the fact that Creationists portray it as a scientific loophole of some kind, MN actually demands that experimenters frame their hypotheses in a realistic, verifiable way. It tries to ensure that the same conclusion will be produced given a specific set of experimental variables, regardless of the philosophical differences between researchers.To criticize the concept of MN is to criticize science itself. Through MN, material mechanisms have been discovered for natural phenomena. The conclusion to be drawn is that MN and science will continue to be useful in doing so. Therefore, naturalism-of-the-gaps is a valid assumption, since it is the only thing that has succeeded in increasing our understanding of the physical universe.------------------
America is like watching a symphony conducted by the tuba player. -Dow Mossman, The Stones of Summer

quote:

---

say, for instance, some methodological supernaturalist appeals to the psychic powers of invisible dwarves as an explanation for why various atoms stick together - wouldn't this prevent any progress in chemistry from every being made, because it buries all interesting phenomena under the first stupid hypothesis one dreams up of? Not necessarily, I think. If the methodological supernaturalist remains devoted to empiricism as a means of collecting data, I would expect him to eventually end up with a whole pantheon of different dwarves that correspond to the different types of chemical bonds that can exist, and this could actually pave a path for fruitful future research and technological developments in the same way that a naturalistic understanding of chemical bonds does.

---

Oh. Kay.The point, though, is that the 'methodological supernaturalist' would never be able to get even that far, because he'd have no reason to exclude any factor as a variable in his experimental setting. Once we allow invisible dwarves into the equation, we have no reason to exclude the Flatulent Pink Unicorn and baby Jesus and everything else on the quite literally endless list of non-verifiable factors.We don't pick material mechanisms because we like them best. We're forced to do so by Methodological Naturalism because we want to make the exclusion of the irrelevant factors as non-arbitrary as possible. After all, if factors are in fact detectable and verifiable, we have no reason to exclude them.The Creationist claims that set A, all detectable and verifiable things, is a subset of set B, all things that exist. The ontological naturalist says that sets A and B are exactly the same. MN ignores the philosophical differences by stating that only items in set A are meaningful in a scientific setting, regardless of whether there exist things outside set A.------------------
America is like watching a symphony conducted by the tuba player. -Dow Mossman, The Stones of Summer

Syamsu,

quote:

---

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.

---

I realize you consider this to be true merely because Syamsu says so. I deplore the way you're once again turning EvCForum into Syamsu's Big Top thread by thread, making unsupported assertions and refusing to respond to challenges to your claims.The truth is, as I stated above, that methodological naturalism is the only tool that has produced results in the scientific arena. If you don't agree, it's irrelevant to point out your philosophical objection to MN. It's beside the point that you feel certain terminology is unwarranted. All you need to do is demonstrate one way, one instance, in which it has been useful to science to introduce unverifiable factors into its methodology.Give us one example of a non-material mechanism that scientific investigation has produced for any natural phenomenon.------------------
America is like watching a symphony conducted by the tuba player. -Dow Mossman, The Stones of Summer

Mammuthus,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.------------------
America is like watching a symphony conducted by the tuba player. -Dow Mossman, The Stones of Summer

Let's be clear here, the only reason you evolutionists make this play for methodological naturalism, is because it allows you to use ridiculous terminology like "reality" and "conclude" in your theories.------------------
The dark nursery of evolution is very dark indeed.
Brad McFall

Syamsu,Regardless of your philosophical issues with MN or your hatred for Darwinism, you still need to support your assertion that:

quote:

---

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.

---

I've listed ways in which even believers like Pasteur and Newton worked within MN and produced results that revolutionized our view of the world. If you can't name even one instance where science has benefitted from proposing non-material mechanisms or used non-verifiable factors in experiments, I think your assertion is effectively refuted.------------------
The dark nursery of evolution is very dark indeed.
Brad McFall

Syamsu,Once again you've steered the discussion to your disdain for the 'judgmental language of Darwinism,' which has absolutely nothing to do with this thread. I won't discuss your pet peeve here.Methodological Naturalism neither assumes nor denies the supernatural. What MN does is limit any factor to those which can be verified or detected in an experimental setting. The utility of this constraint has been proven by centuries of scientific progress, through experiments conducted by researchers of every conceivable philosophical and religious stripe. Their work is based on the realistic assumption that if a factor cannot be detected, measured, or verified, it's not a meaningful factor in the experiment. As has been pointed out to you already, many different forms of energy can be measured. Information in the Shannon engineering sense has also been measured in terms of bits and bytes. Neither of these qualifies as supernatural.If your objection to MN were substantial in the least, you'd be able to point to some significant research that has been conducted using supernatural or undetectable forces and mechanisms. Since you've never defined what form such 'creativity' takes in the lab, it's safe to say that MN is a justified assumption.------------------
The dark nursery of evolution is very dark indeed.
Brad McFall

Mammuthus,What I'm trying to establish is that MN is valid because it works, regardless of whether it constitutes fence-sitting on the supernatural question. If we can conduct experiments with the same verifiable factors and always arrive at the same conclusions concerning atomic polarity, molecular structure, etc., then it seems that we don't see the effects of supernatural entities. We'd expect to see all sorts of wacky things in the lab and get wildly divergent results if supernatural mechanisms were intervening, and that's just not what we see. The quotidian, predictable regularity of science at least makes a strong case that supernatural entities aren't necessary to explain material reality. Whether they're necessary to explain anything at all seems to be up to the individual.------------------
The dark nursery of evolution is very dark indeed.
Brad McFall

Syamsu,Like I said, your harping on your favorite subject is not required or useful here. The philosophy of Darwinism is not the issue, only scientific methodology.If you'd like to offer any example of the leaps in scientific knowledge that supernaturalism has produced, be my guest. Otherwise your assertion that MN is invalid is absolutely pointless.------------------
The dark nursery of evolution is very dark indeed.
Brad McFall

Syamsu,You're dragging out this discussion of 'judgmental language' to your traditionally futile and meaningless end. What Loudmouth was saying was that MN is meant to keep notions of morality, whether they derive from religious fanaticism or not, out of science. Regardless of our individual conceptions of good and evil, MN ensures that we can all conduct and benefit from research because it should be as philosophically neutral as possible.No one here bases his morality on Methodological Naturalism. It's merely the only way that science can frame hypotheses concerning natural phenomena. Your predictable inability to point to any useful research founded on supernaturalism has sent you back to your ranting against the evil Darwinists and their judgmental language, but that is not the point here.The point of this thread was to discuss the creationist misconception of MN, specifically the way they confuse MN with the philosophical positions of atheism and amorality. The only question left is whether your inability to deal with the reality and relevance of MN is a sign of ignorance or deceit.------------------
The dark nursery of evolution is very dark indeed.
Brad McFall

quote:

---

Get some mental help there Syamsu...consult your local doctor.

---

Would that be Dr. Haeckel?------------------
The dark nursery of evolution is very dark indeed.
Brad McFall

Syamsu,

quote:

---

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.

---

As always, you consider any assertion you make true, not because it's true, but because you made it. Of course you think it's perfectly meritable. Methodological Naturalism should guide scientific inquiry because it's been the only tool that has produced results to date. If you can't point to the successes of any supernatural scientific methodology, we'll stick with MN.With typical creationist paranoia, you say that the problem is that no criticism of MN is allowed here. Why is it that when the subject is Darwinism or scientific methodology, the only reason we evolutionists defend it is because we're brainwashed by materialism? Could it possibly be that we haven't been presented with viable alternatives to MN?You've only criticized MN by ranting against the same philosophical bias that MN is intended to limit. The truth is that MN is the basis of science, whether the research is being conducted by believers or atheists. It says nothing about supernatural factors merely because such factors have never been useful in conducting empirical evidential inquiry.------------------
The dark nursery of evolution is very dark indeed.
Brad McFall

The process of empirical evidential inquiry, in the context of MN, is the time-tested method of expanding our knowledge about the natural world. Historically, understanding natural phenomena through supernatural mechanisms led to the dead end of dogmatism and has long since given way to the more effective methodology of MN.Creationists don't have the same outlook when it comes to scientific understanding. Since the creationist model depends on religious belief and Biblical authority, its foundation is by definition ascientific. The notion of 'theory' in Creationism (when not used pejoratively in an attempt to dismiss a valid scientific framework as 'just a wild guess') is simply a collection of factoids painstakingly removed from their larger scientific context, presented as support for a vague set of assumptions whose only common factor is a supernatural entity of some kind.This type of 'theory' is comparable to a bucket full of data. The creationists claim that the contents of their bucket are all that's necessary to support the validity of their assumptions. Thus, we're presented a factoid like 'polonium haloes' that is supposed to invalidate the rest of what we know about physics and radioactive isotopes. Also, they may pull a factoid like 'gaps in the fossil record' or 'seashells in the mountains' out of the bucket, to refute everything else we know about paleontology, geology, etc. The problem with their view of evidential inquiry is that they merely ignore everything that they did not deign to put in their bucket. Their theory in its entirety is aimed toward supporting the existence of supernatural factors, regardless of whether such factors can even be detected through naturalistic inquiry. The failure of creationism as science is made even more obvious by the movement's emphasis on being included in the educational system as an alternate theory despite its glaring lack of success in the lab or field.The more useful concept of a 'theory' (I'm indebted to Robert Pennock for this metaphor) is comparable to a flashlight that illuminates what we see in the world. Our framework for understanding natural phenomena is something that makes sense of the patterns and complexity inherent in our universe. The more our theory allows us to understand, the better we can say it is. If there are areas that the theory can't currently illuminate, it may need to be strengthened or adjusted.Creationists should at least admit that everything we understand concerning natural phenomena, we owe to empirical evidential inquiry. In addition, they should admit that even a comprehensive scientific framework has been modified when the evidence demanded it. The geocentric solar system gained validation through being able to predict both solar and lunar motion. The flashlight of geocentrism, then, did illuminate certain phenomena. Its inability to predict planetary motion, however, was a problematic blind spot. Only the flashlight of the heliocentric model was sufficiently bright to illuminate solar, lunar, and planetary movement.Evolution is a comprehensive theoretical framework with explanatory power, based on testable mechanisms and supported by evidence from various scientific fields of study. Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection has served as the basis for successful scientific research and ongoing programs of inquiry. The continuing reliance on empirical evidential inquiry and methodological naturalism is not a philosophical presupposition but the realistic reliance on methods that have proven successful in expanding our understanding of natural phenomena.------------------
The dark nursery of evolution is very dark indeed.
Brad McFall

Jim,My assumption, when I read your post #2, was that you were conducting an elaborate parlor game intended to make a point about the impracticality of Methodological Supernaturalism. Asserting that the supernaturalist could only succeed if he collected his data empirically seemed to miss the point of supernaturalism anyway, but I gave you the benefit of the doubt.My assumption, when I read essentially the same argument in your post #68, is that you're taking the piss.------------------
The dark nursery of evolution is very dark indeed.
Brad McFall

JIM seems to be good as gold except on Thursdays and Fridays. Hey, you gotta do laundry some time.------------------
The dark nursery of evolution is very dark indeed.
Brad McFall