Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   An educational angle we all could live with? (Philosophy of Science)
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 6 of 91 (208366)
05-15-2005 1:17 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Limbo
05-14-2005 3:00 PM


No, it's not really about "different philosophical approaches."
quote:
During this period, students could conduct simple thought and/or lab experiments designed to demonstrate exactly when and how different philosophical approaches to science influence the nature of the scientific theory...and how different approaches can lead to different philosophical interpretations. This is, after all, what this whole mess is about.
No, it really isn't about "different philosophical approaches" to science.
It's about usefulness.
What methodology is the most productive and useful in understanding natural phenomena?
For a couple of centuries at least, methodological natrualism has been the presiding methodology of science, and we have seen an incredible pace of advancement in understanding and application of knowledge.
Can you explain how not adhering to methodological naturalism will benefit inquiry and/or not hinder it?
Practical, real world examples would be welcome.
Like, what departure from ME would benefit the field of population genetics in their study of inherited disease resistance?
This message has been edited by schrafinator, 05-15-2005 03:10 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Limbo, posted 05-14-2005 3:00 PM Limbo has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 15 of 91 (208591)
05-16-2005 10:15 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by Limbo
05-15-2005 9:44 PM


What methodology is the most productive and useful in understanding natural phenomena?
quote:
There is only one way to find out. Science has come along way, it is illogical to limit it for so long.
But science WAS limited for a long time.
Remember what happened to Galileo?
For a couple of centuries at least, methodological naturalism has been the presiding methodology of science, and we have seen an incredible pace of advancement in understanding and application of knowledge.
quote:
Science has come along way over the last couple of centuries. But is all of that exclusively due to naturalism? Teleolgists deserve a great deal of credit, it seems.
Well, Galileo wasn't persecuted by naturalists, was he?
Can you explain how not adhering to methodological naturalism will benefit inquiry and/or not hinder it?
quote:
The fear that ID, if let under the umbrella of science, would harm science is a scare tactic.
Please explain how not adhering to methodological naturalism will benefit inquiry.
quote:
The Darwinian leadership knows that examining a teleological approach could undermine Darwinism, which would in turn harm their anti-religion agenda.
Please explain how not adhering to methodological naturalism will benefit inquiry.
quote:
The distinction between the different approaches only becomes plain when dealing with origin questions.
Then why on Earth are you talking about Darwin and Evolutionary Biology?
What you want to do is argue with the Biochemists, because they are the ones dealing with the origins of life.
Evolutionary Biologists only deal with life once it got here, not how it got here in the first place.
quote:
It would benefit science because it would spur competition.
OK.
What is your scientific Theory of ID? Remember, it needs to be falsifiable, it needs to make testable predictions, and it needst to have positive evidence to support it.
What you are proposing when you advocate not adhering to methodological naturalism in scientific inquiry would actually be a complete reversal of the fundamental tenets of how science is done.
I would like you to explain to me how you justify such a complete turnaround, seeing as how when we used to have to include the supernatural in science, we din't quite see the results and advancement that we have enjoyed once we started using Methodological Naturalism.
How would inquiry benefit by letting in supernatural explanations?
For example, if a scientist is able to point to a phenomena and say "this was Intelligently Designed", what does that mean?
Does that mean that we aren't allowed to keep studying it, just in case we might find that it really wasn't Intelligently Designed, but a product of natural mechanisms?
Or, does it mean that we are not allowed to ask the question, "What is this Intelligent Designer? Where is it? By what mechanism does it design things?"
quote:
Competition between Darwin interpretations of evidence, and ID interpretations of evidence.
Well, that's easy. MN wins, hands down.
ID doesn't make any testable predictions, but Evolutionary Biology certainly does, and has, for 150 years. And nearly all of them have been borne out.
quote:
Each would strive to make solid contributions, and who knows what advances would result.
Nobody is stopping the ID folks from doing science but them.
Go ahead, test your predictions and see what happens.
quote:
Monopoly = bad, competition = good.
I agree.
Methodological Naturalism in science was adopted precisely because it allows for the most competition.
quote:
Let them try to falsify each other. Without one, the other is unable to be falsified and hence unscientific anyway. Yin and Yang.
Um, no, that's not right.
The Theory of Evolution is quite falsifiable all on it's own.
What are the falsifications of ID Theory?
Do you even have a testable Theory of ID?
This message has been edited by schrafinator, 05-16-2005 10:26 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Limbo, posted 05-15-2005 9:44 PM Limbo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by Limbo, posted 05-18-2005 1:02 AM nator has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 38 of 91 (209224)
05-17-2005 11:47 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by Limbo
05-17-2005 3:26 AM


Re: The Full Biology Curriculum
quote:
ID is science in its own right, its just not mainstream.
What are the Theories associated with ID?
What are it's testable predictions?
What are the potential falsifications?
What tests have been undertaken and what is the positive evidence that supports these theories of ID?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Limbo, posted 05-17-2005 3:26 AM Limbo has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 39 of 91 (209225)
05-17-2005 11:53 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by Limbo
05-16-2005 4:34 PM


quote:
I think that the biggest reason religion has a problem with Darwinism is that the science classes do a piss-poor job of explaining the philosophical and social implications of Darwinism, and how these implications conflict with the day-to-day philosophies and social values of many people.
1) What does the "philosophical implications" of any scientific theory have to do with it's validity?
2) Just what are these "philosophical implications" of Darwinism that you think exist, and what is your proof that they are commonly held among scientists and/or science teachers?
3) How does the fact that allele frequencies change in populations over time conflict with the day-to-day philosophies and social values of many people?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Limbo, posted 05-16-2005 4:34 PM Limbo has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 40 of 91 (209227)
05-18-2005 12:01 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by Limbo
05-17-2005 7:28 PM


Re: The Full Biology Curriculum
A reply to message #15 in this thread would be appreciated.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Limbo, posted 05-17-2005 7:28 PM Limbo has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 41 of 91 (209229)
05-18-2005 12:10 AM


This is great!
What a timely cartoon!
You can see more Tom Tomorrow cartoons at Working for change.com

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by Silent H, posted 05-18-2005 4:59 AM nator has not replied
 Message 50 by Dr Cresswell, posted 05-18-2005 5:30 AM nator has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 64 of 91 (209304)
05-18-2005 8:07 AM
Reply to: Message 42 by Limbo
05-18-2005 1:02 AM


quote:
in spite of the growing accumulation of evidence that suggests that evolution is, biochemically speaking, impossible.
Really?
Can you cite some papers from the peer-reviewed professional literature which supports this claim?
I am only asking you because the essay you linked to doesn't have any footnotes or references to any research to back up the claims made.
quote:
Well, then what are you so afraid of? Let the 'new kid on the block' try to show his stuff. MN is tough, it can take it.
Great. What are the testable predictions?
List a couple here.
quote:
Well, Ill go ahead and tell the scientific community to let ID join the science club,
All the ID folks have to do to "join the science club" is to provide a hypothesis that makes testable predictions and is falsifiable and is supported by positive evidence.
That;s all anyone has to do to be scientific.
So far, nobody in the ID camp wants or is able to do this.
quote:
since only official club members can be taken seriously enough to have their predictions tested.
But anyone can follow the scientific method. It isn't difficult. If the ID folks are "real scientists", then they can conduct their own experiments and if their methodiology is sound, they will be published.
Remember, however, that it's not easy for anyone to get published.
quote:
Cause if they arent 'members' then their predictions are rejected as 'pseudo-science', right?
Well, remember that this ID arguemnt has been around a very long time; hundreds of years.
It has already been tested quite a lot.
(AbE)Imagine a game of baseball being played by professional baseball players.
Now imagine a bunch of people dressed in baseball uniforms comes up and says thay want to join the league. They use the lingo, they are carrying bats and gloves, but then when you see them actually playing the game, they don't follow the rules at all.
They claim that they can score runs without hitting the ball, and that when they are tagged out, they don't accept the umpire's ruling.
They SAY they play baseball, they DEMAND that they be allowed to join the league, but clearly, they don't play by the same rules as everyone else.
Can you tell me why this "pseudo-baseball" team should be allowed to join the league without following the same rules as all the other teams in the league?
The Theory of Evolution is quite falsifiable all on it's own.
quote:
Sure would be nice is science fessed up and gave people a few good, solid ways to do this.
Here you go, enjoy!
link to evidences for Evolution plus potential falsifications
Now, I notice that you actually skipped several of my points, so I'll repost them here.
What you are proposing when you advocate not adhering to methodological naturalism in scientific inquiry would actually be a complete reversal of the fundamental tenets of how science is done.
I would like you to explain to me how you justify such a complete turnaround, seeing as how when we used to have to include the supernatural in science, we din't quite see the results and advancement that we have enjoyed once we started using Methodological Naturalism.
How would inquiry benefit by letting in supernatural explanations?
For example, if a scientist is able to point to a phenomena and say "this was Intelligently Designed", what does that mean?
Does that mean that we aren't allowed to keep studying it, just in case we might find that it really wasn't Intelligently Designed, but a product of natural mechanisms?
Or, does it mean that we are not allowed to ask the question, "What is this Intelligent Designer? Where is it? By what mechanism does it design things?"
Please explain how not adhering to methodological naturalism will benefit inquiry.
This is the crux of the argument.
This message has been edited by schrafinator, 05-18-2005 08:35 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Limbo, posted 05-18-2005 1:02 AM Limbo has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 65 of 91 (209305)
05-18-2005 8:21 AM
Reply to: Message 53 by Limbo
05-18-2005 6:12 AM


Re: The Full Biology Curriculum
quote:
Obviously, then, naturalism is not a deduction from experimental observations but a defining philosophy, right?
Which kind of Naturalism are you referring to?
Methodological Natrualism or Ontological Naturalism?
The first is the method that science uses, and the other is the philosophy.
Scientists use MN in their work but may or may not personally adhere to ON.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Limbo, posted 05-18-2005 6:12 AM Limbo has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 87 of 91 (210525)
05-23-2005 8:24 AM
Reply to: Message 73 by Limbo
05-19-2005 5:30 AM


bump for limbo
A reply to messages #64 and #65 in this thread would be much appreciated, Limbo.
This message has been edited by schrafinator, 05-23-2005 08:25 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by Limbo, posted 05-19-2005 5:30 AM Limbo 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