Comment #22918

Posted by PvM on April 2, 2005 11:44 AM (e) (s)

Very good article Jack. Too bad that ID is still using equivocation of naturalism and methodological naturalism, which started with Philip Johnson, to confuse and mislead their followers.
ID is scientifically vacuous, theologically risky and philosophically misleading.

Comment #22920

Posted by Michael Finley on April 2, 2005 12:22 PM (e) (s)

PvM wrote:

Too bad that ID is still using equivocation of naturalism and methodological naturalism….

That method influences (perhaps determines) belief cannot be denied; this is standard after Descartes. The results of the method reflect the philosophical underpinnings of the method.

Naturalism simpliciter is a metaphysical position. If it is adopted for methodological reasons, the results of that method will bear the stamp of the metaphysical position.

Comment #22923

Posted by Russell on April 2, 2005 12:45 PM (e) (s)

So, Michael Finley, do infer correctly that you endorse the Discovery Institute’s notion that we should abandon naturalism* as a foundation of science?

*(Note the lack of adjective, philosophical or methodological, as, I gather, you don’t really distinguish)

Comment #22924

Posted by PvM on April 2, 2005 12:57 PM (e) (s)

The problem is that by conflating naturalism and methodological naturalism, the impression is given, no in fact this suggestion is created, that the scientific method contradicts religious beliefs. However, science is clear about its limitations and thus cannot address issues of religious faith. To suggest that naturalism simpliciter is adopted for methodological reasons, misses the point. Naturalism simpliciter is NOT adopted.

Methodological and Philosophical Naturalism

Methodological Naturalism and Philosophical Naturalism: Clarifying the Connection (2000) by Barbara Forrest

Methodological Naturalism and the Supernatural (1997) with post-conference notes (updated 4-7-1997) by Mark I. Vuletic

Justifying Methodological Naturalism (2002) by Michael Martin

Confusing the scientific method with philosophical naturalism has been exploited by many creationists in their fervor to reject science. Lamoureux exposes much of these problems in Johnson’s arguments in the book ‘Darwinism defeated?”.
Well worth reading.

Comment #22925

Posted by Air Bear on April 2, 2005 12:58 PM (e) (s)

Engineers, in their engineering work, rely strictly on naturalism.  No supernatural forces, no appeal to unknown Intelligent Beings.

Yet, as far as I know, neither Michael Finley nor anyone else claims that engineering is atheist for sticking to naturalism.

MF is needlessly singling out science in his criticism.  Does he rely strictly on naturalism when he drives his car?  Does that betray the philosophical underpinnings of driving?

And Michael Finley’s assertion that method determines philosophical underpinnings is given the lie by the fact that there are many, many religious engineers, and some of their works can serve religious purposes, such as the great cathedrals of Europe.

Comment #22929

Posted by Michael Finley on April 2, 2005 02:23 PM (e) (s)

Russell wrote:

[do] you endorse the Discovery Institute’s notion that we should abandon naturalism as a foundation of science?

I endorse the notion that supernatural causes should not, in principle, be rejected as unscientific.

Note the lack of adjective, philosophical or methodological, as, I gather, you don’t really distinguish.

The distinction between two kinds of naturalism is a confusion. Metaphysical or philosophical naturalism is unqualified naturalism, i.e., naturalism simpliciter. Methodological naturalism is the adoption of naturalism qua method. And if a method is naturalistic, the conclusions of that method will be naturalistic.

PvM wrote:

The problem is that by conflating naturalism and methodological naturalism, the impression is given … that the scientific method contradicts religious beliefs. However, science is clear about its limitations and thus cannot address issues of religious faith.

If a divine creator is a religious belief (and it may also be a metaphysical belief), and the scientific method excludes divine creation as a possible conclusion, then belief and method are in conflict. They can only be reconciled by some version of the scholastic “two truths” doctrine, i.e., there are scientific truths and theological truths, and never the twain shall meet. Such a division is implicit in your response.

To suggest that naturalism simpliciter is adopted for methodological reasons, misses the point. Naturalism simpliciter is NOT adopted.

The distinction between naturalism and naturalism as method does not free the method from its metaphysical roots. It is a method that, by definition, produces naturalistic conclusions, i.e., conclusions that depend on metaphysical naturalism (or some version of the “two truths” doctrine).

Comment #22931

Posted by Michael Finley on April 2, 2005 02:28 PM (e) (s)

Air Bear,

I have no problem with a science employing natural causes. It is the a priori exclusion of supernatural causes that I object to.

Comment #22932

Posted by "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on April 2, 2005 02:34 PM (e) (s)

If it is adopted for methodological reasons, the results of that method will bear the stamp of the metaphysical position.

How dreadful.  Would you mind showing everyone how a NON-methodologically-naturalist science can be done?

Maybe an example can help. One claim made by many ID creationists explains the genetic similarity between humans and chimps by asserting that God supernaturally created both but used common features.

Let’s take this hypothesis and put it through the scientific method,shall we? (If you don’t like this particular hypothesis, feel free to substitute ANY super-natural or non-materialist hypothesis that you DO like).

1. Observe some aspect of the universe.

OK, so we observe that humans and chimps share unique genetic markers, including a broken vitamin C gene and, in humans, a fused chromosome that is identical to two of the chimp chromosomes (with all the appropriate doubled centromeres and telomeres).

2. Invent a tentative description, called a hypothesis, that is consistent with what you have observed.

OK, the proposed ID hypothesis is “an intelligent designer used a common design to produce both chimps and humans, and that common design included placing the signs of a fused chromosome and a broken vitamin C gene in both products.”

If you have some OTHER non-naturalistic hypothesis that you’d like to use instead, please feel free to substitute it here.

3. Use the hypothesis to make predictions.

Here is ID non-naturalistic methodology’s chance to shine. What predictions can we make from ID’s hypothesis. If an Intelligent Designer used a common design to produce both chimps and humans, then we would also expect to see … … … …?

Fill in the blank.

And, to better help us test ID’s hypothesis, it’s most useful to point out some negative predictions —- things which, if found, would FALSIFY the hypothesis and demonstrate conclusively that the hypothesis is wrong. So, then —- if we find (fill in the blank here), then the “common design” hypothesis would have to be rejected.

4. Test those predictions by experiments or further observations and modify the hypothesis in the light of your results.

5. Repeat steps 3 and 4 until there are no discrepancies between theory and experiment and/or observation.

Well, we seem to be sort of stuck on step 3. Help us out here, IDers. Give us some testible predictions from your hypothesis. Tell us how to go about testing them.

Or, would you rather than we just skip steps 3,4 and 5, and just take your religious word for it that your hypothesis must be true. Is that, after all, what ID is all about?

Take note here —- there are NO limits imposed here on the nature of your predictions, other than the simple ones indicated by steps 3,4 and 5 (whatever predictions you make must be testible by experiments or further observations.) You are entirely free to invoke whatever deities or supernatural causes that you like, in whatever number you like, so long as you follow along to steps 3,4 and 5 and tell us how we can test these deities or causes using experiment or further observation. Want to tell us that the Good Witch Glenda used her magic non-naturalistic staff to POP these genetic sequences into both chimps and humans? Fine —- just tell us what experiment or  observation we can perform to test that. Want to tell us that God didn’t like humans very much and therefore decided to design us with broken vitamin C genes? Hey, works for me — just as soon as you tell us what experiment or observation we can perform to test it. Feel entirely and totally free to use all the supernaturalistic causes that you like. Just tell us what experiment or observation we can perform to test your predictions.

Let’s throw methodological materialism right out the window. Gone. Bye-bye. Everything’s fair game now. Ghosts, spirits, demons, devils, cosmic enlightenment, elves, pixies, magic star goats, whatever god-thing you like. Feel free to include and invoke all of them. As many as you need. Show us all how to apply the scientific method  to whatever non-naturalistic science you choose to invoke in order to subject your hypothesis “genetic similarities between chimps and humans are the product of a common design” to the scientific method.  Show us how your non-naturalistic science works and how the rest of us can apply it.

I await with bated breath. 

Let the arm-waving begin.

Comment #22935

Posted by George Felis on April 2, 2005 02:47 PM (e) (s)

Michael Finley wrote:

I have no problem with a science employing natural causes. It is the a priori exclusion of supernatural causes that I object to.

There is nothing a priori about the exclusion of supernatural causes. If one actually investigates cause and effect events in the universe, with as much critical thinking and self-honesty as possible, one finds no events inconsistent with natural causes. This is clearly an a posteriori CONCLUSION (as tentative and falsifiable as any other conclusion based on critical thinking and empirical investigation, not an a priori assumption. The accusation of a priori assumption is simply unsupported creationist cant. Quit parroting it.

Comment #22936

Posted by Joe McFaul on April 2, 2005 02:49 PM (e) (s)

Jack, your answers are superb.  They exactly answer the questions posed and fairly address the underlying concerns of the questioner.
Very well done!

Too bad the Discovery Institute can’t do the same.

Comment #22937

Posted by "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on April 2, 2005 02:53 PM (e) (s)

I endorse the notion that supernatural causes should not, in principle, be rejected as unscientific.

Um, they’re NOT.

The scientific method consists of five easy steps:

1.  Observe some aspect of the universe
2.  Form a hypothesis that potentially explains what you have observed
3.  Make testible predictions from that hypothesis
4.  Make observations or experiments that can test those predictions
5.  Modify your hypothesis until it is in accord with all observations and predictions

Nothing in any of those five steps — nothing at all whatsoever in any way shape or form — precludes, excludes, rejects, kicks out, or in any other way limits the use of any “supernatural cuase” that you like.  You are entirely free to invoke as many non-material pixies, ghosts, goddesses, demons, devils, djinis, and/or the Great Pumpkin, as many times as you like, in any or all of your hypotheses.  And science won’t (and doesn’t) object to that in the slightest.  Indeed, scientific experiments have been proposed (and carried out and published) on such “supernatural causes” as the effects of prayer on healing, as well as such “non-materialistic” or “non-natural” causes as ESP, telekinesis, precognition and “remote viewing”.  So your arm-waving claim that science rejects supernatural or non-material causes out of hand on principle, is demonstrably quite wrong. 

However, what science DOES require is that your supernatural or non-material hypothesis, whatever it might be, then be subjected to steps 3, 4 and 5.  And  **HERE** is where ID falls flat.  It is NOT, repeat NOT, any “unfair rejection of supernaturalism” that stops ID dead in its tracks.  It is ID’s simple inability to make any testible predictions using its “supernatural cause” hypothesis — any testible predictions at ALL — that can be confirmed by experiment.  Deep down inside, IDers are bitching and moaning NOT that science unfairly rejects their supernaturalistic explanations, but bitches and moans because science demands that those supernaturalistic explanations BE TESTED ACCORDING TO THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD.  Not only can ID *not* test any of its, uh, explanations, but it doesn’t WANT TO, and instead wants to modify science so it DOESN’T HAVE TO. In effect, the IDers want their supernaturalistic “hypotheses” to have a privileged position —- they want their hypotheses to be accepted by science WITHOUT being tested; they want to follow steps one and two of the scientific method, but NOT steps three, four or five. 

Me, I see *no* reason why the IDers should be so privileged.  I see no reaosn why ID “hypotheses” should not follow the same scientific method as every OTHER hypothesis has to, no matter HOW holy and righteous the IDers think they are.

So when IDers weep and whine to us about science unfairly rejecting their supernaturalistic explanations, they are just BS’ing us.  That’s NOT their real complaint.  Their REAL complaint is that science demands their “hypotheses” be TESTED, and WILL NOT just accept their “hypothesis” on faith and the IDers holy say-so.  THAT is what ID all boils down to.

Comment #22940

Posted by Michael Finley on April 2, 2005 03:33 PM (e) (s)

Mr. Flank,

How dreadful; you don’t seem to recognize a philosophical discussion when you see it. Your rhetoric has gotten you quite ahead of the question. I suggest you slow down and return to the actual disucssion under way.

Scientific method is, of course, not a concern of science. It is not an empirical question. It is, rather, a metaphysical question. We are currently discussing whether or not scientific methodology must be naturalistic. Naturalism is also a metaphysical topic as well. So save your clever talk of chimps and humans for another day.

Comment #22941

Posted by Emanuele Oriano on April 2, 2005 03:36 PM (e) (s)

Of course, Rev. Otherwise, why would they insist that “it takes as much faith to believe in Evolution as it takes to believe in God”?

And they are completely oblivious to the irony of trying to “drag down” science by equating it with “faith” (something no sane theist would probably do).

Comment #22942

Posted by Bruce Thompson on April 2, 2005 03:48 PM (e) (s)

I think something is being missed when it is claimed the ID bunch has no test of their hypothesis.  They routinely argue that they are only providing evidence of design and not information about the designer (old hat),but I think it is an important distinction.  They can rightly claim that it is the prevue of the empirical sciences and not the theorists to provide testable hypotheses.
For example, their overall argument for the validity of the “scientific” basis of their model would go as follows:  OBSERVATION  Looking as bacterial flagella, it is to complex to have arisen by mutation and selection (critiqued in depth).  GENERALIZATION  There must be some agent at work producing all these complex structures.  HYPOTHESIS  There is an intelligent designer.  ID theorists support this with theoretical framework showing how chance can be eliminated in the production of structures (critiqued in depth).  Their theoretical framework only needs to provide evidence of a designer, not who/what the designer is/was.  That’s up to other scientists once ID is accepted, so arguments about the “designer” are irrelevant.  Then finally, Baramologists using their version of cladistics show how organisms can be grouped according to “kinds” which are discontinuous.  This supplies PREDICTIONS AND TESTS.  The anti-evolutionist can now argue with even more conviction that they have provided a model, even though segments of that model have been discredited.  It will be the testing methodology that will tie all the previous work back to the creationist foundations.  Even with all the pleadings that ID is not rooted in the creationist tradition this last step would reveal the true goal of ID movement.  Baraminology is clearly a YEC construct as demonstrated by a review of the current literature.  Articles such as It’s a horse, of course! reexamining equine phylogeny can seem almost reasonable.  But in light of phrases like “biblicial systamatics” found in the references a reasoned critique requires a level of sophistication not found in many casual readers. Am I missing the mark?

Comment #22943

Posted by Pete on April 2, 2005 03:51 PM (e) (s)

M Finley says

Scientific method is, of course, not a concern of science. It is not an empirical question.  It is, rather, a metaphysical question.

So, no trial & error was involved at arriving at the general method? 
A philosopher just decided, and scientists fell in line without concern over whether it works?

We are currently discussing whether or not scientific methodology must be naturalistic.

As it applies to science, naturalism just means following the evidence.  As archaeology and forensic science show, science can easily deal with design, given appropriate evidence.  What science must not do is partake of the DI’s argument from ignorance.

Comment #22944

Posted by Tom Clark on April 2, 2005 03:56 PM (e) (s)

Finley supposes that mainstream science, which rejects ID, presumes naturalism and thus is philosophically biased against the supernatural.  But as Flank admirably points out, science is perfectly capable of evaluating supernatural hypotheses, were any forthcoming.  Science is a method for achieving reliable knowledge that makes no ontological assumptions one way or the other, even though some of its advocates talk about methodological naturalism in describing the scientific method. (I wish they wouldn’t, since it gives folks like Finley a rhetorical opening.)

The sorts of entities and processes that science discovers, on the basis of evidence and experiment, are what we call the natural world.  It isn’t that there is some apriori quality attached to an entity or process that marks it out as natural in advance of scientific confirmation.  Rather it’s that the scientific method establishes what we can reliably say exists *independent* of ideology, religion, or philosophy, and it’s this we call the natural. 

I’ve responded to John Calvert, who made the same ill-begotten claims about science presuming naturalism, at http://www.naturalism.org/science.htm#truescience….

Comment #22945

Posted by Emanuele Oriano on April 2, 2005 04:02 PM (e) (s)

Mr. Thompson:

there is no way of knowing what is designed and what is not, except when we know the designer.

So, we have two categories of entities: those where we know who or what designed them (and we call them, for brevity’s sake, “designed”); and those where we do not know who or what designed them (everything else).

The only difference between elements of these two sets is our knowledge of one or more designers.

Therefore, there is exactly one kind of “evidence for design”, i.e. the designer(s).

Despite all the smoke and mirrors of creationists of any variety, complexity is not, in and of itself, evidence for design; nor is “specification”, nor is “CSI”, nor is “fine tuning”, nor any other convoluted attempt to shift the onus probandi off their feeble shoulders.

Comment #22948

Posted by Michael Finely on April 2, 2005 04:14 PM (e) (s)

This is all a mere muddying of the water.

Either the scientific method adopts methodological naturalism or it doesn’t. If it doesn’t then I have no point of contention. If it does, then it depends on metaphysical naturalism.

Methodological naturalism is the decision to be a metaphysical naturalist relative to a particular activity. That is, the scientist qua methodological naturalist is a metaphysical naturalist relative to science. Therefore, any conclusions of methodologically naturalistic science depend on metaphysical naturalism.

Otherwise, what is the point in being a methodological naturalist? Take care that your answer doesn’t beg the question.

Comment #22949

Posted by PvM on April 2, 2005 04:15 PM (e) (s)

If a divine creator is a religious belief (and it may also be a metaphysical belief), and the scientific method excludes divine creation as a possible conclusion, then belief and method are in conflict.

Science does not exclude divine creation as a possible conclusion. It merely realizes that science is unable to address these questions. Religious belief can co-exist quite nicely although some ID proponents seem to be confused about the extent of Methodological Naturalism and Ontological Naturalism, leading them to suggest that science is anti-religious. Finley is confused by the meaning of methodological naturalism which does NOT assume that there is no supernatural designer,  but merely accepts that science is unable to address these issues, one way or another.

Comment #22950

Posted by "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on April 2, 2005 04:15 PM (e) (s)

How dreadful; you don’t seem to recognize a philosophical discussion when you see it.

Of *course* I do —- that’s how I know that ID isn’t sciecne, and IDers are just lying to everyone when they cliam it IS.  <shrug>

But I notice you’ve not answered my question.  Please show us how to use the scientific method to test a supernatural hypothesis.

Please be as detailed as possible and use as many screens as you need.

Put up or shut up.  Fish or cut bait.  Shit or get off the toilet.

Comment #22951

Posted by "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on April 2, 2005 04:19 PM (e) (s)

They can rightly claim that it is the prevue of the empirical sciences and not the theorists to provide testable hypotheses.

I very much doubt that any theoretical physicist would agree with you.

Comment #22952

Posted by Air Bear on April 2, 2005 04:21 PM (e) (s)

Michael Finley wrote

I have no problem with a science employing natural causes. It is the a priori exclusion of supernatural causes that I object to.

Engineering excludes supernatural causes and effects a priori.  Do you object to that?  Why not?

Comment #22953

Posted by "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on April 2, 2005 04:24 PM (e) (s)

Therefore, any conclusions of methodologically naturalistic science depend on metaphysical naturalism.

Reeaaalllyyyyyy.

Um, why are so many scientists (who practice methodological naturlaism) Christians (who, I presume, are not metaphysical naturalistic, believing in God and all … . . )  Oh, and why are the vast majority of Christians (who, once again, I presume are not metaphysical naturalistic) accepting of evolution and all the rest of modern science (which, I point out, follow methodological naturalism).

Explain, please.

And TRY not to wave your arms too much.

Comment #22955

Posted by Jim Harrison on April 2, 2005 04:28 PM (e) (s)

In an effort to be nice, lots of folks suggest that the sciences are missing something because they are unable to detect the supernatural. It’s much more likely that what’s missing is the supernatural itself. If the sciences had detected a God in the Universe, you can be sure that believers wouldn’t be talking about the defects of scientific methodology.

Standard disclaimer: nothing in these comments should be taken to imply that only the natural sciences produce meaningful results.

Comment #22956

Posted by "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on April 2, 2005 04:28 PM (e) (s)

This is all a mere muddying of the water.

Yes, it is.

So stop muddying the waters and just answer my question;  how do you propose a non-methodologically-naturalistic science would work.

Please be as detailed as possible, and take as many screens as you need.

Or am I correct after all in concluding that what IDers *really* want is to have their “hypotheses” accepted by science solely on the holy say-so of IDers.

Do you, or do you not, think that ID hypotheses should be tested using the scientific method, the same way that everyone ELSE’s hypothesis should be tested using the scientific method.  If you do NOT think ID hypotheses should be subject to the same testing as everyone else’s, then please explain why ID hypotheses should be privileged in this manner.  If you DO think that ID hypotheses should be subject to the same testing as everyone else’s, then what the hell are you bitching about.

Comment #22957

Posted by Air Bear on April 2, 2005 04:35 PM (e) (s)

The Flankster wrote:

But I notice you’ve not answered my question.  Please show us how to use the scientific method to test a supernatural hypothesis.

We went through this a few days ago here.  The healing power of prayer is an excellent example of a supernatural effect that can be tested by the scientific method.  The experts here pointed me to articles showing no effect, or that the experiments purportedly showing an effect were seriously flawed.

And we’ve just had anecdotal evidence that the fervent prayers of millions of the faithful were not sufficient to heal a dying old man.

Comment #22958

Posted by "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on April 2, 2005 04:38 PM (e) (s)

I have no problem with a science employing natural causes. It is the a priori exclusion of supernatural causes that I object to.

Engineering excludes supernatural causes and effects a priori.  Do you object to that?  Why not?

Indeed, so does weather forecasting (I’ve never yet heard any meteorologist conclude that “this hurricane followed this track into that cuty because God wanted to punish sinners there”), or accident investigation (I’ve never yet heard an FAA investigator conclude “this airplane crashed because it was the will of God”).  In law, supernatural causes and effects are also ruled out a priori — no lawyer is allowed to argue “my client is innocent of the murder because the Devil made him do it”.  Heck, the rules of baseball don’t mention any supernatural causes or effects either. Utterly materialistic and naturalistic.

Medicine?  Gee, when Mr Finley gets sick, do you suppose he asks his doctor to utilize supernatural methods or non-material cures?  Or does he just ask his materialistic naturalistic doctor to cure his materialistic naturalistic diseases by using materialistic naturalistic antibiotics to kill his naturalistic materialistic germs?

So why is it that IDers get their panties all in a bunch about “atheistic naturalistic materialistic evolution”, but NOT about “atheistic naturalistic materialistic” weather forecasting or accident investigation or law or medicine or rules of baseball?

Or …  DOES “renewing our culture” indeed include forcing DI’s particular brand of theism into all those areas as well … . . ?

.

Comment #22960

Posted by Michael Finley on April 2, 2005 04:40 PM (e) (s)

PvM wrote:

Finley is confused by the meaning of methodological naturalism which does NOT assume that there is no supernatural designer, but merely accepts that science is unable to address these issues, one way or another.

Your confusion has led you to mistakenly attribute confusion to me. Let me illustrate the problem by a comparison.

Suppose science were to adopt methodological solipsism. Thus, while driving his car, going to church, or spending time with his family, the scientist believes that there is an external world populated by other people. While doing science, on the other hand, his methodology constrains what kinds of conclusions are permissible, i.e., he cannot conclude that there is an external world, etc.

As a result, every scientific conclusion reached by the scientist would depend on metaphysical solipsism in the following way - if metaphysical solipsism were false, his scientific conclusions could not be applied to the world. There would be an a priori disconnect between the two.

There is no principle difference in this regard between methodological solipsism and naturalism. Both suppose their metaphysical counterparts.

Comment #22961

Posted by Pete Dunkelberg on April 2, 2005 04:41 PM (e) (s)

Finley writes
  “Methodological naturalism is the decision to be a metaphysical naturalist relative to a particular activity.” 

It always helps one’s argument if one can make up one’s own definitions.

  “That is, the scientist qua methodological naturalist is a metaphysical naturalist relative to science. Therefore, any conclusions of methodologically naturalistic science depend on metaphysical naturalism.”

  “Otherwise, what is the point in being a methodological naturalist?”

We don’t need these big words.  People are attracted to a way of finding things out that works.  For a long time people just didn’t realize that so many interesting, not otherwise apparent, indeed often very surprising things could be found out by studying nature systematically.  Once people found out, the method became popular.

What occasions this weblog and our discussions is that some people, for no good reason, just don’t like some things that have been found out.

Calling this ‘metaphysical’ is too much like a yam wearing a tie.

Comment #22962

Posted by "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on April 2, 2005 04:45 PM (e) (s)

We went through this a few days ago here.  The healing power of prayer is an excellent example of a supernatural effect that can be tested by the scientific method.

I see —- so IDers can’t even reach the level of science achieved by faith healers, who are at least capable of proposing SOME testible hypothesis.  ID, uh, “theory” can’t even do THAT.

And take note, Mr Finley ————————— the “healing power of prayer” supernatural hypothesis was NOT, repeat NOT, as in N-O-T, rejected a priori by science.

Which sort of makes your entire line of argument … well … kind of stupid.  <shrug>

Comment #22963

Posted by "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on April 2, 2005 04:49 PM (e) (s)

There is no principle difference in this regard between methodological solipsism and naturalism. Both suppose their metaphysical counterparts.

How dreadful.

What, again, did you say your non-naturalistic science consists of?  How, again, did you say we can use the scientific method to test any supernatural or non-material cause?  In what way, again, did you say that any other researcher can follow and utilize this non-naturalistic science of yours?

Oh wait, you DIDN’T say, did you … …

What seems to be the problem?

Comment #22964

Posted by Bruce Thompson on April 2, 2005 04:53 PM (e) (s)

Please call me Bruce, my momma did name me Mr.  My only goal was to point out that a whole area of poor science, Baraminology, will rise to the surface and try to fulfill the requirements of predictions and tests.  I apologize for interrupting a philosophical discussion.  Hi to the Anderson lab from the Doane lab.

Comment #22965

Posted by jeff-perado on April 2, 2005 04:54 PM (e) (s)

Lenny Flank:

You couldn’t have nailed down this issue any more than if you’d worked on it for decades.  Let them squirm.  You threw down the right gauntlet, let them pick it up and explain it.

(Althought I wouldn’t have used the phrase, “shit or get off the toilet” because I have found that they perceive any turn of phrase like this as an “insult” and thus claim that this invalidates any need to respond to the actual debate.  I know, for I just recently claimed one small part of one pointless debate was “sophmoric” and thus my entire line of reasoning was rejected.

When will these defenders of ID mediocrity learn? (that we get frustrated with there useless arguments)

Comment #22966

Posted by Michael Finley on April 2, 2005 04:55 PM (e) (s)

Calling this ‘metaphysical’ is too much like a yam wearing a tie.

A mildly clever turn of phrase is a poor substitute for abstract thought.

Comment #22967

Posted by P. Mihalakos on April 2, 2005 04:56 PM (e) (s)

Kudos to Jack and Lenny Flank for throwing down the gauntlet in such a well thought and articulated way.  I, too, am now waiting eagerly to discover by what possible slippery means, by what possible linguistic sleight-of-hand proponents of ID will employ to backtrack out of the mess they have made of their so-called argument. 

In fact, attributing “argument” to the half-baked wisps of sympathetic magic that ID constantly invokes, is perhaps too flattering.  The bottom line is that there are rules to science; both the practice of science and the discourse that surrounds such practice depend on those rules. 

So…  ID folk, listen up:  In context of science, it is NOT that your proposition of a supernatural designer of nature (alas, the paradox!) is wrong;  it is that it is not EVEN wrong.  It simply invites no heuristic activity at all. 

Personally, I’ll applaud grubby, interesting, scientific failures any day of the week over ID’s (yawn) insulated bubbles of ethereal musing. 

Jack, in your answer #2 you listed a few items as being outside the purview of scientific method.  As a student of neuroscience, I would only add that you might be casting some researchers’ work in an overly modest light.  You are undoubtedly correct, of course, about the hard sciences being limited in their ability to offer insight regarding  value systems, the “ought” and “whys” of life.  However, we are coming to understand a great deal about the neural substrates of human emotion.  And I imagine there will come a day, indeed not too far off, when we may reach testable conclusions about how certain cognitive-emotional states, as realized by signature neural dynamics, may constrain what we unconsciously choose to accept as fact or fiction.

Maybe only then will we really begin to glimpse why, or at least how ID (and its myriad other ancient incarnations) persists in our species as such a powerfully attractive folk “theory.”

Comment #22968

Posted by Air Bear on April 2, 2005 04:57 PM (e) (s)

To Michael Finley -

There’s a good reason why modern science uses methodological naturalism — because it’s productive.  As long as natural philosophers assumed the primacy of theology and the implications for Nature from it, they got nowhere.  Only when Galileo, Copernicus, et al began to stick to naturalism did start multiplying their understanding of the natural world.  Sure, Newton was tempted to do some handwaving about Divine Intervention, but over the last several hundred years, methodological naturalism in science has paid off.

One might postulate a sort of evolution by natural selection going on.  The techniques, observations, theories and people who have stuck to methodological naturalism have thrived and multiplied, while the supernaturalists have been barren and have survived only in a small niche in popular culture that nutures them until they die, to be replaced by similarly-barren mutants from mainstream science or elsewhere.

The experience of Michael Behe is suggestive.  Someone here said that he formerly published regular scientific work.  But since getting the religion of ID, his only publications are his popular books and opinion articles in the general media.  If his ideas had reproductive value, then he’d be turning out ID-trained PhDs at Lehigh.

Comment #22970

Posted by Michael Finley on April 2, 2005 05:03 PM (e) (s)

Mr. Flank,

You really need to learn to parse issues.

Whether or not supernatural causes are excluded a priori by the method of science is a philosophical question.

Whether or not a scientific explanation incorporating supernatural causes is practically possible is a separate question that is subordinate to the first.

Please attempt to focus, and respond with something more substantive than “How dreadful.”

Comment #22971

Posted by "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on April 2, 2005 05:04 PM (e) (s)

Calling this ‘metaphysical’ is too much like a yam wearing a tie.

A mildly clever turn of phrase is a poor substitute for abstract thought.

How dreadful.  I notice that you haven’t answered my simple question AGAIN.  That’s OK —- I’ll just ask again.  And again.  And again and again and again and again, as many times as I need to, until you answer.

*ahem*

What, again, did you say your non-naturalistic science consists of?  How, again, did you say we can use the scientific method to test any supernatural or non-material cause?  In what way, again, did you say that any other researcher can follow and utilize this non-naturalistic science of yours?

Oh wait, you DIDN’T say, did you … …

What seems to be the problem?

.

Comment #22972

Posted by PvM on April 2, 2005 05:05 PM (e) (s)

Whether or not supernatural causes are excluded a priori by the method of science is a philosophical question.

Nope that is a methodological issue.

Comment #22974

Posted by "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on April 2, 2005 05:07 PM (e) (s)

You really need to learn to parse issues.

And YOU really need to learn to answer questions. After all, I notice that you haven’t answered my simple question AGAIN.  That’s OK —- I’ll just ask again.  And again.  And again and again and again and again, as many times as I need to, until you answer.

*ahem*

What, again, did you say your non-naturalistic science consists of?  How, again, did you say we can use the scientific method to test any supernatural or non-material cause?  In what way, again, did you say that any other researcher can follow and utilize this non-naturalistic science of yours?

Oh wait, you DIDN’T say, did you … …

What seems to be the problem?

.

Comment #22975

Posted by Air Bear on April 2, 2005 05:11 PM (e) (s)

P. Mihalakos wrote

I, too, am now waiting eagerly to discover by what possible slippery means, by what possible linguistic sleight-of-hand proponents of ID will employ to backtrack out of the mess they have made of their so-called argument.

You’ll be disappointed.  Note how Michael Finley is also ignoring repeated questions about methodological naturalism in engineering and medicine.

As always, the ID proponents will just make some pointless off-the-subject remarks (see “solipsism” above), go away, and come back in a few days with the same arguments.

The Rev wrote

I see —- so IDers can’t even reach the level of science achieved by faith healers, who are at least capable of proposing SOME testible hypothesis.  ID, uh, “theory” can’t even do THAT.

I’ve found that the good old-fashioned honest creationists actually put out testable hypotheses (e.g. Neandertals were modern humans deformed by ricketts) while these New Age Postmodern IDers give me nothing to chew on.  I’ll take that old-time religion any day.

Comment #22976

Posted by PvM on April 2, 2005 05:12 PM (e) (s)

Finley wrote:

Either the scientific method adopts methodological naturalism or it doesn’t. If it doesn’t then I have no point of contention. If it does, then it depends on metaphysical naturalism.

Not at all, since ontological naturalism makes claims that are beyond what MN does. In other words, more accurately ON depends on MN but extends its claim to state that all there is, is natural.

Comment #22977

Posted by "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on April 2, 2005 05:15 PM (e) (s)

Whether or not supernatural causes are excluded a priori by the method of science is a philosophical question.

And we’ve already answered that question.  Scientific studies have been conducted on the “healing power of prayer”.  I’m no theologian, but I’m pretty sure that “the healing power of prayer” is a supernatural cause.  It was not rejected a priori by science.  Not.  As in “not”.  N-O-T.

Not.

I’ve already listed the five steps of the scientific method.  Please feel free to point out to us which one you think excludes supernatural causes a priori.

Or do you plan on just continuing to weep and whine about how the big bad atheistic scientists won’t accept your religious opinions based on your holy say-so.

Whether or not a scientific explanation incorporating supernatural causes is practically possible is a separate question that is subordinate to the first.

Glad to hear it.  We’ve already answered the first question; *nothing* anywhere in any of the five steps of the scientific method excludes supernatural causes a priori.  None.  Zip.  Zero.  Zilch.  Not a single one of them.  Just ask the guys who carried out and published the scientific experiments on the healing power of prayer.

Now that we’ve shown you to be wrong about THAT question, it’s time to move on to the second question.  Please explain to us how a non-naturalistic science would work.  Be as detailed as possible, and take as many screens as you need.  Put up or shut up.

And give your arms a rest — they must be getting awfully tired from all that waving you’re doing.

.

Comment #22979

Posted by "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on April 2, 2005 05:21 PM (e) (s)

Do you, or do you not, think that ID hypotheses should be tested using the scientific method, the same way that everyone ELSE’s hypothesis should be tested using the scientific method.  If you do NOT think ID hypotheses should be subject to the same testing as everyone else’s, then please explain why ID hypotheses should be privileged in this manner.  If you DO think that ID hypotheses should be subject to the same testing as everyone else’s, then what the hell are you bitching about.

You, uh, haven’t answered THIS question either, Finley.

What seems to be the problem?

.

Comment #22980

Posted by Lurker on April 2, 2005 05:23 PM (e) (s)

A science that chooses not to reject any explanations a priori leads to an incoherence much like solipsism.  That said, there’s no end to the combinations of a priori, minimalist assumptions from which you can begin with.  If you’d like to propose an alternate set of assumptions from the one adopted by the majority of scientists, fine.  But in a free marketplace of ideas, one does not merely demand and then expect to receive welfare and equal treatment without doing some hard work.  Nor can one simply cheat by offering fake products using false advertisements of superiority.  If you have other a prior assumptions, Michael Finley, then the most pertinent question to ask is if they demonstrate superior worth.

Comment #22981

Posted by Jack Krebs on April 2, 2005 05:23 PM (e) (s)

As is usual, I find the comments here quite interesting, and I am glad all you folks are hanging out at the Panda’s Thumb this afternoon. :-)

To Mr. Finley: here are several comments/questions have been made about your position by several people, but I’m not sure I’ve seen you address them.

1.  The first is that “supernatural causation” is not excluded a priori but rather has been found a posteriori to not be found.  Supernatural causation was the default explanation for many things that science has found to be naturally caused.

2.  The second is that “supernatural causation” is not excluded a priori, as witnessed by studies on prayer, ESP, etc.  One is entirely free to make a hypothesis about supernatural causation and test it.  However, as I pointed out in comment 1, this has proven unsuccessful for about 500 hundred years now, so not very many people are interested in pursuing such hypotheses.

3.  How would one test supernatural causation?

One person mentioned that despite the prayers of millions, the Pope died.  The obvious Christian explanation of this is that given by the Catholic church – God had called him home.

I mean no sacrilege here at all: prayer is a request that is answered according to the Will of God, and we have no way of knowing why God answers some prayers and not others, as that falls beyond all human understanding.

So how can science study something that exhibits no regularity and occurs according to the inscrutable will of a divine being whose view of the world is utterly different than ours?

Comment #22982

Posted by "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on April 2, 2005 05:24 PM (e) (s)

Kudos to Jack and Lenny Flank for throwing down the gauntlet in such a well thought and articulated way.  I, too, am now waiting eagerly to discover by what possible slippery means, by what possible linguistic sleight-of-hand proponents of ID will employ to backtrack out of the mess they have made of their so-called argument.

I will make a testible prediction here (something that ID’s “supernatural science” seems to be utterly incapable of doing) —

Finley’s response will be:

<sound of crickets chirping>

.

Comment #22983

Posted by Michael Finley on April 2, 2005 05:32 PM (e) (s)

I see everyone has conveniently dodged my methodological solipsism comparison (excepting Mr. Flank’s penetrating analysis: “How dreadful”).

PvM wrote:

Nope that is a methodological issue.

Indeed. And what discipline treats methodological issues? That’s right, the philosophy of science.

Mr. Flank wrote:

We’ve already answered the first question; nothing anywhere in any of the five steps of the scientific method excludes supernatural causes a priori.

If the scientific method does not, in principle, exclude supernatural causes, then it does not adopt methodological naturalism. And if that is your position, then we are in agreement. Unfortunately for you (us), the majority of scientists and PT participants disagree with you.

Just to prove my point: anyone who thinks that supernatural causes are, in principle, scientific, please voice your support here.

Comment #22984

Posted by darwinfinch on April 2, 2005 05:46 PM (e) (s)

Michael Finley wrote:

I have no problem with a science employing natural causes. It is the a priori exclusion of supernatural causes that I object to.

—-The purity of the ignorance of the above statement, in both proving the writer a fool, and yet in mischaracterizing the opposition, is well-nigh 100%.
  The vanity that imbues it also seems at nearly toxic levels.

  “What an awful way to experience life!” might describe the feeling of pity that ran though my mind for this MF fellow mortal.

Comment #22985

Posted by P. Mihalakos on April 2, 2005 05:48 PM (e) (s)

Mr. Finley,

It really is a quite simple question that has been asked of you.  It has already been demonstrated via the ‘healing-power-of-prayer” example that science admits “supernatural” (for lack of a better word) queries into its general scope of possible explanations.  The problem is that, by all shared accounts, science regularly finds much more useful, satisfying, and more elegant explanations for how things happen. 

I will forgo my need to understand how anything categorized as ‘natural’ could ever interact with anything ‘supernatural’, and in the interest provoking your response, I will join the chorus of pleas for you to answer what has been repeatedly asked of you.

Be a gentleman and at least try.

Comment #22986

Posted by Michael Finley on April 2, 2005 06:01 PM (e) (s)

Darwinfinch,

I bow in the face of a superior argument… whatever your argument was.

P. Mihalakos wrote:

Be a gentleman and at least try.

As I’ve repeatedly pointed out to Mr. Flank, my concern here is methodological naturalism. To my sudden surprise, everyone seems to be denying that science adopts methodological naturalism. If that is indeed the case, then I have no complaint.

As for the practical question, I have started to address it in another place and would love to invite any and all to participate:

http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi…

Comment #22987

Posted by Pete Dunkelberg on April 2, 2005 06:03 PM (e) (s)

A dash of irony:

jeff-perado in Comment #22965 wrote:

… for I just recently claimed one small part of one pointless debate was “sophmoric” and thus my entire line of reasoning was rejected.

Michael Finley in Comment #22966 wrote:

A mildly clever turn of phrase is a poor substitute for abstract thought.

thus disposing of comment #22961.

New question from M Finley:
  “Just to prove my point: anyone who thinks that supernatural causes are, in principle, scientific, please voice your support here.”

It’s a question of evidence. A priori we could have evidence like this:

“Oh, you humans drove that species to extinction?  Don’t worry.  I’ll make you a new one, even better.  Shazamm!”

… and the new species pops up right there.  But the world didn’t turn out that way.

Comment #22988

Posted by DavidF on April 2, 2005 06:10 PM (e) (s)

Michael,

What do you mean by supernatural? Do you have a definition? Many things which we can do today probably would  be considered supernatural if we transported them back in time - read a Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur’s Court for an amusing example. Equally, it seems certain that future advances will lead to remarkable discoveries and capabilities - perhaps the ability to artificially engineer life or intelligence. If that happens should it be considered supernatural? In these things theology follows science.

Too often “supernatural” is merely code for “we don’t understand.” Without a definition of supernatural it’s hard to know how it could be detected.

If we look at the track record of religion versus science in explaining phenomena then it is abundantly clear that religion is usually wrong and science if usually right in the sense that it ultimately converges to the right answer answer without recourse to invoking God. Religion doesn’t converge - it usually comes up with a new set of doctrines to replace those which have been discredited. Even in areas where religion claims to have authority - morals etc. - it has been a failure. Not only do diametrically opposed religious viewpoints exist but people of most religions are quite willing to kill other members of their faith in wars over essentially materialistic concerns. What does this say for supernatural intervention?

If supernatural causes exist then they are clearly “scientific” in the sense that they are part of the universe or some larger entity which contains the universe. However, until a single example can be cited in which a scientific explanation has been overthrown by a theological one it is unconvincing to posit that science needs to invoke supernatural causes.

One way to think about it is the following; if we followed religion we would be unaware, e.g., of the so-called fine-tuning problem. ID-ers merely are capitalizing on the fact that science cannot explain many phenomena while ignoring the progress that has been made. Scienctific knowledge will almost certainly always be incomplete and ID-ers will, therefore always be able to claim that supernatural causes are needed to fill in the gaps. It’s always easier to criticize others than to produce something oneself which is about all ID is.

The telling point is that the things to which religionists pointed to as evidence for God as a designer are different today than they were a century or 5 centuries ago and will be different yet again in another 500 years. That is, of course, unless the fundies have managed to wipe human civilization off the planet thanks to their love affair with capitalism and consumption.

Comment #22989

Posted by DavidF on April 2, 2005 06:17 PM (e) (s)

Jeff,

Actually what you are saying is a direct lie; I didn’t reject what you were saying because you claimed my argument was sophomoric. I presented actual evidence that your point was incorrect - you didn’t beyond an ill conceived metaphor that had little to do with the point at hand. That you were unable to defend your point is one thing. That you now lie about it shows how the fundie mindset is by no means restricted to fundamentalists. But, if it makes you feel better then go ahead and delude yourself.

Comment #22990

Posted by P. Mihalakos on April 2, 2005 06:17 PM (e) (s)

Mr. Finley,

I was unable to locate your promised argument at the website you referenced:

http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi……

Would you be so kind as to expend the energy needed to cut and paste whatever portions of relevant text I may have overlooked into this forum?

Comment #22991

Posted by Michael Finley on April 2, 2005 06:27 PM (e) (s)

P. Mihalakos,

The chorus you joined was an invitation for me to spell out predictions that would follow from supernatural causes (see most posts by Mr. Flank), i.e., to defend the practical possibility of non-naturalistic science. That is precisely what I am undertaking on the linked website. I am attempting to make predictions from a theoretical claim, viz., common design.

Comment #22993

Posted by James Wynne on April 2, 2005 06:29 PM (e) (s)

Michael Finley wrote:

A mildly clever turn of phrase is a poor substitute for abstract thought.

I think part of the problem here is that Mr. Finley is way too smart for any of us to even dream of independently generating abstract thought that will rise above his obvious right to condescension. I can tell when someone is too smart to argue with; they use a lot of unnecessary Latin and avoid directly answering the questions at hand by use of what a teacher of mine used to call “polysyllabic obfuscation.”

Comment #22994

Posted by Russell on April 2, 2005 06:30 PM (e) (s)

M.Finley wrote:

If the scientific method does not, in principle, exclude supernatural causes, then it does not adopt methodological naturalism. … [T]he majority of scientists and PT participants disagree ….

I may be out of line here, being an experimental scientist not formally schooled in the purely philosophical side of things. But it seems to me that what we have here is a question where supernatural causes are open to scientific investigation as a subject, but the methodology (the measurement of clinical improvement, the interviews with those “performing the prayers”) are necessarily naturalistic. (It’s difficult to imagine nonnaturalistic methodology!)

Comment #22996

Posted by James Wynne on April 2, 2005 06:32 PM (e) (s)

Michael Finley wrote:

A mildly clever turn of phrase is a poor substitute for abstract thought.

I think part of the problem here is that Mr. Finley is way too smart for any of us to even dream of independently generating abstract thought that will rise above his obvious right to condescension. I can tell when someone is too smart to argue with; they use a lot of unnecessary Latin and avoid directly answering the questions at hand by use of what a teacher of mine used to call “polysyllabic obfuscation.”

Comment #22997

Posted by Michael Finley on April 2, 2005 06:32 PM (e) (s)

P. Mihalakos,

The chorus you joined was an invitation for me to spell out predictions that would follow from supernatural causes (see most posts by Mr. Flank), i.e., to defend the practical possibility of non-naturalistic science. That is precisely what I am undertaking on the linked website. I am attempting to make predictions from a theoretical claim, viz., common design.

Thank you all for the discussion. My family is demanding I unplug and go to dinner. Until later, then.

Comment #22998

Posted by "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on April 2, 2005 06:36 PM (e) (s)

I see everyone has conveniently dodged my methodological solipsism comparison

And I see (surprise surprise) that you’ve still not answered any of my questions.

As note before, I will simply ask again.  And again and again and again.  As many times as I need to until I get an answer.

*ahem*

Please show us how to use the scientific method to test a supernatural hypothesis.  Please be as detailed as possible and use as many screens as you need.

Do you, or do you not, think that ID hypotheses should be tested using the scientific method, the same way that everyone ELSE’s hypothesis should be tested using the scientific method.  If you do NOT think ID hypotheses should be subject to the same testing as everyone else’s, then please explain why ID hypotheses should be privileged in this manner.  If you DO think that ID hypotheses should be subject to the same testing as everyone else’s, then what the hell are you bitching about.

Therefore, any conclusions of methodologically naturalistic science depend on metaphysical naturalism.

Reeaaalllyyyyyy.

Um, why are so many scientists (who practice methodological naturlaism) Christians (who, I presume, are not metaphysical naturalistic, believing in God and all … . . )  Oh, and why are the vast majority of Christians (who, once again, I presume are not metaphysical naturalistic) accepting of evolution and all the rest of modern science (which, I point out, follow methodological naturalism).

Explain, please.

Indeed, so does weather forecasting (I’ve never yet heard any meteorologist conclude that “this hurricane followed this track into that cuty because God wanted to punish sinners there”), or accident investigation (I’ve never yet heard an FAA investigator conclude “this airplane crashed because it was the will of God”).  In law, supernatural causes and effects are also ruled out a priori — no lawyer is allowed to argue “my client is innocent of the murder because the Devil made him do it”.  Heck, the rules of baseball don’t mention any supernatural causes or effects either. Utterly materialistic and naturalistic.

Medicine?  Gee, when Mr Finley gets sick, do you suppose he asks his doctor to utilize supernatural methods or non-material cures?  Or does he just ask his materialistic naturalistic doctor to cure his materialistic naturalistic diseases by using materialistic naturalistic antibiotics to kill his naturalistic materialistic germs?

So why is it that IDers get their panties all in a bunch about “atheistic naturalistic materialistic evolution”, but NOT about “atheistic naturalistic materialistic” weather forecasting or accident investigation or law or medicine or rules of baseball?

Or …  DOES “renewing our culture” indeed include forcing DI’s particular brand of theism into all those areas as well … . . ?

Comment #22999

Posted by "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on April 2, 2005 06:38 PM (e) (s)

If the scientific method does not, in principle, exclude supernatural causes, then it does not adopt methodological naturalism.

Hey Finley, wre those guys who did scientific studies on the effects of prayer on healing, rejecting supernatural causes, a priori, in principle?

How about the journals that published their studies?

Perhaps you are a much better theologian than I am, but it sure seems to ME as if “the power of prayer” is . .  well …  supernatural.

Do you disagree?

.

Comment #23000

Posted by Michael Finley on April 2, 2005 06:39 PM (e) (s)

James Wynne,

My apologies. Apparently I should not disdain sarcastic rhetoric that is unsupported by argument, and should use smaller words. Nevertheless, thanks for the concession. In your case, I agree with your assessment of me.

Thank you for the discussion. My family is demanding that I unplug and come to dinner. Until later, then.

Comment #23001

Posted by "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on April 2, 2005 06:41 PM (e) (s)

The chorus you joined was an invitation for me to spell out predictions that would follow from supernatural causes (see most posts by Mr. Flank), i.e., to defend the practical possibility of non-naturalistic science. That is precisely what I am undertaking on the linked website. I am attempting to make predictions from a theoretical claim, viz., common design.

Glad to hear it.  Let’s see these predictions.  And your description ofm how to test them using the scientific method.

Or are you just waving your arms again.

.

Comment #23004

Posted by "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on April 2, 2005 07:00 PM (e) (s)

My apologies. Apparently I should not disdain sarcastic rhetoric that is unsupported by argument, and should use smaller words.

Use whatever words you like, Finley.  <shrug>  Just answer my friggin questions.

Comment #23018

Posted by PvM on April 2, 2005 07:46 PM (e) (s)

PvM wrote:

  Nope that is a methodological issue.

Finley: Indeed. And what discipline treats methodological issues? That’s right, the philosophy of science.

That’s a silly argument. First of all the philosophy of science is not ontological naturalism, second of all, your statement to which I responded was “Whether or not supernatural causes are excluded a priori by the method of science is a philosophical question.”

As others have also shown, science does not reject the supernatural (intelligent design) apriori, but it has found so far that the evidence for the supernatural seems to be lacking, certainly the evidence for intelligent design in biology. ID proponents often complain that science rejects intelligent design apriori, and argue at the same time that science has succesfully applied detection of intelligent design in archaeology, criminology etc. This self-contradictory statement shows the level of obfuscation involved.

Show us how the rejection of the supernatural (a priori or not) by science is a philosophical issue. I see it as a methodological issue.

God did it is just not a very useful explanation (just look at the history of science)…

I am not sure what Finley is trying to show with his solipsism argument. Methodological naturalism takes no position on whether or not nature is all there is, or whether or not there exists a supernatural. These are conclusions that cannot be supported by science.

Methodological solipsism similarly does not claim that self is all there is, merely that such a research strategy cannot address issues beyond ‘self’. In other words, the methodology restricts the applicability.

(Fodor’s “Methodological Solipsism Considered as a Research Strategy in Cognitive Psychology shows how it is a methodology for a ‘research strategy’ not a claim about the world).

Comment #23024

Posted by Henry J on April 2, 2005 08:30 PM (e) (s)

Re “If the sciences had detected a God in the Universe, you can be sure that believers wouldn’t be talking about the defects of scientific methodology. “
On the contrary, imo if science had detected evidence of god, it would more than likely produce details at odds with what the believer’s believed. Then the believers would really be upset.

Henry

Comment #23031

Posted by Tom Clark on April 2, 2005 09:07 PM (e) (s)

Russell wrote

I may be out of line here, being an experimental scientist not formally schooled in the purely philosophical side of things. But it seems to me that what we have here is a question where supernatural causes are open to scientific investigation as a subject, but the methodology (the measurement of clinical improvement, the interviews with those “performing the prayers”) are necessarily naturalistic. (It’s difficult to imagine nonnaturalistic methodology!)

Actually, scientific methods of measurement, observation, etc., as well as scientific criteria for explanations, make no mention of the natural/supernatural distinction.  In a way, the term “methodological naturalism” is an unfortunate misnomer, since as we’ve seen in this discussion it can give the impression that science presumes naturalism in some important philosophical sense.  Creationists and IDers will seize on this to claim that science should be “balanced” by introducing what they themselves call supernatural hypotheses.  We must patiently explain that no, science is ontologically neutral, and its methods do not assume any apriori characterization of what’s natural vs. supernatural.  This effectively blunts the Wedge strategy, since IDers can no longer claim science is biased in favor of naturalism.  About which see http://www.naturalism.org/science.htm….

As Larry pointed out a while back, science can pronounce judgment on the supernatural hypotheses profferred by ID supporters (assuming they have any testable content), simply by applying its ontologically neutral methods.  It’s just that such hypotheses usually don’t have sufficient content to be testable - they are non-starters, in which case they properly get rejected as non-science.  And it’s the fact that they aren’t testable that ends up classifying them as supernatural hypotheses, not that science is biased against them by an apriori commitment to naturalism. Science generates the natural/supernatural distinction, it doesn’t assume it.

Comment #23033

Posted by Flint on April 2, 2005 09:15 PM (e) (s)

As far as I can see, Flank laid out the situation clearly and exhaustively, and Finley has simply run away it. As usual. I had been hoping (admittedly against hope) that we would find an IDist actually respond to a request honestly. Or even half-honestly, by recognizing the request itself. But I guess even that would be asking too much.

Still, if anyone is genuinely trying to make sense of the issue, the behavior we’ve seen demonstrated is at least clear and unambiguous. Where is the evidence? Silence. Where are your tests? Silence. How would a test be constructed at all? Change of subject. Demands that Finley at least address these critical questions. Finley leaves without even trying. There is a lesson hidden in here somewhere, I think.

Comment #23045

Posted by Mike Dunford on April 2, 2005 10:33 PM (e) (s)

Michael Finley wrote:

As I’ve repeatedly pointed out to Mr. Flank, my concern here is methodological naturalism. To my sudden surprise, everyone seems to be denying that science adopts methodological naturalism. If that is indeed the case, then I have no complaint.

Whether or not you believe that science adopts methodological naturalism really depends on the specific definitions that you are using, and where in the process you are looking. Science does not adopt methodological naturalism in the sense of excluding any possibility of anything that might be considered to be supernatural. Science does adopt methodological naturalism in the sense of excluding any hypothesis that cannot be tested against what is observed in the natural world.

This is precisely why Lenny’s repeated question is so critical - whether or not any given hypothesis is scientific depends on whether or not it can be tested using basic scientific methods. That is not something that cannot be evaluated in general, universal terms. Instead, the question of whether or not a given hypothesis is scientific can only be answered on a case-by-case basis. This is true regardless of whether the hypothesis invokes natural or supernatural causes.

The hypothesis that you have proposed over on antievolution.org regarding common design is not scientific as currently formulated. You have specified some observations that you would expect to see if common design was true, which is good, but you have not specified anything that you would only expect to see if common design were true, and you have not specified anything that you would expect to never find if common design were true. As a result, you are not really testing the hypothesis.

Comment #23047

Posted by "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on April 2, 2005 10:50 PM (e) (s)

As far as I can see, Flank laid out the situation clearly and exhaustively, and Finley has simply run away it. As usual.

Well, I *did* tell him to either shit or get off the toilet.

And the toilet appears to now be unoccupied.

<shrug>

Comment #23048

Posted by "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on April 2, 2005 10:56 PM (e) (s)

So…  ID folk, listen up:  In context of science, it is NOT that your proposition of a supernatural designer of nature (alas, the paradox!) is wrong;  it is that it is not EVEN wrong.  It simply invites no heuristic activity at all.

That’s right.  ID isn’t “wrong”.  It’s WORSE than “wrong” — it’s utterly useless.

Except as a legal ploy to push religious apologetics into a science classroom.  Which is, of course, it’s only INTENDED use.

Comment #23049

Posted by P. Mihalakos on April 2, 2005 11:11 PM (e) (s)

Lenny,

I agree.  I originally gave the ID movement more benefit of the doubt than I should have, at least in terms of their motives.  I assumed that they were just being a little lazy, and in need of a little patient education.  But, I am beginning to realize that the real rabble-rousers behind ID know exactly what they are doing and what they are saying.  It smacks of a coordinated effort, not to change science, but to change culture at large.

Comment #23052

Posted by Longhorm on April 3, 2005 12:41 AM (e) (s)

According to Michael Finley:

I endorse the notion that supernatural causes should not, in principle, be rejected as unscientific.

According to Michael:

I have no problem with a science employing natural causes. It is the a priori exclusion of supernatural causes that I object to.

Michael, I’m not sure what you mean by “unscientific” and “science.”  But given what I think you mean, I agree with I think you are getting at.  Let me explain. 

If a person says “event X occurred,” I will consider whether it did.  In some cases, I won’t know for certain whether X occurred.  But there have been millions of cases when some people believed that a given event occurred, and it did not.  Or, at least there are occass