tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post1448136677799117704..comments2024-03-27T14:50:47.345-04:00Comments on <center>Sandwalk</center>: John Wilkins Defends Philosophy: Begging the QuestionLarry Moranhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comBlogger75125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-83113696919622124242012-09-10T01:39:58.541-04:002012-09-10T01:39:58.541-04:00@Filippo Salustri
Probably 99% of the decisions pe...@Filippo Salustri<br />Probably 99% of the decisions people make every day, OUTSIDE academia, are simple, how-shall-I-get-through-this-day? or how-shall-I-handle-this-situation? type questions.<br />What do I feel like making for dinner?<br />My daughter's teacher says she has lost all interest in studying lately...how should I handle this?<br />I think that person just deliberately ditched me in the supermarket line. Should I say something or just forget about it? Who needs the conflict?<br />Etc., etc. <br />A person's philosophical stance, whether religious, humanist, etc.; is likely to play a large role in how these choices are navigated. How about science? What is its involvement in the overwhelming majority of decisions that non-scientists make every day in work and life?andyboergerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11159573123843322700noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-45728253387984395792012-09-09T23:58:06.579-04:002012-09-09T23:58:06.579-04:00It seems to me that philosophy has focused on the ...It seems to me that philosophy has focused on the structure and form of the argument and not so much on the validity of the premises. I think of virtually every philosophical argument I've ever heard as being wrapped in a giant conditional - IF the premises are true, then.... They do not seem, in my experience, especially worried about whether the premises actually are true.<br /><br />Science, on the other hand, seems to concern itself with both the form of the argument and the validity of the premises. Science is surely built upon the rational, critical scaffolding that philosophy provides. But it also seems to have recognized that there's no particular utility in an argument the premises of which aren't (or cannot be) validated in some way.<br /><br />That's why I see science as being the next "logical" step beyond philosophy. Fil Salustrihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15013108091674526603noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-3081788913841540952012-09-07T21:44:02.110-04:002012-09-07T21:44:02.110-04:00Oh, so all the data that lead to an heliocentric m...Oh, so all the data that lead to an heliocentric model was not empirical evidence? I think you might have a weird definition for empirical.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-59589983358612034572012-09-07T21:16:30.134-04:002012-09-07T21:16:30.134-04:00Sorry, I meant we would all still be geocentrists....Sorry, I meant we would all still be geocentrists.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-87934645558704398322012-09-07T21:15:35.998-04:002012-09-07T21:15:35.998-04:00"Everything must be grounded in empirical evi..."Everything must be grounded in empirical evidence as the starting point."<br /><br />This is simplistic in the extreme. There have been many approaches to understanding nature that did not rely on "empirical evidence" first. To cite the most famous example, if everyone were strict empiricists, we would all still be heliocentrists.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-91724148562821189282012-09-04T03:30:26.374-04:002012-09-04T03:30:26.374-04:00Thought Criminal,
You do that, enjoy yourself.
Y...Thought Criminal,<br /><br />You do that, enjoy yourself.<br /><br />You know, I can actually understand the irritation that theists must feel when confronted with the accusation that they have made the Courtier's reply. Would not, after all, any field expect that one first come to terms with its literature before rejecting it? Would not the average atheist lose patience with a creationist who dismisses all the relevant literature, from Darwin's Origin to a contemporary university textbook?<br /><br />But there is a difference, because virtually nobody actually doubts the existence of life, and we are merely squabbling over an evidence-based vs superstition-based explanation for its diversity. Theology, on the other hand, is the study of something that does not exist.<br /><br />I freely admit not having read religious literature beyond the actual holy books (and even then never all through from start to finish). I admire the perseverance of those who bite that bullet for me, like Jerry Coyne does. But why should I personally be required read the works of theologists when they are necessarily as pointless as would be the works of cryptozoologists discussing the population genetics of Yetis? As is, the theologian knows exactly as much about the character, plans and wishes of the gods as I do, i.e. nothing, so I will not gain anything from reading them.Alex SLhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00801894164903608204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-44199500081194950682012-09-04T03:29:49.476-04:002012-09-04T03:29:49.476-04:00Thought Criminal,
You do that, enjoy yourself.
Y...Thought Criminal,<br /><br />You do that, enjoy yourself.<br /><br />You know, I can actually understand the irritation that theists must feel when confronted with the accusation that they have made the Courtier's reply. Would not, after all, any field expect that one first come to terms with its literature before rejecting it? Would not the average atheist lose patience with a creationist who dismisses all the relevant literature, from Darwin's Origin to a contemporary university textbook?<br /><br />But there is a difference, because virtually nobody actually doubts the existence of life, and we are merely squabbling over an evidence-based vs superstition-based explanation for its diversity. Theology, on the other hand, is the study of something that does not exist.<br /><br />I freely admit not having read religious literature beyond the actual holy books (and even then never all through from start to finish). I admire the perseverance of those who bite that bullet for me, like Jerry Coyne does. But why should I personally be required read the works of theologists when they are necessarily as pointless as would be the works of cryptozoologists discussing the population genetics of Yetis? As is, the theologian knows exactly as much about the character, plans and wishes of the gods as I do, i.e. nothing, so I will not gain anything from reading them.Alex SLhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00801894164903608204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-44436230926255924632012-09-03T23:39:32.055-04:002012-09-03T23:39:32.055-04:00Claims that a god exists or that a particular indi...Claims that a god exists or that a particular individual,is a god go beyond merely evidencing the supernatural. This arguably illustrates just how large the gap is between the evidence we have and the religious claims people make. This gap does not illustrate that evidence for the supernatural in general is not possible or that evidence for a god existing or even that a particular individual is a god are not possible in principle. Proof in an impossible to achieve absolute sense never possible, but evidence favoring or disfavoring various conclusions about how the universe works are possible, contrary to popular accommodationist nonsense that science can say nothing at all about religious claims.Explicit Atheisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05501109533475045969noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-46278017616682731202012-09-03T19:07:13.911-04:002012-09-03T19:07:13.911-04:00I think it's time for me to write a reply to P...I think it's time for me to write a reply to PZ's all purpose permission for atheists to not know what they're talking about. <br /><br />Maybe a series with material drawn from his archive will stir up the Sage of Morris. <br /><br />The Thought Criminalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01381376556757084468noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-16398385390258876292012-09-03T18:48:39.163-04:002012-09-03T18:48:39.163-04:00Please feel free to quote where I defended creatio...Please feel free to quote where I defended creationism. I have said it is wrong, and that the process used to reach such a conclusion is flawed. If that is defending creationism, even Richard Dawkins is guilty.<br /><br />Evidence that Jesus did not have a human father is not the same as evidence he was the son of god, or even that god exists.<br /><br />And when you talk about evidence of unique events, like the miracles of Jesus, you can talk about evidence in the empirical sense, like when police use scientific evidence to reconstruct crimes, but again you would have evidence about an event, not it's supernatural cause. <br /><br />And if you could describe exactly how Jesus created bread out of the air, then you have essentially described a physical process, not a miracle. Supernatural is about magic. At best science can say, something not covered by our current theories.... happened. Dark Matter is a good example of this. Dark matter doesn't mean Angels are holding galaxies together. Nor would any modern scientist go looking for evidence of Angelic interference in the structure of galaxies.<br /><br />David Hume has a great argument against believing in miracles. People don't believe in miracles because of evidence. Physical evidence can be used to develop theories of what occurred at a given time, but those theories are dependent on the 'consistent' nature of the physical world. Miracles are inconsistencies, by definition.Joehttp://www.canadianatheist.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-25551825381851747202012-09-03T16:03:18.398-04:002012-09-03T16:03:18.398-04:00Courtier's Reply in aisle 3.
Paging the epist...Courtier's Reply in aisle 3.<br /><br />Paging the epistemological clean up crew to mop up the latest mess left by TTC.<br />steve oberskinoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-23635962982607386382012-09-03T12:51:52.414-04:002012-09-03T12:51:52.414-04:00Actually, typography would be the font of all know...Actually, typography would be the font of all knowledge.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-22491959050025483122012-09-03T11:33:13.437-04:002012-09-03T11:33:13.437-04:00The Thought Criminal, I have no idea what you coul...The Thought Criminal, I have no idea what you could mean by the statement 'God surpasses the category of existence'. Is this statement intelligible to you?<br /><br />Also, I don't see the concept of falsifiability being a requirement for something to exist since you cannot by definition falsify the existence of something that does exist. We simply use falsifiability when trying to probe reality, it is a tool not a property of the thing under examination.<br /><br />But to address your main point that we aren't applying the same rules of inquiry right up to existence itself. Do you see anything productive coming out of this? What insight do we gain when we start questioning existence itself? What does this illuminate?DCoburnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06293123772421154996noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-28168515563942814502012-09-03T10:20:44.433-04:002012-09-03T10:20:44.433-04:00chemscum, you'll have to take into account tha...chemscum, you'll have to take into account that I grew up on Eve Arden, Shelly Berman, Nichols and May<br /><br />http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N5pXggZIr6I<br /><br />back when comedians took great pains to be, you know, funny. I don't find the lazy-assed, not to mention stupid, post Andrew Dice Clay - Penn Jillette style junk funny. <br /><br />Alex, name the works of theology (Christian especially) you base that remark on. The Thought Criminalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01381376556757084468noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-48953518445322163362012-09-03T10:15:19.049-04:002012-09-03T10:15:19.049-04:00In what sense is what I said, "doubletalk&quo...In what sense is what I said, "doubletalk"? <br /><br />You'll love my Labor Day Post, nothing ironic about it, on my part at least.<br /><br />Darwinism and Economic Democracy: William Cobbett on Malthus<br /><br />http://zthoughtcriminal.blogspot.com/The Thought Criminalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01381376556757084468noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-40644159979693382092012-09-03T10:14:44.392-04:002012-09-03T10:14:44.392-04:00@joe,
For a scientist saying something is superna...@joe,<br /><br /><i>For a scientist saying something is supernaturally caused is nonsense.</i><br /><br />Why do you say this? <br /><br />People (scientists, historians, philosophers, etc.) who use the scientific way of knowing are quite capable of discovering that something occurred that appears to be outside of the normal laws of physics and chemistry. We could conceivably have solid evidence, for example, that Jesus did not have a human father, that he actually made bread out of thin air, and that he rose from the dead. <br /><br />Larry Moranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-90422829001358814692012-09-03T09:31:10.574-04:002012-09-03T09:31:10.574-04:00@joe,
.. I am not defending religion or the supe...@joe,<br /><br /><i> .. I am not defending religion or the supernatural. I am an atheist and skeptic (in the classical sense)</i><br /><br />I'm sorry, joe, but that's just not true. You ARE defending the supernatural even though you don't believe in it.<br /><br />You even end up defending creationism.<br />Larry Moranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-66309286200025614842012-09-03T09:27:34.361-04:002012-09-03T09:27:34.361-04:00I think Larry and Jerry might rather have their to...<i>I think Larry and Jerry might rather have their tongues cleave to the roves of their mouths than agree with something I've said. I don't know why.</i><br /><br />Thanks for providing a bit of humor on a Monday morning.<br /><br />[Note to the irony deficient. This is an example of what my daughter calls "doubletalk." My statement has two different interpretations. Some of you will understand it on one level and others will understand it on a very different level.]<br />Larry Moranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-21293777960045365552012-09-03T09:23:34.083-04:002012-09-03T09:23:34.083-04:00@The Thought Criminal
"chemicalscum, I suppo...@The Thought Criminal<br /><br />"chemicalscum, I suppose that's what passes as a witty remark."<br /><br />Well I was ROTFL at your original comment, so I must admit that your post was wittier than mine. While we are on the subject name five current books of by atheist academic philosophers you've read.chemicalscumhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00456611765432242326noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-11151203103833533682012-09-03T08:24:43.388-04:002012-09-03T08:24:43.388-04:00Fairyology is really highly relevant; the entire p...Fairyology is really highly relevant; the entire point of (particularly specific, such as Christian) theology, and the entire point of philosophical attempts at putting religion beyond the magisterium of science, is based on nothing but special pleading. It cannot be stressed enough: nothing but.<br /><br />All the arguments for scientists not being able to reject god boil down to arbitrarily granting theists the right to move goalposts or hold unreasonable assumptions while arbitrarily not granting, for example, believers in flower fairies, bigfoot, alien visitations or perpetuum mobiles the same privilege. It is indeed bizarre that so many philosophers are unable to see that logically, if they shout "you cannot prove a negative" whenever a scientist concludes that the Christian god does not exist, they would also have to shout the same at a scientist who concludes that the Loch Ness Monster, phlogiston or the ether do not exist. The difference is merely that less people are emotionally attached to the latter.Alex SLhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00801894164903608204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-39634292228623316772012-09-03T08:00:30.247-04:002012-09-03T08:00:30.247-04:00Maybe if you boys had studied more philosophy you&...<b>Maybe if you boys had studied more philosophy you'd know how to distinguish between your opinion and knowledge. I think reading and thinking about philosophy is how I learned what I know about that difference. </b> The Thought Criminalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01381376556757084468noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-18197943132585812552012-09-03T07:51:50.651-04:002012-09-03T07:51:50.651-04:00I didn't say that documentary evidence isn'...I didn't say that documentary evidence isn't physical, I said it wasn't the same as the physical evidence that science was made to study. The physical evidence of science wasn't consciously made of language with the intention of transmitting what it is about. Which is why history, for example, can often tell us some things about reality to the effective level of absolute certainty, which science seldom can. Though history can also be based on bad evidence and lead away from reality. And if evo-psy and the pseudo-social-sciences have their way, science will become as unreliable as bad history. <br /><br />I think Larry and Jerry might rather have their tongues cleave to the roves of their mouths than agree with something I've said. I don't know why. I've said I agreed with LM that evolution is a fact and Jerry that evolution is true. I think I said evolution was a fact before Larry started his blog. Only to have atheists furious at me for not saying evolution was a theory, like a good sciency guy is supposed to, even as they have no idea why.<br /><br />Well, evolution is a fact, natural selection is the theory, though it's one I grow more skeptical of the more versions of it I read in what scientists have articulated. I think it's probably just a habit of thinking now and suspect its one that will have to be overcome before newer and more reliably and physically based mechanisms finally leave it in the past. But that's a suspicion based on reading science, not a fact. I really don't think the conjecture of Malthus will prove to be subtle enough to base a reliable general mechanism of evolution on. The Thought Criminalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01381376556757084468noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-56511158337574080732012-09-03T07:29:16.815-04:002012-09-03T07:29:16.815-04:00I have not characterized "flower-fairy-ology&...I have not characterized "flower-fairy-ology" I have said nothing about and expressed no opinion about your newly and opportunistically invented branch of study. <br /><br />It's not hard boys, WHEN YOU EXPRESS DERISION OF SOMETHING FROM A BASIS OF COMPLETE IGNORANCE YOU ARE SHOWING THAT YOU ARE BIGOTED FOOLS, NOT UPHOLDING SCIENCE. <br /><br />You know, there was a time when people considered to be educated used to understand such basic concepts that you needed to know what you were talking about before your opinion was something other than an expression of ignorant bigotry. Atheists and, especially pseudo-skeptics seem to think that's a rule that doesn't apply to them and too many others fall for their phony pose of standing on science as they express their ignorant bigotry. The Thought Criminalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01381376556757084468noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-79619645608759857492012-09-03T07:11:54.284-04:002012-09-03T07:11:54.284-04:00when I say ruled out, I mean in the present contex...<i> when I say ruled out, I mean in the present context given the available empirical evidence. I don't mean ruled out forever because we cannot know what the available empirical evidence will look like....</i><br /><br />Explicit Atheist, then you should be explicit and say, 'it isn't science that has ruled it out, my ideological hunches have ruled it out". Science cannot study the general efficacy of prayer, etc. It's not possible to set up a study to test that. It can say if in any individual case there is a natural explanation either ruling out the presence of a disease or condition to be healed or that an apparently spontaneous recovery has a natural explanation, though it couldn't rule out that a supernatural agency didn't use what we would call natural mechanisms to effect a cure. You don't have to believe the claims that healing are miraculous but there is no way for science to deal with that last idea and no one has to believe what you want to butt in and say about the life of someone else either. They could tell you to mind your own business. <br /><br />Now, who in this exchange has been more respectful of science? The Thought Criminalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01381376556757084468noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-824397899726073882012-09-03T02:23:13.643-04:002012-09-03T02:23:13.643-04:00"The available evidence very much favors the ..."The available evidence very much favors the conclusion that there are the laws of physics and nothing else."<br /><br />Maybe I should clarify, I am not defending religion or the supernatural. I am an atheist and skeptic (in the classical sense). Religious people and those who believe in the supernatural simply do not put the same value on empirical evidence as science does. Religion tends to put value on intuition(gnosis,revelation,divine inspiration) and argument from authority. Which is why it is so often shown to be wrong by science. Conversely science does not recognize divine revelation as a form of evidence. It's not just a matter of being wrong or right about X. Science isn't just gambling.<br /><br />Methodological naturalism is the assumption science makes in order to pursue research into a natural explanation. What science does not do, even though some would claim it is so, is assert metaphysical naturalism. There is no (absolute)Truth in science, all claims are tenative. Methodological naturalism is just about assuming there is a natural explanation and then looking for one on that basis. If you don't make this assumption, there would be no reason to look for such an explanation. God did it, would suffice. The project of science is based on the idea that there could or even should be a natural explanation for X.<br /><br />"It starts with absolutely no favoritism or presuppositions other than the pragmatic consideration of utilizing WHATEVER method works to obtain knowledge."<br /><br />Sorry, but this is simply not true, and it would be impossible. I'm not saying that scientists don't make every attempt to be objective, but theoretical physicists don't spend equal time looking through ancient religious texts looking for answers about dark matter and dark energy. They assume that there is a natural explanation and based on that assumption go looking for one. That doesn't mean this assumption is an absolutist claim.<br /><br />"Again, in our universe it is exclusively methodological naturalism that works and the available empirical evidence strongly favors the conclusion that our universe functions by strictly materialistic mechanisms."<br /><br />Methodological naturalism can be contrasted with Metaphysical naturalism, it is not about the way the universe is, but rather an approach one takes to find out.<br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysical_naturalism<br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalism_(philosophy)#Methodological_naturalism<br /><br />My experience with scientists who object to the assumption of methodological naturalism, is that they view it as a shield that religious people can use to protect their god from scientific analysis. But this is just religion running scared and claiming a 'god of the gaps'. The real value of methodological naturalism is that it clears away unscientific hypotheses like creationism. Creationism is not science... not because it is wrong(it is wrong), but because 'god did it' is not a naturalistic (or a particularly useful) explanation. Such explanations would have no value to science, even if they are true, because while you can observe the material effects of a supernatural cause, the cause itself would not be identifiable.<br /><br />This doesn't mean scientists can't debunk claims about nature made by religion. That is a different thing however.<br />Joehttp://www.canadianatheist.comnoreply@blogger.com