tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post5695806338636161471..comments2024-03-27T14:50:47.345-04:00Comments on <center>Sandwalk</center>: Is Science Restricted to Methodologial Naturalism?Larry Moranhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comBlogger59125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-29544902692913770042012-05-10T22:11:48.973-04:002012-05-10T22:11:48.973-04:00Ever the atelic argument- no Divine director behin...Ever the atelic argument- no Divine director behind natural causes and, they are their own bosses!<br /> Were there that intent, then as Weizs notes, no one would do aexperiments,because everything was already set in place,and thus could never vary!<br /> Jerry Coyne and Amiel Rossow @ Talk Reason illuminate the argument!Ans this is where the NCSE, Dr. Scott and I part company as this is not only a philosophical point but also a scientific one, so that accommodationists should only state that many believers accept evolution as His way of operating in the Cosmos.<br /> Whilst we gnu naturalists affirm that theists must evince how He operates behind natural selection and other natural causes instead of just feeling that He and science are compatible. Then comes the atelic. Never shall theists illustrate how He operates, so they relish a mystery to solve for them a mystery- why something instead of nothing exists- such blasphemey of reason!<br /><br /> Laurence, perhaps you'll do an essay on why we naturalists need to oppose the use of Divine intent.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-66416541137691034852012-03-29T23:54:55.244-04:002012-03-29T23:54:55.244-04:00Larry, well, please answer sometime. I see intent ...Larry, well, please answer sometime. I see intent as superstition. I make no category mistake as this lack of divine intent means that the spirit behind Nature is the same as for natural forces- no direction. Mayr and Simpson note no director behind evolution.<br /> I'll encourage my viewers to come here!<br /> mlg.lamberth@gmail Morgan-LynnGriggs LamberthAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-47038588291916625012012-03-21T22:59:11.225-04:002012-03-21T22:59:11.225-04:00Who are those sock puppet atheist commentators?
...Who are those sock puppet atheist commentators?<br /> Why do you dissent from my arguments?<br /> Do you make that new implicit Omphalos argument? Do you find divine intent despite no evidence for such, and that would mean that scientists never could revise experiments as just one outcome had divine intent? Would you ten make the case for backwards causation that the future comes before the past and the effect before the cause, negating time as Paul B. Weisz notes in " The Science of Biology." No Aristotelian intent in organisms themselves [ I forget his term.].<br /> Science ratifies what Thales and Strato affirm that no supernatural intent lies behind natural forces. How do you gainsay that without begging the question of final causes based on intent? <br /> Larry, could then answer us both. <br /> Larry, do you favor the PMN or the IMN?<br /> I am building the atelic argument on Weisz's pellucid discussion of why teleology cannot fructify anything in science.<br /> Larry, others would claim as they do with that tea pot that no one has ever seriously come to believe in it:it is just silly. No, as it concerns the nature of claims.What do you state in support of both as defeaters?<br /> Lamberth's reduced animism sums up why supernaturalists are reduced animist and why reduced animism is still superstitious.<br /> Lamberth's argument from pareidolia sums up why supernaturalists ignore natural causes as ultimate causes and see patterns as designs.<br /> That is, supernaturalists read onto Nature superstition from their pareidolia.<br /> Why, because per Lamberth's non-genetic argument, supernaturalists themselves dissolve the accusation against us with our analysis of why they believe as they use the unsubstantiated arguments from angst and from happiness-purpose. Francisco Jose Ayala, echoing Augustine, uses the one from angst that we are forlorn without belief in Him for our values and purpose in " Darwin and Intelligent Design." Else where, he prattles that we need God to overcome angst, but why, when therapy can help anybody do that? He cannot fathom that we don't need Being Itself to find good values;he begs the question of His making values , as the Euthyphro invalidates that mere assumption.<br /> Such an empty claim that we need Him for happiness and purpose as this life, human love and human purposes suffice; and to wail that nevertheless, without Him we have angst and no real happiness and purpose calls for therapy! His prattling then about divine love and divine purpose and the future life bespeaks a need for therapy as is the case with Billy Lane.<br /> " Life is its own validation and reward and ultimate meaning to which neither God nor the future state can further validate." Inquiring Lynn<br /> Thus we make no genetic argument as they shout from the roof tops : woe is me! Fools deny atheism; we naturalists can rightly deny Him from the roof tops and the public square! Note my Ignostic Morgan quote in the previous post.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-68207734713961020172012-03-20T19:32:11.280-04:002012-03-20T19:32:11.280-04:00Laurence, what do you state as to my viewpoint an...Laurence, what do you state as to my viewpoint and that of the thought criminal? Don't you agree with the atelic/teleonomic argument? Don't you agree with the reduced animism argument that theism is just superstition? Thus, don't you agree with the substance of my post of 10 March? How should I better phrase any of those arguments? <br /> Coyne and you agree with me, I think that the NCES should only state that believers can believe in evolution, not that science cannot say yea or nay about Him when Stenger illuminates that it does in fact! And the Ceiling Cat like, Lord Russells celestial tea pot, has force in being ineffable like Him,despite what others state,eh?<br /> So you would agree with me about that new Omphalos argument that supernaturalists implicitly make in the manner of Hick's epistemic distance argument?<br /> Where we disagree is that I use the term rational venues of knowing whilst you use scientific venues, including,pertaining to art,etc. I use rational to avoid others' calling it scientistic.You take the accusation by the horn, noting that you do include art,etc.<br />We both then find haughty John Haught begging the question of our beggiing the question against other venues of knowing when we say scientific or rational when he alleges those other venues! He means, I take it, infirmed <br />intuitions,revelations and such.<br /> Rem B.Edwards faults us for not considering supernaturalism as having just as much a right as naturalism but no, because his supernaturalism-God- rests on convoluted, ad hoc assumptions,violating the Ockham,despite Richard Swinburne's misunderstanding of that heuristic.<br /> Such twaddle is why I take on sophisticated theologians!<br /> I combine and permute arguments at those many blogs and elsewhere. I reblog articles to mine to which I make comments and post there my own articles, which I also reblog. I'm just trying to reach more people that way. As to elsewhere, Google skeptic griggsy.<br /> I invite thoughtful commentary at the blogs.<br /> I heartily agree with Boudry!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-61761628929626409992012-03-20T08:13:05.679-04:002012-03-20T08:13:05.679-04:00Geesh, Carneades Hume, I just checked out how many...Geesh, Carneades Hume, I just checked out how many blogs you have, which I'd suggest to anyone taking you seriously. I assume that those others you cited are more of them. Maybe if you would concentrate your efforts you might get somewhere. But, as the career of Paul Kurtz shows, you can make a lesser effort appear to be more than it is by that strategy. I've caught a few new atheist blog commentators doing the same thing with sock puppets.The Thought Criminalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01381376556757084468noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-81350423446998336892012-03-20T06:59:42.500-04:002012-03-20T06:59:42.500-04:00Carnades, I hope you've got a day job to go al...Carnades, I hope you've got a day job to go along with your career as a poet. <br /><br />I was just re-reading Gould's The Pleasure of Pluralism because something someone said here reminded me of it.<br /><br />http://www.stephenjaygould.org/reviews/gould_pluralism.html<br /><br />What he points out about Dennett's MO of false attribution of ideas and sneering in place of reasoned argument based in an actual knowledge of what's being discussed is the model of new atheist discourse.The Thought Criminalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01381376556757084468noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-90054520708504530862012-03-19T22:29:56.851-04:002012-03-19T22:29:56.851-04:00Just what are those other scientific wrongs? Scien...Just what are those other scientific wrongs? Scientists themselves find our wrongdoings in science whilst others just prattle as that lying Gish in his gallop ever does about evolutionist frauds when he did approve of the Paluxy Tracks and the how can it be that the bombardier beetle ever have evolved?<br /> You woo meisters just prefer basking in the darkness of inanities and "criminal' thoughts!<br /> This gnu atheist calls the superstitious as just that! This is legitimate name -calling1 We dissolve your prattle with evidence so that no ad hominem involve themselves!<br /> "God is in a worse position that the Scarecrow who had a body to which a mind could enter whilst He has neither and thus cannot exist! No wonder He is ineffable!' Ignostic Morgan<br /> " Reason removes mountains of ignorance whilst faith relies on the arguments from ignorance and from personal incredulity. Faith, that begged questio,n is just the we say so of credulity. Science is acquired knowledge, as Sydney Hook notes, whilst faith begs the question of being knowledge." Fr. Griggs<br /> http://ignosticmorgan.posterous.com<br /> http://carneades.posterous.com<br /> http://inguiringlynn.wordpress.com<br /> http://fathergriggs.wordpress.com<br /> Those are four out of over 100 blogs that by Googlin lamberth's naturalistic arguments about God, people can find out the evidence goes against that square circle, Being Itself!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-88436510024428024612012-03-19T22:07:46.509-04:002012-03-19T22:07:46.509-04:00When you state that naturalism cannot state that r...When you state that naturalism cannot state that rape is wrong, you betray your prejudice that why, you'd rape little girls and - little boys,only Being Itself or Sky Pappy won't let you. Were you an atheist would you really do such? Here we, due to our evolved, refined common moral sense won't rape period! The evidence supports this,but your well-drained eyes of faith supports refusal to recognize this fact! This per Richard Carrier's goal theory or my [ Google:] covenant morality for humanity- the presumption of humanism or another theory. His and mine are eclectic- teleological and deontological. <br /> You refuse to accept the evidence that your divine command morality is no more than the mores of the times as who stones children now for cheeking their parents or the other absurd commands just made up by those miscreant, miserable misanthropes of yore with their egregious simple subjectivism!<br /> Lord Russell has a decent simple subjectivism.<br /> The atelic argument gainsays your simple subjectivism in that as no divine intent comes forth, and supernaturalists never will give evidence as to how Being Itself can act when science notes otherwise. How then does your reduced animism dissolve how He operates in Nature without relying on the usual arguments from ignorance and from personal incredulity?<br /> The evidence for the presumption of naturalism is that know that Nature exists as a basic fact unlike your Being Itself that has no way to operate unless it be by the magic of let it be! Despite, Plantinga, Being itself is not basic but just a shibboleth. <br /> <br /> Per Reichenbach's the argument from Existence, as Existence is all, nothing can transcend it to direct it or be material whence it comes. It is ever a transformation, not a real beginning,despite Craig's prattle! No testability therefore requires itself!<br /> Richard Carrier, Paul Kurtz, Dave Draper and Kai Nielsen reverberate as philosophers whilst Craig and Plantinga, despite, their symbolic language and such, rank with Ayn Rand and Sylvia Brown[e] as woo meisters!<br /> What evidence do you have instead of your false interpretations of science for finding that supernaturalists can overcome the presumption of naturalism and the atelic argument? <br /> Carneades, Thales and Strato eviscerate your woo!<br /> Laurence, the more evidence we give, such people will just further ensconce themselves in their objurgation of reason for the faith of woo1 They wallow in inanities as other posters here in effect note! They misunderstand logical fallacies. The revel in such inanity as the priest class,because they cannot in principle and in fact find divine intent, so that per Lamberth's reduced animism argument, they use superstition as do full animists, and ti's no category mistake to find that at the level of Nature herself or natural forces, both due to that lack of intent are the same in fact and in principle!<br /> We accept naturalism, rationalism and skepticism,because they are lively, forced and momentous whereas the supernatural lacks those and other qualities- no there there!<br />Yes, that poster has the right moniker,because he/she commits intellectual crimes!<br /> Promissory naturalism leads to progress whilst faith leads to intellectual otiosity- laziness and vacuity!<br /> No, not Hollywood stars, but instead the approval- stars- of all scientific organizations!<br /> You inanely prattle about evidence but never will you provide any, just your misinterpretation of where the facts lead! " Faith doth that to people!"<br /> " Reason removes mountains of ignorance whilst faith rests on the argument from ignorance. Faith, that begged question is the we just say so of credulity" Fr. GriggsAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-69099778361076455612012-03-19T17:30:22.209-04:002012-03-19T17:30:22.209-04:00Well, what couldn't you test if we had the cap...Well, what couldn't you test if we had the capability? I gave several things that are asserted by scientists to be science but which are untestable and which are frequently believed to be "known" by self-appointed defenders of science on many of these blogs. The ubiquitous faith in evo-psy is based largely on that kind of stuff and it has real effects. If you want to see how bad that can get, review the history of eugenics, especially forced and involuntary sterilizations in the United States and Canada up into the 1970s and, possibly, 1980s. <br /><br />If you thought your second paragraph was relevant to what I said, you didn't understand what I said.The Thought Criminalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01381376556757084468noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-2448244892657913992012-03-19T15:30:22.059-04:002012-03-19T15:30:22.059-04:00OK, so the problem seems to be that I don't kn...OK, so the problem seems to be that I don't know what you mean by "testable in principle". I know what I mean, and by my definition Aristarchus counts, i.e. "testable if we had the physical capability, which it's possible to have but which we don't have at present". So what does it mean to you?<br /><br />I agree that my second paragraph is silly. It's supposed to be. But it seems to me a valid implication of your argument, and thus a fine reductio ad absurdem.<br /><br />Your various quibbles translate into "we can't really know anything", which may be all very nice for a philosopher, but suggest that you should get out of the way of the scientists.John Harshmannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-57843060002749890012012-03-19T11:54:27.439-04:002012-03-19T11:54:27.439-04:00"What's the floor of Aristarchus crater m..."What's the floor of Aristarchus crater made of?" It's not testable "in principle", if you could get there it's testable in fact, assuming that whatever is there is like other materials that have been tested. Although you couldn't know unless you had a sample, you could test it to see if it was consistent with those, known, materials. If you would need other, unknown and unavailable tests to give a more complete picture would depend on seeing what's there. It's possible that you'd find it was made of things unlike anything known to existing science. Your example would tend to support my point, that until you can test it. What can be observed about it now is testable, not every test is going to yield conclusive results. Which is one of the problem of things that are asserted to be "testable in principle" being used as a sort of pseudo-evidence in arguments. <br /><br />I had a very long fight last year about Dawkin's "first bird in a flock to call out" speculation that was asserted to be evidence of some of his imaginary genes. The ability to test his idea in nature would be so extraordinarily complex, especially if you include the sense of hearing into those things considered, that it's probably more realistic to consider it "untestable in reality". <br /><br />There isn't a single object in the physical universe that is entirely susceptible to being exhaustively known scientifically, science can tell you only part of what is there. I doubt that there is any possibility of science ever being able to tell you, literally, everything about an object because there will always be aspects of it that aren't observable or quantifiable and so would not be susceptible to analysis. Those unknowable aspects of objects will not be "testable in principle" and until testing can be done on those unknown aspects, they cannot be assumed to be testable in principle. <br /><br />Your second paragraph is just silly.The Thought Criminalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01381376556757084468noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-8798496276745617592012-03-19T11:29:20.405-04:002012-03-19T11:29:20.405-04:00"Testable in principle" is an expression...<i>"Testable in principle" is an expression of belief, not of knowledge. How do you know if something is really testable until it's been tested? How do you know what the "test" will show until it's been conducted? Something that is "testable in principle" isn't reliable evidence of anything, it's conjecture.</i><br /><br />Nonsense. For example, "What's the floor of Aristarchus crater made of?" is a scientific question. We should all be able to agree that it's testable in principle: we know how to test it, since all you have to do is go there and get a sample for analysis. We con't currently (post-Apollo) have the capability to do that. But we know that it's possible to have that capability. And it's irrelevant that you don't know the results of the test until you do it; that's why it's a test rather than a demonstration. Nor is it claimed that being testable in principle is evidence of anything other than that a theory is scientific; note that "scientific" doesn't mean "correct".<br /><br />If, on the other hand, you're saying that we can have no idea what would even constitute a test until that test has been performed, that would make science a series of random actions. I'm going to test General Relativity by spooning peanut butter into a walnut shell. After I've done that, we'll see if I have in fact tested General Relativity. And then for a replication, I'll try walking backwards around the block.John Harshmannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-65031184900897393872012-03-19T06:17:25.129-04:002012-03-19T06:17:25.129-04:00"Testable in principle" is an expression..."Testable in principle" is an expression of belief, not of knowledge. How do you know if something is really testable until it's been tested? How do you know what the "test" will show until it's been conducted? Something that is "testable in principle" isn't reliable evidence of anything, it's conjecture.<br /> <br />The idea that the material universe is all that there is is an untestable conjecture as much as any idea about the supernatural. When that form takes the form of promissory materialism it frequently gets inserted into science in exactly the same way that atheists are always going on about "religion" getting sneaked into science by ideologically unreliable religious believers. Not that they can produce either the religious moles or evidence of their corruption of the pure vessel of science when asked for that evidence. <br /><br />The bulk of behavioral science consists of promissory materialism and, as anyone who looks at biology knows, it's come to dominate the popular conception of evolution. The careers of E.O. Wilson and Richard Dawkins are illustrative of what that can result in. Both largely featured the descent into that kind of ideological vulgarization of science. E. O. Wilson sort of gave it up to pursue science and a last ditch effort at the preservation of diversity and has become skeptical of the entirely untestable Hamiltonian speculation that was a major motivation in their brand of promissory materialism. Dawkins has made a career of peddling the stuff and, in the last decade, has gone into pop-atheism and pretty much gave up on a science career altogether for something more like show biz. That seems to be the career path of choice by a number of even real scientists lately. Let me give them some advice, in show biz, there's not always room at the top. The public can only absorb so many would be stars. There will be no Hollywood squares for the almost contenders of the new atheism and Prometheus can sell only so many books. <br /><br />I'll have to say that a lot of what I'd grown up with about science and its reliability has been shaken in the last couple of decades, not by fundamentalist religion which I've always rejected and wasn't brought up to in the first place but by the pseudo-skeptical and new atheist fads. It's pretty appalling how ignorant many of the biggest fans of science are about what science is and what it isn't, what it can and can't do and the limits of its abilities. It's even more appalling how many scientists have at least the same level of ignorance of their own profession. And yet they're surprised when the frequent lapses between their assertions and their product lead people into a real skepticism of what gets presented as science. <br /><br />Just when science is needed the most to prevent or mitigate the biggest man made catastrophe in history, it's failing because of the arrogance of its priest class.The Thought Criminalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01381376556757084468noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-16575470590735285302012-03-18T19:59:00.761-04:002012-03-18T19:59:00.761-04:00It is not scientific to believe in something extra...It is not scientific to believe in something extraordinary without evidence. Larry Moran<br /><br />First, what is "extraordinary" and what isn't? How is that defined? How do you prevent that determination from becoming a matter of prejudice and preference? Or are you willing to allow prejudice and preference to become an ordinary component of science?<br /><br />Second, I'm assuming you reject multi-universe theory because there is no evidence that it's anything but a way to get by some of the teleological conclusions some people have proposed from some of the more extraordinary seeming discoveries about the "fine tuning" of the universe? I think it might be among the top three extraordinary beliefs purporting to be hard science these days. Why atheists who pretend they don't cotton on to teleological ideas about the universe don't just admit that no one knows what the "fine tuning" means and people are free to come to their own beliefs about that instead of creating the ultimate violation of parsimony, I used to wonder. But I don't wonder about it anymore. <br /><br />You also fail to distinguish between belief, which doesn't require the same kind of evidence that assertions of knowledge do. People say "I believe in God....." for a reason. As I had to point out to another atheist recently, the creed says "I believe" over and over, it doesn't say "I know". <br /><br />However, when you get right down to it, science is ultimately based in beliefs as surely as any other branch of thought. You have to believe that things you haven't, personally, observed and analyzed are accurate, you have to believe that scientists and reviewers have done what they say they have and we know that it's not unheard of to discover later that they didn't. I forget how many successful doctoral dissertations depended on research from the disgraced Diedrik Stapel. What is to be done about those scientific credentials on the part of both the researcher and the failure of review? What do you conclude about the ubiquitous practice of relying on previous research that you don't have the time or ability to inspect? That you have to take on faith? <br /><br />As one of my current favorites, Joseph Weizenbaum, has pointed out, science is dependent on persuasion instead of absolute knowledge. Religion, when it's being honestly asserted, admits that it is a matter of persuasion and belief and, as I pointed out above, at times consulting history and science within that persuasion. It's not much different from many other parts of human thought in that. It's science that has, by choice and mutual agreement, restricted its methods in order to arrive at enhanced reliability, which it gets only by restricting what it looks at and how it looks at it. When you deal with more complex aspects of life, it's too bad, but that ability to obtain enhanced reliability is just not within human capabilities. <br /><br />On another thread, in answering you, I pointed out that science and materialism can't tell you why it's wrong to sexually abuse young children. I could have pointed out to some rather slimy pseudo-scientific excuses assert that men are "hard wired" to rape by natural selection, even very young girls. I recall Lewontin had at least one rather colorful retort to that assertion. Would you say that asserting that child molestation is immoral was an "extraordinary" statement, one that is made without evidence? And what do you make of people with accepted scientific credentials who make statements like that? I'd say without any evidence that it's true, though, apparently, it's not an extraordinary enough statement that many, many people don't seem to reject it.The Thought Criminalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01381376556757084468noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-56961177191289469952012-03-18T12:27:09.731-04:002012-03-18T12:27:09.731-04:00How do you discern the causes of the Korean War wi...How do you discern the causes of the Korean War with science instead of history? <br /><br />Observation of physical phenomena -either directly or indirectly by means of proven relevance and reliability - , measurement, analysis, review, publication and confirmation are what I was always taught were the basic methods and tools of science. <br /><br />I'd like you to explain how you use science to address the existence of the tooth fairy. I'm especially to know what kind of mathematics you'd use to analyze your data. And what that data would consist of. You know of a non-ideological, reviewed journal that publishes that kind of paper? <br /><br />Since so many religious people believe that God created the universe as it is, at every level of physical resolution and including all of the forces of the universe, I'd like to know how you would overturn that belief using science that studies the universe. I'd think that the best you could do is describe aspects of the universe but I don't see any way to get to the belief that whatever you find there was the creation of God with science. If you can tell me how you could do that I'd really like to know. If, as I suspect, you'll point to Biblical-fundamentalist style creationism, well, people have all kinds of wrong ideas about the physical universe, even within science. Many, perhaps most, religious believers are far more willing to allow their ideas to be informed by what science can tell them. Religion isn't restricted in its use of science, though science can't be informed by religion any more than business accounting can, to borrow a point from Eddington. History, the law, paint forumlation, etc. most areas of life are not as restricted in subject and methodology as science is. While science gains reliability of what it finds out about its restricted subject matter, something that none of those other fields can claim, it can't address much of what they cover at all. Not without creating some abomination like eugenics or "race science".The Thought Criminalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01381376556757084468noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-24315912938580219832012-03-18T08:59:54.816-04:002012-03-18T08:59:54.816-04:00Science is a way of knowing that relies on tools s...Science is a way of knowing that relies on tools such as evidence (of all sorts), healthy skepicism, and rational thinking. As far as I'm concerned, it's the ONLY way of knowing that's been shown to produce reliabe knowledge (truth).<br /><br />The scientific way of knowing applies to fields like art history, politics, and law as well as the traditional science disciplines like biology and geology. It can also be applied to religious questions and to whether or not the tooth fairy exists.<br /><br />Does that fit into your definition of using "the agreed to tools and methods of science"? If not, then what method of knowing do YOU use when trying to decide whether god exists? And please tell me more about the other ways of knowing used in the study of history and law. What rules do they follow?Larry Moranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-86445302125936234062012-03-18T06:55:09.586-04:002012-03-18T06:55:09.586-04:00Ah, well, Larry Moran, if you want to give up the ...Ah, well, Larry Moran, if you want to give up the idea that science is an attempt at producing more reliable information about things, I guess you can do that. But if what's produced doesn't honestly stick to its subject matter and methodology, it's just a matter of time before it gets thrown on to the already enormous junk pile of discontinued science. Only, don't be surprised when people notice that junk is there and they become skeptical of the claims of scientists, sadly, even those claims which are rigorously confirmed and vitally important, as in human caused global warming. And don't be hurt that they won't play along with future claims that science produces reliable information. No matter how arrogantly that is asserted.The Thought Criminalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01381376556757084468noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-51263936941638971032012-03-13T11:20:06.799-04:002012-03-13T11:20:06.799-04:00We can agree that something that's in principl...We can agree that something that's in principle testable isn't supernatural whether or not it's testable currently. But it's contended that string theory is *in principle* untestable -- that is, that there are no conceivable observations, now or in the future, that would tell us whether any version of it is preferable to any other. That most definitely is not like saying that predicting Neptune's existence is supernatural.<br /><br />Caveat: I'm not a physicist. I don't know if the claim of untestability is true, just that it has been made repeatedly by physicists.john harshmannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-67351722425814531412012-03-13T10:32:18.222-04:002012-03-13T10:32:18.222-04:00As I understand it, there is a branch of mathemati...As I understand it, there is a branch of mathematics called strings which is just as legitimate as the branch of mathematics called groups and there is nothing about it that is in any way, shape, form or regard supernatural about it. The issue is whether this branch of mathematics has application to physics. AFAIK, the jury is still out on this issue.SLCnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-65868851326341897752012-03-13T10:22:06.639-04:002012-03-13T10:22:06.639-04:00Excuse me, Judge Jones was merely citing the testi...Excuse me, Judge Jones was merely citing the testimony of philosopher Barbara Forrest who considers that methodological naturalism is science.SLCnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-62040381195032920002012-03-13T09:45:52.529-04:002012-03-13T09:45:52.529-04:00It seems this argument is primarily focused on sci...It seems this argument is primarily focused on science being whether a hypothesis explains the available data. Hence, the argument that we cannot rule out the idea that ceiling made the universe last week. What about the predictive power? Using the ceiling cat hypothesis any old thing could happen tomorrow. Using evolution (I'll focus on the last few billion years of earth history), we can make predictions about the future at some level. If our predictions are wrong, we incorporate that new data into the pool are rework our hypotheses. In the ceiling cat model, all predictions are equally valid (or I can't see a reason to distinguish them).<br /><br />re: string theory being supernatural. I don't think it is. It's a set of predictions that arise from a hypothesis to explain things beyond my pay-grade. It may not be testable now, but we (well other people can anyway) can use it to make subsequent predictions that may be testable or can be compared with other hypotheses. It's like saying the idea of a planet based on gravitational effects (prediction) was supernatural before Galle actually observed Neptune.The Loraxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13361004494346338824noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-28001143678442432502012-03-13T07:08:28.947-04:002012-03-13T07:08:28.947-04:00So what if some supernatural almighty knows-all wa...So what if some supernatural almighty knows-all wants the miracles to be left as miracles, it then can leave miraculous outcomes out from all situations where scientific inquiries are (ever) being conducted. So if someone is going to observe (e.g.) intercessory prayer efficiency, those individuals that take/took/will be taking part in the experiment (no matter when or how the experiment is done) will be left without the healing power of the prayers. The human science will be easily evaded by any all-powerful thing. It's, like, quantum.vvahtolanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-13494040474300920572012-03-13T02:41:15.697-04:002012-03-13T02:41:15.697-04:00No rant but instead serious reasons why not to pon...No rant but instead serious reasons why not to pontificate about any divine intent whether it be creationist, intelligent design or theistic evolution.I illuminate how people brainwash themselves to believe in supernatural when no evidence for that animistic superstition can ever come forth.<br /> Since, Thales, we've no reason to find any divine intent as that begs the question as Carneades implicitly notes in answering Chrysippus.<br /> Reduced animism just as full animism ranks as gross superstition!<br /> All the theological symbolic logic and fine language reflect that.<br /> Keith Ward is thus as animistic-superstitious- as any Azande.<br /> Rant, no. Philosophy, yes. People need to ponder my remarks instead of misunderstanding them. <br /> So, where can one find that divine intent? In the imagination of the superstitious as the argument from pareidolia indicates.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-71942269966233637772012-03-13T01:15:25.488-04:002012-03-13T01:15:25.488-04:00I take it you are more on Jerry Coyne's side t...I take it you are more on Jerry Coyne's side than PZ's when it comes to evidence. Like if a 900ft Jesus appeared to you, you would convert to Christianity?Starbucknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-318726814385900522012-03-12T19:02:49.624-04:002012-03-12T19:02:49.624-04:00Let me ask you another question. You obviously bel...<i>Let me ask you another question. You obviously believe that that this hypothesis (God created appearance of age) cannot be addressed by the scientific way of knowing. Do you think there's another way of knowing that can be applied or do you just think that it's perfectly okay for scientists to believe that most of what we see is an illusion created by a deceiving God?</i><br /><br />There is no other way of knowing. Nothing can address that question. You obviously agree since you didn't mention any possible test, whether definitive or otherwise. There are an infinite number of hypotheses that fit the data, none of which can be rejected. We can prune them using Occam's Razor (i.e. "I had no need of that hypothesis", but is that a scientific procedure? Is it a way of knowing? Nope to both. We can also prune them for the practical reason that to consider such hypotheses makes science impossible. Is that scientific or a way of knowing? Again, nope. But the point is that it's pointless to consider such untestable questions.<br /><br /><i>Do you believe that the Earth is only 6000 years old but looks older? Why not? Did you do an experiment?</i><br /><br />I don't. But I can't think of a way to test whether I'm right. We can only reject such claims for philosophical reasons. How about we define "supernatural" as a hypothesis that, if accepted, renders it impossible to do science?<br /><br />By the way, it's been claimed that string theory is in principle untestable. Is it supernatural if so? Whoops, we're back to needing that definition.John Harshmannoreply@blogger.com