|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
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: |
quote: 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2170 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
What methodology is the most productive and useful in understanding natural phenomena? quote: 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: 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: Please explain how not adhering to methodological naturalism will benefit inquiry.
quote: Please explain how not adhering to methodological naturalism will benefit inquiry.
quote: 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: 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: 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: Nobody is stopping the ID folks from doing science but them. Go ahead, test your predictions and see what happens.
quote: I agree. Methodological Naturalism in science was adopted precisely because it allows for the most competition.
quote: 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2170 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: 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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2170 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: 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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2170 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
A reply to message #15 in this thread would be appreciated.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2170 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
|
|||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2170 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: 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: Great. What are the testable predictions? List a couple here.
quote: 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: 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: 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: 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2170 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2170 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
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
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024