Methodological Naturalism

Hi Warren,

quote:

---

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

---

However, this is where ID fails completely. It is completely incapable of generating a testable hypothesis which can be falsified. Thus, there can be no experiments that can be done to test it i.e. it is a supernatural concept. Since you have basically stated you are not particularly interested in life's evolution but in its origins (let me know if this is incorrect) let's focus then on abiogenesis. You claim or that the hypothesis that the first cell was designed and came from another planet can be tested. The latter is possible i.e. we find cells with DNA and all the hallmarks of terrestrial cells on another planet i.e. the astrobiology programs of NASA. But the former is still untestable. Even if life comes from another planet, this only moves the issue of abiogenesis to a new location, but suggest no way of verifying a designer. Though in its infancy, abiogenesis research does work under a series of testable hypotheses that currently lack both enough data and support to differentiate among them i.e. RNA first, DNA first, something else first etc. But at least one can construct hypotheses that can be falsified and this branch of research will proceed as any other science. However, if I say a designer did it and magically put the first replicators here..what do you do with that? Where do you go from there? Which designer was it? Who designed the designer? How can I distinguish among the various options? How can I falsify one versus the other?
ID fails completely.

Warren,Or perhaps abiogenesis happened here? So basically what you are saying that you can't infer design from simple life forms? Life actually CAN form very simply & become more complex!Mark[This message has been edited by mark24, 01-23-2004]

Holmes,You say, Astonishing remark. You posted, some time back, a set of research protocols that struck me as extremely limiting, applicable to only the most boring of ideas. It was straight out of Kuhn, and his contention that most scientists, not being interested in the truth, only in maintaining established paradigms, restrict themselves so that no new ideas ever get into their heads or the literature that they read. But, with all that research, do you understand, even, H-D science? How about the English language? I have said, several times, that H-D science is a subset of MN, and yet you continue to see the two in conflict. I don't get it. I don't agree with this, but I'm a naturalist, not an anthropologist. To me, inventing new, ad hoc, deus ex machina explanations is not all that smart, although it can work. Mad dogs and mad humans are infected. That invents nothing. I find the subjective pressure to pretend that we are the highest, most intelligent, most powerful living beings on the earth, coupled with the clear fact that every other species has to live otherwise, still a simple explanation for your persistent reluctance to look squarely at the data, and do experiments yourself.So, we don't yet agree.Stephen

quote:

---

do you understand, even, H-D science? How about the English language? I have said, several times, that H-D science is a subset of MN, and yet you continue to see the two in conflict. I don't get it.

---

I'm glad you admit it is you that does not understand.I have not said that these methods are in conflict. I am saying that... and have said so repeatedly... that H-D is insufficient, or inefficient, compared with MN.H-D may be an okay way to scout possible areas of research. But at the end of the day, before claims to knowledge about a theory are made, the research must be conducted according to MN protocols.If you agree that MN is the stricter protocol, then you have no reason to complain if it is the FINAL method of assessment.

quote:

---

Mad dogs and mad humans are infected. That invents nothing.

---

You are correct, as long as humans are infected by physical parasites. But you not only have invented the idea that all people who are mistaken, are instead infected, you have also invented some nonmaterial parasite (to explain the lack of material evidence for your claim) called "demons".

quote:

---

I find the subjective pressure to pretend that we are the highest, most intelligent, most powerful living beings on the earth, coupled with the clear fact that every other species has to live otherwise

---

I was never under the pretense that we are the most intelligent, powerful beings on the earth. I said people, just like any other animal, are limited and so can make mistakes. You are the one that seems to feel we are so powerful that the only explanation for error, is even more powerful entities... demons.But oh it's not even that simple... You then move into ad hoc explanations that when people think as you like they are counseled by powerful entities called angels or Gods, but when they don't think as you do then they are possessed by demons.You have given no consistent way to test which way around any particular thought can be considered counseled by angel or demon. Nor have you done anything but assert some connection from demons to dark matter/energy.

quote:

---

for your persistent reluctance to look squarely at the data, and do experiments yourself.

---

Uh, I do and I did. You have asserted that since the evidence did not turn out as you like, I must have done it wrong. You have also denied clear data which contradicts your occam's razor assertion.If you have something more than assertion, made to support your initial theory, I would love to see it. Specifically with regard to the aztecs and cargo cults. They were simply mistaken. It's just that easy.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Holmes,Well, we seem to be at an impasse, which only more data can settle. Even though I personally still find it simpler to invoke demons in the dark matter, than humans being "simply mistaken." maybe that's a personal choice. As an ecologist, there are endless debates about how you measure complexity. Not all that important, in my opinion anyway.But, help me out, slowly here. State a foundational protocol for MN. How does an MN scientific endeavor begin, in your understanding of the term.Or, if you like, give me a good reference to it. I'm obviously under-informed.Stephen

quote:

---

But, help me out, slowly here. State a foundational protocol for MN. How does an MN scientific endeavor begin, in your understanding of the term. Or, if you like, give me a good reference to it. I'm obviously under-informed.

---

I answered this in another thread, but I will repeat it here (not sure which you'll get to first). Actually I wish I had seen this one first because your comments here had my jaw hit the floor.If you are a degreed scientist, and a student of philosophy of science, and had numerous scientific articles published, why on earth do you need a reference as to how to conduct scientific research?This seems bizarre to me, and kind of needless since I have given examples of how to tighten some of the studies you talked about, and there are discussions on MN on this site. Do you really need my help in this?

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Holmes,I get the feeling that you know nothing about science, except some terms you don't understand. But, are in denial about your ignorance, playing some sort of game here. You won't describe what you mean by MN because you don't mean anything.Meanwhile, do the google on Hypothetico-deductive. See how many, many scientists think it's the best thing going.Stephen

quote:

---

But, are in denial about your ignorance, playing some sort of game here. You won't describe what you mean by MN because you don't mean anything.

---

You have got to be kidding me. For a guy that said he just realized what MN is and what it's relation is to H-D (after reading a post by MrH which happens to reflect my own position), how on earth can you make the above statement?If it makes you feel better to think of me as some uneducated clout, making things up as I go along, you go right ahead... hypocrite.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

MrHambre,You say, referring to MN, that Don't you mean "detectable or verifiable." Or, really, "somehow verifiable." There are lots of things out there in physics that cannot be detected, but they do have an influence on detectable things, and so can be verifiable. As long as we have the way they influence the detectable right.Just wondering.Stephen

Stephan would never resort to ad hominems against his opponents..nope, in the Free for All he proclaimed he was above all the ugly evolutionists and their bad behavior...good going Stephan..it seems in your arrogance and delusional state you can justify your behavior to yourself regardless of what you say or do.

Hi, Stephen! Detectable does not mean "directly apparent to one or more of the five senses." Everything we think we know in science is detectable in some way, which often means we have to use our tools and instruments to make apparent to our senses something that normally isn't. Of course, I don't have to explain this to such a great scientist as yourself.--Percy

P.You say, So, in MN, detectable and verifiable are the same things, and no distinction is made?S.

I wouldn't think the words themselves have any special meanings within the context of MN. Like many words, they have multiple definitions that are usually clear in context. It wouldn't be correct to assume they're synonyms, though certainly in some contexts they could be. Detecting some event might verify or falsify an hypothesis, or it might just be one step along the way.My only point was that detectable does not have to mean "directly apparent to the five senses", something that should have been obvious to you anyway. I think MrHambre was using the term "verifiable" in the sense of replication. When he says that a phenomena is detectable and verifiable, he means the phenomena has been observed, and that the observations have been verified by others, ie, replicated.--Percy

M.You seem unaware of the difference between an ad hominem, and a well deserved insult.But I appreciate your posts. They amply demonstrate my point about the study of evolution making people behave badly.S.

Actually, an ad hominem is when you abandon rational argument to instead make appeals to prejudice. Whether or not your insults are deserved, they *are* ad hominem.Your posts are becoming more and more Salty-esque, by which I mean you are directing more and more of your attention toward the perceived deficiencies in your opponents' character instead of to their positions and arguments. Might I suggest that you turn aside from this course and instead address some of the issues that have been raised in the H-D isn't what it used to be according to Stephen ben Yeshua thread, or The best scientific method thread, or the History's Greatest Holocaust Via Atheistic Ideology thread, or the designing a convincing prayer experiment thread.--Percy[This message has been edited by Percy, 01-29-2004]