Naturalism

But then we would need to replace a lot of science journalists. From Michael Schulson at Pacific Standard: Last May, when This American Life acknowledged that it had run a 23-minute-long segment premised on a fraudulent scientific study, America’s most respected radio journalists did something strange: They declined to apologize for the error. “Our original story was based on what was known at the time,” host Ira Glass explained in a blog post. “Obviously the facts have changed.” It was a funny admission. Journalists typically don’t say that “facts change”; it is a journalist’s job to define and publicize facts. When a reporter gets hoodwinked by a source, she does not imply that something in the fabric of reality has Read More ›

  That is, are our brains shaped for fitness, not for truth? From a review in Catholic World Report: We began…by noting that our view of consciousness is the new field upon which the academic and cultural battle between materialism, panpsychism, and transcendentalism is being waged. We now see that the outcome of this battle will not only affect our personal view of life’s purpose, the world, human dignity, and human value, but also the culture’s outlook on these important ideas and ideals. Jesus’ proclamation that ‘the truth will make you free’ (Jn. 8:32) is particularly important here—for if we and the culture falsely underestimate our purpose, dignity, value, and destiny, we will also unnecessarily restrict our freedom and potential Read More ›

From Aeon: Nigel Warburton, author of A Little History of Philosophy (2011) vs. Jules Evans, Policy Director, Centre for the History of the Emotions at Queen Mary U London: NW: I suppose this all turns on what you think philosophy is. I see philosophy as an activity of thinking critically about what we are and where we stand in relation to the world, an activity with a long and rich history. Philosophy is concerned with how things are, the limits of what we can know, and how we should live. It is anti-dogmatic and thrives on questioning assumptions. No serious philosophy is likely to leave the philosopher unchanged, but that doesn’t mean that the change will be for the better or Read More ›

Scientism: Believing that all correct answers come from science (and, in practice, that the answers offered on behalf of whatever counts for science in given situation is correct). How does that play out in the criminal justice system? From Kelly Servick at Science: … for decades, forensic examiners have sometimes claimed in court that close but not identical ballistic markings could conclusively link evidence to a suspect—and judges and juries have trusted their expertise. Examiners have made similar statements for other forms of so-called pattern evidence, such as fingerprints, shoeprints, tire tracks, and bite marks. But such claims are ill-founded, a committee at the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) concluded in 2009. “No forensic method has been rigorously shown to Read More ›

One common criticism of the upcoming Alternatives to Methodological Naturalism conference has been that “scientists just follow the evidence where it leads.” Even among fellow ID’ers who disagree with methodological naturalism, they find it difficult to envision why we would need an alternative that is different from “just go with the evidence.” The answer is simple – the scientific imagination. One of the reasons why I started the conference is because Methodological Naturalism (hereafter, MN) constrains thinking in ways that I am not sure even people led entirely by the evidence are aware of. Theory construction is often treated by both scientists and observers of science as an automatic given once the data is in. In actuality, though, it is Read More ›

Just a quick reminder to everyone that if you want to present at the Alternatives to Methodological Naturalism Online Conference, you have until March 15th (that’s Tuesday) to submit your abstracts! Read More ›

Waynesburg University (Pennsylvania) biology prof Wayne Rossiter, author of In the Shadow of Oz, offer some thoughts on the recent PLOS One uproar over a paper that mentioned a creator: Nothing says tolerance, reasonability and openness like the impetuous knee-jerk proscription of the innocent.  The psychological condition of the modern scientist was again on display this past week in the journal PLOS One, where a conga line of educated professionals reverted to the primitive behavior of irrational vitriol and chimp-like poo-slinging. It all started when (what appears to be) a faulty Chinese-English translation resulting in the term “Creator” being inserted in a scientific It all started when (what appears to be) a faulty Chinese-English translation resulting in the term “Creator” Read More ›

The list and scope of presenters at the Alternatives to Methodological Naturalism conference continues to grow. The conference committee is very pleased with the response to the conference so far. Register today to be a part of it!
Read More ›

What else to make of this, from New Scientist?: A lot of problems in today’s world are too big for our brains. An algorithm that identifies how cause and effect are linked could lead us to better solutions … Finding solutions means doing what Newton did with gravity: asking the right questions, teasing out causes and effects, and so building an intellectual framework to explain the puzzle. But how do we do that with the sheer quantity of data sloshing around in today’s world? It’s this problem that has led some to think we need to think seriously about the way we think. Only by rebooting our powers of logic and going beyond what nature has hardwired into our brain Read More ›

The Alternatives to Methodological Naturalism conference’s logo contest just finished taking submissions. Vote for your favorite design!
Read More ›

The Alternatives to Methodological Naturalism conference is doing a design contest with a cash prize.
Read More ›

Before I put the issue with the United Methodist Church and Discovery Institute to rest, I want to make one last comment on the UMC’s Statement on Science and Technology, which I wrote about the other day. One of the most significant assertions in the statement is “We preclude science from making authoritative claims about theological issues and theology from making authoritative claims about scientific issues.” If that sounds vaguely familiar to readers here at Uncommon Descent, it should. It is little more than a restatement of the late Stephen J. Gould’s principle of Non-Overlapping Magisteria (or NOMA). In essence, NOMA is the idea that Science and Religion occupy different spheres of knowledge and influence and as such are subject Read More ›

I’ve already written here about the recent dust-up between the United Methodist Church (UMC)and Discovery Institute. Being involved with this has caused me, as a United Methodist, to take a closer look at some of the official statements of the UMC on science. As regular UD readers will likely know, the church has banned Discovery Institute from exhibiting at the upcoming General Conference. Vince Torley has already written here that probably UMC co-founder John Wesley wouldn’t be welcome at this year’s General Conference, so I won’t rehash that aspect. Rather, I want to take a closer look at the official statements of the UMC on Science to which the Church appealed as rationale for denying Discovery Institute an information table Read More ›

From the Christian Scientific Society, a new article by physicist David Snoke, “Thinking about the problem of evil,” based on presentations at the Agora Forum: … Natural evil and moral evil … To address this, I must first take a few paragraphs to make a distinction between two types of evil: natural evil and moral evil. Natural evil is something that is physically unpleasant, possibly extremely and excruciatingly so. This could include pain and disease, hurricanes, floods, famines, parasites, etc. All these types of things can happen to us independent of any moral choices that humans make. We might make them worse by bad moral choices, but they would exist anyway. Moral evil involves a decision by a being with Read More ›