tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post2762323956132971665..comments2024-03-27T14:50:47.345-04:00Comments on <center>Sandwalk</center>: John Wilkins Defends Methodological NaturalismLarry Moranhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comBlogger56125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-12069294013489792052012-09-11T10:39:25.321-04:002012-09-11T10:39:25.321-04:00Anonymous, if we assert something is true without ...Anonymous, if we assert something is true without any evidence then the likelihood we are right is at most half. I would say that likelihood we guess correctly in many contexts is so close to zero as to be indistinguishable from zero. So in contexts where there are numerous candidates for the true answer, so the odds we will guess correctly are close to zero, it is appropriate to declare as false assertions that are unsupported by evidence.Explicit Atheisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05501109533475045969noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-45496947308497943912012-09-09T14:38:23.944-04:002012-09-09T14:38:23.944-04:00Regularities can be imposed by a willful agent. F...Regularities can be imposed by a willful agent. For example, criminal behavior regularly results in imprisonment. Make the willful agent all knowing and all powerful and there is no requirement that a supernatural agent act capriciously. Furthermore, as long as the supernatural entity reveals what it has done, and what it is doing, and what it wii do in the future, accurately, then a divine revelation based science is viable. The very capriciousness of such a supernatural agent would arguably make its revelations about the future all the more important, provided that the revelations are themselves reliably accurate and not misleading.<br /><br />Methodological naturalism is a property of our universe, it is not a property of science. If, in some alternative, imaginable, universe, irregularity and capriciousness prevailed, and there was no reliable divine revelation, then science would be unproductive in such a universe. But that doesn't change the fact that methodological naturalism is not a necessary pre-condition and constraint of science. Philosophers, theologians, judges, scientists, etc. who are asserting otherwise are wrong.Explicit Atheisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05501109533475045969noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-46219378199912948832012-09-08T13:17:29.501-04:002012-09-08T13:17:29.501-04:00Any glance at any scientific journal proves that I...<i> Any glance at any scientific journal proves that I am right; you won't find studies invoking miracles (except in dodgy religious "journals" like the ones published by creationist sects).</i> Lou Jost<br /><br />You went considerably past the point of saying that there were no scientific studies invoking miracles, you said: <br /><br /><i> look at the proportion of the peer-reviewed scientific literature that follows methodological naturalism, versus the proportion that explicitly invokes miracles or gods or supernatural causes </i><br /><br />There aren't articles of peer-reviewed scientific studies that "invoke miracles or gods or supernatural causes". Nor do I think there could be because science can't study those things. To go from science being unable to study those knids of things to asserting that inability of science precludes their being real is illogical. You might as well deny that anything that science can't study exists. In which case there are plenty of things you'd immediately miss. Most of history, the law, etc. <br /><br />The Thought Criminalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01381376556757084468noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-53868322329111704492012-09-06T13:59:17.193-04:002012-09-06T13:59:17.193-04:00TC, your response is just bizarre. I made the poin...TC, your response is just bizarre. I made the point that publications which use miracles in their explanations are vanishingly rare in relation to publications which stick to naturalistic explanations. Any glance at any scientific journal proves that I am right; you won't find studies invoking miracles (except in dodgy religious "journals" like the ones published by creationist sects). The nonexistence of such studies in the real scientific literature proves my assertion, so if you doubt the existence of such studies, you concede my point. Lou Josthttp://www.loujost.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-66953400071321480602012-09-06T11:10:10.426-04:002012-09-06T11:10:10.426-04:00Here are working (coherent) definitions of "s...Here are working (coherent) definitions of "supernatural:" 1.any agent of change in the world identifiable with entities revealed by previous religions and revelations 2.any change in the world violating strongly verified laws of nature 3.effects without causes 4.effects achieved by human actions or desires with no possible causal efficacy <br /><br />The first definition highlights the strange ability of believers to assign supernatural effects to their favorite supernatural being, even though the work comes unsigned.<br /><br />The second definition highlights the point that poorly understood or exceedingly rare phenomena cannot be assumed to be supernatural.<br /><br />The third definition highlights the issues involved in defining causality. It seems to me that many supernaturalists tend to suddenly switch to a very narrowly physicalist definition of causality, playing on interpretations of probability to spread confusion.<br /><br />The fourth definition highlight the need to consider the bias from wishful thinking in our studies. <br /><br />I think supernaturalists also tend to share these basic definitions but commonly equivocate between the various meanings of "supernatural" while making arguments. That seems to be the problem, rather than a conceptual incoherence. Besides, an empirical approach can still make progress despite conceptual incoherence. If you consider science as a model of the universe, the existence of phenomena which are not yet understood implies that all science heretofore (and for the foreseeable future) are incoherent. Philosophy is interested in the valid instead of the incoherent, but science is concerned with the true, regardless of whether we understand it completely clearly.<br /><br /><br /><br />S Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11610068751705809284noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-28083425195480897802012-09-06T10:55:51.213-04:002012-09-06T10:55:51.213-04:00But this comment is getting long.
Indeed.
The co...<i>But this comment is getting long.</i><br /><br />Indeed.<br /><br />The covers of this book are too far apart.<br /> Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary<br /> US author & satirist (1842 - 1914) <br /><br />This is not a novel to be tossed aside lightly. It should be thrown with great force. <br /> Dorothy Parker (1893-08-22 – 1967-06-07) steve oberskinoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-73667769539212881172012-09-06T10:10:25.794-04:002012-09-06T10:10:25.794-04:00Incompleteness is not evidence for the existence o...<i> Incompleteness is not evidence for the existence of non-lawlike supernatural factors. </i> Lou Jost<br /><br />I didn't propose it as evidence for the existence of non-lawlike supernatural factors. It's the freqently made assertion that the incomplete knowledge of "law" is proof of the non-existence of supernatural anything. One of the aspects of incompleteness is that it's not know how incomplete the knowledge humans have of even physical law is. What if our knowledge of physical law consists of -10^9999...+ of physical law? Given the "dark matter-dark energy" supposition, that's quite a reasonable question. I'd asked it concerning the E-8 figure they constructed a few years back. If those added dimensions are real and part of the universe we inhabit, contributing undefined qualities and possibilities to reality, it's a reasonable conclusion that we know an extremely tiny part of reality. Eddington, one of my favorite scientists of the past century, pointed out the possibility of physical law that human beings are incapable of imagining and which, so, would forever elude us. <br /><br /><i> I don't understand why you ask me to list studies that invoke miracles... </i><br /><br />Oh, that's easy. You asserted their existence by implication. You said: <i> look at the proportion of the peer-reviewed scientific literature that follows methodological naturalism, versus the proportion that explicitly invokes miracles or gods or supernatural causes </i> As I had to point out to another atheist, if you make that kind of assertion about science anyone is within their rights to ask for your citations. That, Lou Jost, is how logical discourse works. Atheists are not exempt from the rules of logical discourse, not even if PZ Myers has granted them a plenary indulgence to that effect.<br /><br />http://zthoughtcriminal.blogspot.com/2012/09/atheists-granted-indulgences-by-pz-myers.html<br /><br />I would dispute your characterization of what I said as being a "straw man". But this comment is getting long. <br /><br />The Thought Criminalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01381376556757084468noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-5872935497202838552012-09-06T09:28:09.411-04:002012-09-06T09:28:09.411-04:00I think an important element of 'science-as-sh...I think an important element of 'science-as-she-is-done' is some kind of regularity permitting independent confirmation (or not). One creates a mini-instance of a phenomenon in the lab, or pokes one's telescope at one or whatever, and one can publish and invite others to create their own mini-instance, or tell them where to look. From a body of instances of phenomena, one can propose a theory, using which one can hopefully devise further empirical tests. <br /><br />But if there is no regularity - it was a complete one-off, with nothing, not even a set of theoretical equations, that one can give to another, then ISTM it is beyond scientific investigation. Whether the phenomenon involved 'natural' caprice - the results occurred because Stebbins swapped the test-tubes when we weren't looking - or 'supernatural', is not really the stumbling-block; it's the caprice itself.Allan Millernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-75607612748320121992012-09-05T22:06:49.265-04:002012-09-05T22:06:49.265-04:00The incompleteness of science is recognized by eve...The incompleteness of science is recognized by everybody. Incompleteness is not evidence for the existence of non-lawlike supernatural factors. Something that might give naturalism a shock would be positive evidence of a personal, whimsical final cause, for example if the digits of the fine-structure constant spelled out (in binary code for Latin letters or some other very common alphabet) "Allah is great", successively in every current language on earth, with an occasional joke thrown into the sequence, a joke that could only be understood by reference to some current event. That would be hard to explain as a result of lawlike behavior and would seem to inject personality into the structure of the universe.. <br /><br />I don't understand why you ask me to list studies that invoke miracles, when my point is that such studies are vanishingly rare in proportion to studies that employ methodological naturalism. You said "Lou Jost, when you say "we scientists" do you exclude those scientists who believe in intercessory prayer? Because there have been more than a few quite important scientists who would seem to not be included by that statement." It is you who need to list such studies to support your claim, not me.<br /><br />The entire second half of your post is about straw men. We must be completely misunderstanding each other. You criticize me for saying that there is "a rule of science that excludes the possibility of intercessory prayers working. Where is that stated?" Yet I said the opposite: "if intercessionary prayer regularly worked in ways that could not be explained by natural laws, we scientists would have to drop our rule that explanations have to adhere to methodological naturalism." The rest of your post, about "scientific totalism", is a further misrepresentation of what I said. <br /><br />Lou Josthttp://www.loujost.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-81134893957023294592012-09-05T21:37:36.368-04:002012-09-05T21:37:36.368-04:00Again, I have been agreeing with you. This empiric...Again, I have been agreeing with you. This empirically-derived rule of thumb summarizes our observations about how to successfully make predictions about reality. You said "It's not a rule. It's an observation." This rule of thumb IS an observation about the world, not a binding limitation on the possible nature of valid scientific explanations. Lou Josthttp://www.loujost.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-58817094751775111612012-09-05T19:49:21.682-04:002012-09-05T19:49:21.682-04:00I see a lot of talk about 'natural' and &#...<br />I see a lot of talk about 'natural' and 'supernatural' but not many definitions, let alone any agreed definitions, so let me put in my two penn'orth.<br /><br />For anything to exist as itself rather than just random background quantum fluctuations, to be <i>signal</i> rather than <i>noise</i> it must exhibit properties or regularities or conformation to laws that make and sustain it as itself and not something else. This is what we observe and it applies to the tiniest as well as the greatest, from the smallest sub-atomic particle and the entire observable universe.<br /><br />For me, this bundle of properties and regularities that make something itself and not something else is its nature. Its what makes me me and not Larry Moran, it's what makes me a human being and not an onion and it's what makes the universe Nature and not chaos.<br /><br />This also means that if ghosts exist as such and have distinct properties and exhibit regularities in their behavior then they are natural objects. The same would apply to any God or gods.<br /><br />It would also mean that miracles are simply phenomena for which there is currently no adequate explanation but that doesn't mean there isn't one. If St Joseph of Cupertino was <i>actually</i> able to levitate and fly around like Superman on a regular basis then all that would mean is that there was some as-yet-unknown phenomenon in play.<br /><br />Science is the human enterprise of observing, investigating the natures of things, the natures which comprise Nature, and trying to construct explanations or models of what is seen as a way of understanding it. In principle, it upholds the virtues of rigorous methodology and strict procedures although, in practice, they sometimes seem to be treated as, like the Pirates Code, "more what you'd call guidelines".<br /><br />On this view, there is no supernatural, only unexplained natural.<br /><br /><br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11311738457332907931noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-71905871953125563042012-09-05T15:57:53.374-04:002012-09-05T15:57:53.374-04:00You didn't answer the question.
How does one ...You didn't answer the question. <br />How does one prove this miracle, via the 'science way of knowing'?Joehttp://www.canadianatheist.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-89369109170449918112012-09-05T15:31:51.212-04:002012-09-05T15:31:51.212-04:00Lou Jost says,
But I said it was an empirically d...Lou Jost says,<br /><br /><i>But I said it was an empirically derived rule that could be changed if circumstances warranted it.</i><br /><br />It's not a rule. It's an observation.<br /><br />Many scientists think that the fine tuning of the universe is evidence for the existence of God. That's a perfectly valid hypothesis as far as I'm concerned and we can apply the scientific way of knowing to see if it stands up to close scrutiny.<br /><br />That's exactly what we do. Victor Stenger has shown that it is not correct. He didn't just throw up his hands and turn it over to the philosophers because scientists aren't allowed to think abut such matters.<br /><br />The postulates of Intelligent Design Creationism are not wrong because they violate some arbitrary rule about how you are supposed to use the scientific way of knowing. They are wrong because when we apply the scientific way of knowing they fail the test. The IDiots are practicing bad science. We would never know that if we followed the restriction of methodological naturalism because as scientists we would never be able to legitimately examine their arguments.<br /><br />We would have to leave it up to philosophers. Larry Moranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-5798392168646493442012-09-05T15:12:14.320-04:002012-09-05T15:12:14.320-04:00Nick Matzke says this about methodological natural...Nick Matzke says this about methodological naturalism,<br /><br /><i>Which leads to a rule of thumb, which is what Pennock has called it.</i><br /><br />Nick, do you remember being in Dover, Pennsylvania a few years ago? Here's what Robert Pennock said on the witness stand. You were in the courtroom. Tell me if you agree with him.<br /><br /><i>A. As scientists go about their business, they follow a method. Science is probably most characterized by its way of coming to conclusions. It's not so much the set of specific conclusions that it comes to, but the way in which it reaches them. In philosophy we talk about this as epistemology, it's a way of knowing, and science has limits upon itself. It follows a particular method. It has constraints. It requires that we have testable explanations. It gives natural explanations about the natural world. Intelligent design, creationism specifically, wants to reject that. And so it doesn't really fall within the purview of science.<br /><br />Q. Is there a name or term of art for this rule of science that it must look for natural explanations for natural phenomena?<br /><br />A. Scientists themselves may not use the term. This is something that philosophers of science use, but the term is methodological naturalism, and the idea is that this is a form of method that constrains what counts as a scientific explanation.</i><br /><br />Do you see the words "limits," "constraints," "rule," and "requires"? Do you think they mean "rule of thumb"?<br /><br />And what would happen if a scientist was arrogant enough to conclude that there's no evidence of supernatural beings therefore belief in supernatural beings was in conflict with science as a way of knowing? In other words, a scientist who adopted a pragmatic methodological naturalism based on evidence?<br /><br /><i>A. A philosophical naturalist would be someone who says the world as it is in its ultimate reality, its metaphysical reality, is nothing but material natural processes, and there is no supernatural, there is no god, there is nothing beyond. A philosophical position, sometimes with subtleties, one might call it a metaphysical naturalist or metaphysical materialist position, but it's a statement about the ultimate nature, the metaphysical nature of reality.<br /><br />Q. And a statement of that nature is not a scientific statement?<br /><br />A. That's right. Science is not in the business of making philosophical metaphysical claims.<br /><br />Q. Some scientists may make those statements, but that doesn't make it science?<br /><br />A. That's right.</i><br /><br /> <br /><br /><br /> <br /><br /><br /><br />Larry Moranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-62687389809239142272012-09-05T14:51:08.922-04:002012-09-05T14:51:08.922-04:00I said was that if intercessionary prayer worked i...<i> I said was that if intercessionary prayer worked in ways not explainable by physics, we would have to be open to other nonphysical explanations. I am explicitly saying that science would have to be open to that possibility. </i> <br /><br />Well, first, there are plenty of things that happen that are not explainable by physics, consciousness, for a good starter. Physics can't explain how we conceive of the physical universe. <br /><br />As for science being open to nonphysical explainations, science cannot deal with anything EXCEPT physical phenomena and it can't even deal with most of that, if the "dark matter dark energy" suppositions actually have even that level of nebulous conjecture correct. And if it isn't, physics has got a pretty big problem with its present models. <br /><br /><i> look at the proportion of the peer-reviewed scientific literature that follows methodological naturalism, versus the proportion that explicitly invokes miracles or gods or supernatural causes </i><br /><br />Name some of the studies you are talking about in the second part of your proposed comparison. Then we can talk about proportions. Though I think they are probably like the massive research done by CSICOP someone once suggested I look at, a figment of the imagination. <br /><br />What do you mean by "straw men"? Identify any "straw men" I erected. <br />The Thought Criminalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01381376556757084468noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-43035156754460135612012-09-05T14:37:39.865-04:002012-09-05T14:37:39.865-04:00Philosophers didn't invent methodological natu...Philosophers didn't invent methodological naturalism, Larry; their alleged invention thereof is, in fact, your won fabrication. If one is going to try to find regularities in the natural world, positing an entity that can capriciously violate these regularities in a way that is not itself regular renders the search for any regularities impossible. It is impossible to practice science without methodological naturalism.Michael Mnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-81977513320961949502012-09-05T13:45:36.832-04:002012-09-05T13:45:36.832-04:00ThoughtCriminal, all I said was that if intercessi...ThoughtCriminal, all I said was that if intercessionary prayer worked in ways not explainable by physics, we would have to be open to other nonphysical explanations. I am explicitly saying that science would have to be open to that possibility. Why all the venom and straw men? <br /><br /> At the moment, there is no rigorous statistically sound evidence that prayer works (when known natural confounding variables are controlled). That is why virtually all scientists now use the rule of thumb of methodological naturalism. If you think I am over-generalizing, look at the proportion of the peer-reviewed scientific literature that follows methodological naturalism, versus the proportion that explicitly invokes miracles or gods or supernatural causes. Lou Josthttp://www.loujost.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-42270084575804822132012-09-05T13:32:05.814-04:002012-09-05T13:32:05.814-04:00Larry, you say "It's not a rule that expl...Larry, you say "It's not a rule that explanations have to adhere to MN. It's an observation that so far none of the supernatural hypotheses have proved necessary," as if you disagree with my comment. But I said it was an empirically derived rule that could be changed if circumstances warranted it. As NickM says, it is a rule of thumb based on experience, not something decided in advance. If theologians regularly make better predictions than scientists who follow the rule of thumb, the scientists would rightly throw out the rule. I think we agree. Lou Josthttp://www.loujost.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-86615855392201972742012-09-05T13:24:35.516-04:002012-09-05T13:24:35.516-04:00In his article, Problems with Omniscience (pdf), p...<i> In his article, Problems with Omniscience (pdf), philosopher Patrick Grim shows that "no being knows literally everything, no being is omniscient. If no being is omniscient, there is no God." <br /><br />That's knowledge, obtained via the Philosophy of Logic. </i> NAL<br /><br />How does Patrick Grim account for the omnipotence of God. If God is omnipotent then God is not limited by the constraints of logic. <br /><br />NOT that I'd find his reasoning compelling as I'd ask how he knows that "no being knows literally everything"? If no one knows everything then how can he define the set of {everything knowable} as he uses it in that sentence in a way that would allow him to fit it into his argument? <br /><br /><i> If it [a miracle]violates every physical law you know, pretty much by definition, any claim about it that you could make is an argument from ignorance. </i> Joe<br /><br />Why would a miracle have to "violate every physical law"? You'd have to have an example of a miracle to make that judgement. If there are miracles then they would more likely be an exception to a physical law. <br /><br />Why do you think any claim about it would have to be an argument from ignorance? If there was a miracle there then any argument you could make against it would be an expression of ignorance. <br /><br />I'd like to know how the "we're all about evidence, you're not" people would account for their presumption that they can know other peoples' experience better than they do, not only uninspected but before they have even heard what that person concludes about it. Keeping in mind that miracles are generally held to be very rare.<br /><br />The assumption that science has a full law book of nature in hand, ready to check for violations seems to be one of the necessities of this kind of argument. Well, where is it? And, speaking of violations, I think many of you folks are guilty as sin of misrepresenting your beliefs as knowledge, your personal preferences as logical necessities. You're busted. <br /><br />The Thought Criminalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01381376556757084468noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-6533457966900233942012-09-05T13:13:56.063-04:002012-09-05T13:13:56.063-04:00Thank-you for responding. Now perhaps we can have ...Thank-you for responding. Now perhaps we can have a discussion about some of these ideas.<br /><br />I wonder why you say that "methodological naturalism is the intellectual model that science has used for past 3000 years" when there are, quite obviously, many scientists who disagree. (And science wasn't really different from natural philosophy until about 150 years ago.)<br /><br />Philosophers have invented, or made up <i>a priori</i>, a restriction on the scientific way of knowing. They say that there are certain questions that you can't address using the scientific way of knowing because those questions concern the supernatural.<br /><br />That's why Michael Ruse says that science and religion are compatible, "This is not to say that God did not have a role in the creation, but simply that, <i>qua</i> science, that is <i>qua</i> an enterprise formed through the practice of methodological naturalism science has no place for talk of God."<br /><br />It is true that if you accept the restriction of methodological naturalism invented by philosophers then you can't investigate whether God played a role in evolution or whether the Flying Spaghetti Monster steals meatballs. <br /><br />In practice, however, the scientific way of knowing is NOT restricted in such a manner. That's not how scientists, historians, etc. operate. They investigate claims of the supernatural all the time ... and they find them wanting. (I'm reminded of CSICOP ... look it up.) <br /><br />It is disingenuous to say that the activity of scientists isn't really science because it treads on the turf of philosophy (i.e. it's METAPHYSICAL naturalism and that's out-of-bounds for scientists). This is currently a way of protecting religion and philosophy from a hugely successful scientific way of knowing and it isn't working. <br /><br />What the scientific way of knowing has discovered is that there's nothing out there that indicates the existence of the supernatural. In other words, our knowledge of the universe is perfectly consistent with naturalistic explanations. It's pragmatically naturalistic. That's a CONCLUSION not a PROSCRIPTION. That's a big difference.<br /> Larry Moranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-6721941619270669172012-09-05T13:12:20.079-04:002012-09-05T13:12:20.079-04:00...we are not justified in believing an assertion ...<i>...we are not justified in believing an assertion is true when there is no evidence that it is true.</i><br />This is a much different statement than the initial claim, which was that we must conclude an assertion is false when there is no evidence that it is true.<br /><br /><i>it requires a lot of skill to always write with precise accuracy</i><br />Yes it does, but precision of language is required if you want to have a meaningful philosophical discussion.<br /><br /><i>It's silly to live your life with the hope that there MAY be evidence in the future for something you wish were true today.</i><br />Most of science is driven by the hope that there may be evidence in the future for something you wish were true today, where that hope is precisely the motivation for attempting to generate new evidence. Pursuit of experimental evidence to support the existence of the Higgs boson is a good recent example.<br /><br /><i>...not believing in something for lack of evidence means that you always have to believe in the opposite.</i><br />This assertion was not made.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-45654998142520898132012-09-05T13:01:21.551-04:002012-09-05T13:01:21.551-04:00That's easy. A proven violation of the conser...That's easy. A proven violation of the conservation of mass/energy. Other laws might have exceptions or special conditions, but the conservation laws are literally required for math to work in the real world.NickMhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04765417807335152285noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-59994390416363183542012-09-05T12:57:51.096-04:002012-09-05T12:57:51.096-04:00"It's not a rule that explanations have t..."It's not a rule that explanations have to adhere to MN.<br /><br />It's an observation that so far none of the supernatural hypotheses have proved necessary."<br /><br />Which leads to a rule of thumb, which is what Pennock has called it. This is an a posteriori justification for MN. But it is also true that we have some very good a priori reasons to think that inclusion of the supernatural in science would be a poor, difficult-to-work proposition -- even if the supernatural were actually real! I don't think the a priori and a posteriori arguments conflict, and I don't think they lead to an absolute once and now forever determination of the issue even-if-a-900-foot-tall-Jesus-appeared-in-Manhattan. But they make for a good rule of thumb which is quite enough to be part of an argument in e.g. the Kitzmiller case. <br /><br />Also, yeah, Boudry is a philosopher doing philosophy. You don't get to generalize about the uselessness of philosophy when in fact you are just taking one philosophical position over another.NickMhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04765417807335152285noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-46465791868244910812012-09-05T11:42:34.617-04:002012-09-05T11:42:34.617-04:00Yeah, Larry, I totally get it: you only think that...Yeah, Larry, I totally get it: you only think that philosophy is a worthwhile endeavor that contributes to humanity pursuit of knowledge if philosophy <b>supports</b> you preconception about science and religion. As John has pointed out before methodological naturalism isn't a concept that philosphers of science have "made up" in the last 10 or 20 year to defend creationism or inttelligent design; methodological naturalism is the intellectual model that science has used for past 3000 years.<br /><br />Philosophers of science, such as Boudry, whom you unironically cite after indicting almost all of contemporary philosophy of science, do disagree about the articulation of methodological naturalism, but not its central importance to the process of scientific knowledge generation. Even Boudry calls the form of methodological naturalism that he advocates provisory/pragmatic <b>methodological naturalism</b>. No philospher of science, not even the one you (mis)cite, actually suggests that science can function on any other conceptual framework than methodological naturalism. They do, however, disagree on the relationship that methodological naturalism permits science to have with respect to other fields of knowledge, but such disagreements, as has been pointed out to you many times before, is philosophical in nature, not scientific.Michael Mnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-59304684677031940932012-09-05T09:09:01.541-04:002012-09-05T09:09:01.541-04:00@Explicit Atheist
Non-intuitive and counter-intu...@Explicit Atheist <br /><br />Non-intuitive and counter-intuitive are not the same as non material. They are limitations of our poorly evolved (for doing science) brains.<br /><br />To say that something is "strongly counter-evidenced" seems to be admitting that there is absolutely no evidence for that something.<br /><br />Whether or not it is impossible is not the issue, the issue is that given that there is no evidence to back up a claim that claim should provisionally be assumed to be false until evidence is forthcoming. The onus is on the one making the claim to prove it, not for others to disprove it.<br /><br />If it leaves empirical evidence then it's material. If there is no evidence, direct or indirect, then it's just stuff someone made up.<br /><br />I'm not saying that "everything has to be put on hold", only that there is no reason to accept the fantasies of others without evidence to back up their claims.<br />steve oberskinoreply@blogger.com