Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

A Question for Barbara Forrest

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

In her recent paper, The Non-epistemology of Intelligent Design: Its Implications for Public Policy, evolutionary philosopher Barbara Forrest states that science must be restricted to natural phenomena. In its investigations, science must restrict itself to a naturalistic methodology, where explanations must be strictly naturalistic, dealing with phenomena that are strictly natural. Aside from rare exceptions this is the consensus position of evolutionists. And in typical fashion, Forrest uses this criteria to exclude origins explanations that allow for the supernatural. Only evolutionary explanations, in one form or another, are allowed.

Continue reading here.

Comments
How do you tell that a mind is non-material. The closest I can come is Leonard Cohen: "He's touched her perfect body with his mind."David Kellogg
June 16, 2009
June
06
Jun
16
16
2009
02:01 PM
2
02
01
PM
PDT
---David Kellogg: "If the mind is non-material, I’d say yeah. But I have no way of measuring the intervention of non-material forces into the material world. As soon as you measure them, they’re material." Thank you for that admission. So, if a carpenter, using his non-material mind, builds a house, that event is declared as supernatural and therefore, non-scientific.StephenB
June 16, 2009
June
06
Jun
16
16
2009
01:58 PM
1
01
58
PM
PDT
Your convictions about mind/body duality are irrelevant to the question. If a carpenter uses his non-material mind to design a house, is that a supernatural event?
they are very relevant. substitute "invisible sweet fluffy bunny-dragons" for "mind" and you'll see why this question is meaningless.Khan
June 16, 2009
June
06
Jun
16
16
2009
01:54 PM
1
01
54
PM
PDT
Your own high view of that statement, however, has not escaped me at all.David Kellogg
June 16, 2009
June
06
Jun
16
16
2009
01:50 PM
1
01
50
PM
PDT
"What is it in this statement that escaped you." Its relevance or usefulness.David Kellogg
June 16, 2009
June
06
Jun
16
16
2009
01:49 PM
1
01
49
PM
PDT
"If a carpenter uses his non-material mind to design a house, is that a supernatural event?" If the mind is non-material, I'd say yeah. But I have no way of measuring the intervention of non-material forces into the material world. As soon as you measure them, they're material.David Kellogg
June 16, 2009
June
06
Jun
16
16
2009
01:48 PM
1
01
48
PM
PDT
----"StephenB, I’ve read the arguments for a non-material mind; they just aren’t convincing, and the data are not inconsistent with a variety of materialist theories." What is it in this statement that escaped you: “So, any research that validates the existence of a non-material mind is ruled out apriori as non-scientific.”StephenB
June 16, 2009
June
06
Jun
16
16
2009
01:47 PM
1
01
47
PM
PDT
---khan: "like I said, I think mind/brain duality is rubbish.you are free to think otherwise. show me some data that suggests otherwise and I might reconsider. for example, how would you differentiate between the carpenter using his material brain and using his “mind”?." Your convictions about mind/body duality are irrelevant to the question. If a carpenter uses his non-material mind to design a house, is that a supernatural event?StephenB
June 16, 2009
June
06
Jun
16
16
2009
01:46 PM
1
01
46
PM
PDT
In the OP Dr. Hunter writes:
The question for Forrest and the evolutionists then is: What is the boundary between natural phenomena and supernatural phenomena? Forrest tells us science must never violate this boundary, so it is important that we discern it. We need to distinguish between natural and supernatural phenomena? How can science know when it is investigating a supernatural phenomena rather than a natural one? Bacon wrestled with this problem. What does Forrest have to say?
Great question! I sincerely doubt that Bar F. will ever answer such a question, because, frankly, she has no idea. I've used a similar question quite often in these debates over the past few years. My version is "how do you know scientifically that the properties of the cosmos are such that any actions taken by any supernatural entity can not have observable empirical consequences in any natural system, even in principle?" If Forrest and those of her ilk are going to pontificate that
The sciences are unified by their naturalistic methodology and empiricist epistemology, a unity ... that can take us to the outer reaches of natural phenomena, but never beyond them. When we move beyond the epistemic boundaries that these faculties and rules set for us and the correspondingly limited metaphysical boundaries they enable us to define, we move from the relative epistemological safety of knowledge to the unmapped, supernatural territory of faith.
...then they need to come up with some peer reviewed scientific research studies that confirm that hypothesis. Otherwise, to quote LaPlace, I have no need of that hypothesis!DonaldM
June 16, 2009
June
06
Jun
16
16
2009
01:44 PM
1
01
44
PM
PDT
I have to agree - adding in a second disputed premise, mind/brain duality, squares the disagreement.ScottAndrews
June 16, 2009
June
06
Jun
16
16
2009
01:38 PM
1
01
38
PM
PDT
StephenB, I've read the arguments for a non-material mind; they just aren't convincing, and the data are not inconsistent with a variety of materialist theories.David Kellogg
June 16, 2009
June
06
Jun
16
16
2009
01:37 PM
1
01
37
PM
PDT
----David Kellogg: "I am not aware of any research that validates the existence of a non-material mind. To re-purpose Laplace: I have no need of that hypothesis." What is it in this statement that escaped you: "So, any research that validates the existence of a non-material mind is ruled out apriori as non-scientific."StephenB
June 16, 2009
June
06
Jun
16
16
2009
01:35 PM
1
01
35
PM
PDT
I am not aware of any research that validates the existence of a non-material mind. To re-purpose Laplace: I have no need of that hypothesis.David Kellogg
June 16, 2009
June
06
Jun
16
16
2009
01:32 PM
1
01
32
PM
PDT
Correction on @63. "You have not thought through this matter very carefully."StephenB
June 16, 2009
June
06
Jun
16
16
2009
01:31 PM
1
01
31
PM
PDT
Stephen, like I said, I think mind/brain duality is rubbish.you are free to think otherwise. show me some data that suggests otherwise and I might reconsider. for example, how would you differentiate between the carpenter using his material brain and using his "mind"?.Khan
June 16, 2009
June
06
Jun
16
16
2009
01:30 PM
1
01
30
PM
PDT
The premise of ID is that we can draw conclusions regarding the unknown from historical observances. It makes sense to apply the same in this case. People put images on clothing, which mean someone probably put this image on this cloak. Reminds me of some years back in this area when a discoloration appeared on an office window. It looked like Darth Vader. People flocked to it, and someone bought it and made lots of money. The point is, the threshold for acceptance of this miracle was very, very low.ScottAndrews
June 16, 2009
June
06
Jun
16
16
2009
01:30 PM
1
01
30
PM
PDT
----David Kellogg: "Your question is nonsensical since we have not established that such a thing exists." On the contrary, your response is nonsensical. You have thought this matter through very carefully. The methods that Dr. Hunter are describing assumes that no such entity as a human mind can exist. So, any research that validates the existence of a non-material mind is ruled out apriori as non-scientific. This is news to you?StephenB
June 16, 2009
June
06
Jun
16
16
2009
01:29 PM
1
01
29
PM
PDT
"a carpenter, by using his non material mind" His what?David Kellogg
June 16, 2009
June
06
Jun
16
16
2009
01:25 PM
1
01
25
PM
PDT
PaV,
[32] herb: Of course, you’re going to explain to me just exactly how the image came about, aren’t you? I await.
I think all we can say (with near certainty) is that the origin is supernatural. Of course the particular image strongly suggests the involvement of the Christian God, so that would be a reasonable inference. The mechanism by which it appeared is mysterious, of course.herb
June 16, 2009
June
06
Jun
16
16
2009
01:16 PM
1
01
16
PM
PDT
---khan: "if you are defining it is non-material and unquantifiable then yes it is a supernatural concept. which is why I don’t subscribe to mind/brain duality." So, then, if, on the one hand, a carpenter, by using his non material mind, designs a house, and if, on the other hand, God, creates a universe, both are supernatural events?StephenB
June 16, 2009
June
06
Jun
16
16
2009
01:14 PM
1
01
14
PM
PDT
"Is a human, non-material mind, which cannot be mesaured quantitatively, a supernatural entity?" Your question is nonsensical since we have not established that such a thing exists.David Kellogg
June 16, 2009
June
06
Jun
16
16
2009
01:10 PM
1
01
10
PM
PDT
[32] herb: Of course, you're going to explain to me just exactly how the image came about, aren't you? I await.PaV
June 16, 2009
June
06
Jun
16
16
2009
01:09 PM
1
01
09
PM
PDT
StephenB [52], Khan's answer was “if a thing or the effects of that thing can not be measured quantitatively, then it is supernatural.” And now you're excluding effects merely because you want to. He provided an answer, but you refuse to see how it might play out by refusing one part of it ("effects").David Kellogg
June 16, 2009
June
06
Jun
16
16
2009
01:08 PM
1
01
08
PM
PDT
Stephen, if you are defining it is non-material and unquantifiable then yes it is a supernatural concept. which is why I don't subscribe to mind/brain duality.Khan
June 16, 2009
June
06
Jun
16
16
2009
01:00 PM
1
01
00
PM
PDT
So, Khan, are you going to continue to evade the question? Is a human, non-material mind, which cannot be mesaured quantitatively, a supernatural entity?StephenB
June 16, 2009
June
06
Jun
16
16
2009
12:56 PM
12
12
56
PM
PDT
Here's a question in this area for IDers that's been bugging me for some time: Why exactly did materialist scientists pick the Darwin/Wallace naturalistic explanation over naturalistic alternatives? What was it about the evolutionary concept that specifically appealed to them — was it just the evidence for things like common descent, adaptation, etc? Despite the way many posters here discuss it, you can't just equate "evolution" with "naturalism". Evolutionary theory does not simply consist of the rejection of supernatural design. It makes some pretty specific claims besides that. So I guess I also feel like asking yet again what's been asked a couple times by other posters now, which is: Has anyone lately picked up any new non-philosophical, non-statistics-based, straight-up-physical evidence for the designer? Again and again, people talk here like it's just staring us in the face, that if only the scientists accepted the supernatural, they would immediately also accept the existence of some supernatural phenomenon that is otherwise "not allowed" by science — the angels that fly over everyone's heads on Thursday mornings. If your answer is actually going to be something like Our Lady of Guadalupe, then… well… I don't know what to say. I don't personally have time to refute every such claim, but hey, if there's a "there" there, that's pretty awesome. I think for that particular artifact, the actual likelihoods are much more on the side of a natural design.Lenoxus
June 16, 2009
June
06
Jun
16
16
2009
12:51 PM
12
12
51
PM
PDT
David Kellogg:
No, thank you, for admitting that the problem-solver is the material brain and not some immaterial “mind.”
I'm not on the mind/brain bandwagon. I believe that my mind is contained within the functions of by brain cells.ScottAndrews
June 16, 2009
June
06
Jun
16
16
2009
12:50 PM
12
12
50
PM
PDT
---David Kellogg: "Can’t the effects of the mind be measured quantitatively?" Of course they can. But the question is about the mind as cause. Inasmuch as your Darwinist demarcation principle declares that all which cannot be quantitatively measured is supernatural, and inasmuch the mind cannot be quantitatively measured, is the mind, therefore, a supernatural entity?StephenB
June 16, 2009
June
06
Jun
16
16
2009
12:45 PM
12
12
45
PM
PDT
Khan:
here are a few ways that the effects of human intelligence can be quantified. a) # of problems correctly solved b) time to navigate to a given location c) # of terms correctly memorized
One factor alone - the motivation of the subject, is enough to skew the test. A determined test-taker could score higher than a more intelligent one. We also don't know all the ways in which intelligence can act, so how do we know if the subject's intelligence could be expressed in ways we haven't thought to matter? I'm not tossing IQ in the bin. But we don't exactly understand what we're measuring, so IQ tests are just helpful benchmarks.ScottAndrews
June 16, 2009
June
06
Jun
16
16
2009
12:45 PM
12
12
45
PM
PDT
johnnyb, those aren't measurable.David Kellogg
June 16, 2009
June
06
Jun
16
16
2009
12:45 PM
12
12
45
PM
PDT
1 15 16 17 18 19

Leave a Reply