Philosophy

This is an ongoing discussion we are having with Dr. Swamidass over the question of Methodological Naturalism in science. For those who haven’t been keeping up, I posted Dr. Swamidass’s questions to critics of MN to UD a few weeks ago, then posted some of my questions for proponents of MN. Then, my first response to Swamidass’s questions is here, covering the nature of scientific inquiry, and this present post continues to answer Dr. Swamidass’s specific questions. You can find Dr. Swamidass’s original blog post here.

Read More ›

From Stuart Clark at New Scientist: Although the scope of our definition determines the complexity of the puzzle, physics should still supply the solution, says philosopher Tim Maudlin of New York University. Physics is about just two questions, he says: “what exists?” and “what does it do?”. “If you answer both of those questions, then I think you have answered the question ‘what is reality?’.” More. (paywall) Reality isn’t “made of” anything. What is the number 2 “made of”? What is the political idea of proportional representation “made of”? What is the Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam “made of”? Almost certainly, they will get nowhere, but at least they will be able to reaffirm their basic vision of life. Not bad Read More ›

Dr. Joshua Swamidass, a computational biologist from Wash U, recently posted some questions to critics of methodological naturalism like myself, and also explicitly named the AM-Nat (Alternatives to Methodological Naturalism) conferences as an example of those searching for an alternative to methodological naturalism.  After some discussions with Dr. Swamidass, I thought I would take some time to write a response to his questions.  I apologize for the length, but these issues take some time to suss out.  Therefore, this response will be broken into two parts.

Read More ›

Earlier I posted some questions for critics of methodological by Dr. Joshua Swamidass. I plan on writing a response to Dr. Swamidass’s criticisms and questions, but for the moment I will offer my own questions to the proponents of Methodological Naturalism (update – my answers to these questions are here and here).
Read More ›

From Alex Berezow at American Council on Science and Health: In other words, only one out of 70 papers fully met Popper’s criteria of falsification. This suggests that while Popper’s idea of falsification is a good one, it is far too difficult for scientists to implement regularly in practice. Science plods along just fine without adhering to Popper’s overly burdensome guidelines. Though he would surely dispute Dr. Hansson’s conclusion that falsification has been falsified, hopefully Popper would have at least found it amusingly ironic.More. Berezow is (perhaps ironically) missing the point here, of course. Falsification is a standard, adherence to which need not be perfect. But it provides a basis for discussion of claims. Among the people to whom that Read More ›

The question of whether methodological naturalism is an idea worth holding onto in science has been one that the ID camp, as a whole, is not unified on. Some think that methodological naturalism is a perfectly valid way to define science, and that ID fits nicely within that scope. Others think that methodological naturalism is just philosophical baggage hitching a free ride and should be discarded.
Read More ›

From Philip Ball at Atlantic: The history of science has been distorted by a longstanding conviction that correct theories about nature are always the most elegant ones. … Occam’s razor was never meant for paring nature down to some beautiful, parsimonious core of truth. Because science is so difficult and messy, the allure of a philosophical tool for clearing a path or pruning the thickets is obvious. In their readiness to find spurious applications of Occam’s razor in the history of science, or to enlist, dismiss, or reshape the razor at will to shore up their preferences, scientists reveal their seduction by this vision. But they should resist it. The value of keeping assumptions to a minimum is cognitive, not Read More ›

The many advances in computer technology have convinced many people that AI is real and it is coming soon. This article focuses on the concept of creativity, and what that means for the question of whether someone can actually build an “artificial intelligence” with computers. Read More

We have been talking a bit about Rope Kojonen this last week, with his presentation at the AM-Nat conference and his recent paper on methodological naturalism in the International Journal for Philosophy of Religion. Now he has a new book out covering a philosophical perspective on the Intelligent Design debate.
Read More ›

One of our presenters at the AM-Nat conference, Rope Kojonen, recently published a paper based on his AM-Nat presentation with the International Journal for Philosophy of Religion, titled “Methodological Naturalism and the Truth Seeking Objection.”
Read More ›

In this next video from the Alternatives to Methodological Naturalism (AM-Nat) conference, Rope Kojonen defends methodological naturalism by suggesting that the foundation for its objections is the belief that science is the only valid way of knowing.
Read More ›

In the next installment of videos from the AM-Nat conference, Jim LeMaster discusses Francis Bacon and David Hume, and shows their issues with teleological thinking in science, and why the arguments against analogies don’t measure up. We have a conference coming up in November focused on biology, and another in February focused on business and technology, so be sure to check out the AM-Nat website for more information on conference registrations and abstract submissions.

Over on a recent thread there has been much interesting discussion about a recent debate between theist philosopher Rabbi Daniel Rowe and atheist philosopher A.C. Grayling.  HeKS provided a review of the matter, focusing largely on his analysis of Jerry Coyne’s responses.

I agree with HeKS’s general observation that Coyne failed to adequately address the issues.  Indeed, it seems Coyne failed to adequately understand some of the issues, a situation that is all too common.

However, I want to focus in this post on a specific aspect of the discussion, namely, some of the points raised by sean samis, starting @37 on that thread.  In his comments, samis urges caution in drawing any conclusion from the Big Bang about deity’s existence or involvement.  I do not necessarily share all of his conclusions, but I think a number of his points are worthy of additional discussion.

First of all, let me apologize to HeKS for starting a new thread.  I initially began this as a comment to the prior thread, but it became long enough that it required a separate post.  Additionally, I want to focus on a specific issue that tacks in a slightly different direction than the prior thread.

If the Universe Had a Beginning, then What? Read More ›

In the next video from the Alternatives to Methodological Naturalism conference, Jonathan Bartlett describes the philosophical underpinnings of methodological naturalism and why they fall short. For more information about the Alternatives to Methodological Naturalism (AM-Nat) conference series, see the website. We have two more conferences coming in the next year!

Recently, a debate was held in London between theist philosopher Rabbi Daniel Rowe and atheist philosopher A.C. Grayling. The subject under dispute, unsurprisingly, was God’s existence. It’s a very interesting debate to watch. I’d never heard of Rowe before, but I was familiar with Grayling, who is sometimes referred to as the Fifth Horseman of New Atheism. Generally speaking, the “New Atheists” haven’t shown any natural genius for philosophy. Grayling, though being a professional philosopher, does not prove to be the exception here. Instead, he shows that even when they have the benefit of philosophical training, it does them very little good when they engage in debates over God’s existence. I think it would be pretty uncontroversial to say that Read More ›