A Question for Barbara Forrest

_{Cornelius Hunter

June 16, 2009

Intelligent Design}

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

David Kellogg, ------"Clive, I’ve had guests so haven’t been able to respond. On the prayer it seems to me broadly scientific, though you are wrong to characterize it as a “scientific experiment of the supernatural event of intercessory prayer.” Calling the event “supernatural” is unnecessary." Calling Prayer to the Christian God asking for healing of certain patients and waiting for God to miraculously heal them is not supernatural? Well then what is? So, it was scientific in your estimation? So science can deal with the supernatural? So MN is not limited the natural events?Clive Hayden_{June 20, 2009
June
06
Jun
20
20
2009
09:26 PM
9
09
26
PM
PDT}

Diffaxial, ------"No, that wasn’t my answer. Read it again, but first doff the straightjacket of “YES or NO.”" No. Was it scientific or not? YES or NO?Clive Hayden_{June 20, 2009
June
06
Jun
20
20
2009
09:23 PM
9
09
23
PM
PDT}

RDK, ------"You might do well to choose an instance where supernatural explanations actually garner positive results in such studies. Otherwise, your forceful insertion of supernatural explanations into science doesn’t have a prayer." My question was whether the Harvard experiment was science or not. Yes or no? You didn't answer my question.Clive Hayden_{June 20, 2009
June
06
Jun
20
20
2009
09:19 PM
9
09
19
PM
PDT}

Seversky, ------"Why should a methodology like MN require any justification other than success? Put simply, does it work? Whether you can infer any metaphysical consequences from that success, assuming it happens, is a different matter." Why value success? Why care about what works? Why "should" you even try any methodology? None of these questions will be answered physically, none of these questions can be answered by MN, for two rocks and six miles and 96 degrees will never answer these questions, and those are the only sorts of answers that MN can produce.Clive Hayden_{June 20, 2009
June
06
Jun
20
20
2009
09:16 PM
9
09
16
PM
PDT}

Seversky, ------"Since philosophical naturalism is an outgrowth of methodological naturalism..." I've noticed that when people are wrong, it's usually because they cannot discern first things from second things. The very reason I quoted Chesterton before was to show that we have no reason to consider anything natural, such as anything we call a natural law, as being necessary, nor can we see why it is the way it is and not some other way. And when we keep this is mind, the mystery is preserved, and we have no more reason to say that nature is any more natural than supernature. The very distinctions within what we call nature and supernature are philosophical, so Barbara starts of with philosophical presuppositions in this very regard before she even distinguishes between what is strictly natural and what isn't. Since we can see no reason why the laws of nature are the way they are, they are no more natural than supernatural. She has hoisted a great deal of her philosophy from the very beginning even in making the distinction within what she considers natural before she even gets started on any methodology. But then she does get started on a methodology based on this philosophical construct of what constitutes nature and supernature. Make no mistake about it, she begins with philosophy, and a great deal of it, none of which can be gained by methodological naturalism, unless, as I said before, she has found some diving rod or the philosopher's stone, which can be empirically verified. She begins with a philosophy, which may become strengthened by the methodology that it supports, in this case methodological naturalism, but it is not the result of that methodology. The very word "methodology" has to mean something philosophically or else it isn't anything in particular. The very concept "naturalism" is also wrought with philosophy. The only way, and I mean only way, that these two concepts are brought about by methodological naturalism as a conclusion of that methodology is if they are physically discerned and discovered in the physical world like we discover a tree or a rock. And I know that we have found neither methodology nor the concept of naturalism (which philosophically excludes supernaturalism from the outset) under a leaf or behind a rock. Barbara Forrest has it backwards. She cannot discern what comes first and what comes second. Philosophical naturalism and all of the philosophical presuppositions that that entails comes first before the concept of a methodology, or a natural/supernatural distinction, can even be made. This is so obvious as to be baffling why anyone like Forrest would make such a mistake, and why anyone would agree with her mistake.Clive Hayden_{June 20, 2009
June
06
Jun
20
20
2009
09:11 PM
9
09
11
PM
PDT}

----seversky: “Not quite. Methodological naturalism, as the name suggests, is a methodology or “procedural protocol” - to quote Barbara Forrest - for studying the natural world. It is employed because it is successful and for no other reason.” No, it is a protocol established by one group of scientists to oppress another group of scientists ----That success is what commends it to scientists, not some decree from on high. The inference of philosophical naturalism is warranted by the continuing success of methodolological naturalism.” As I already explained, it has no history, a point that I have made abundantly clear. There is no need for it at all. Scientists already know which methods they need to use to solve whatever problem they are addressing. ----“The only coherent definition of “supernatural” is that it refers to phenomena for which there is no natural cause. It follows from this that if an alleged supernatural phenomenon is found to have natural causes then, by definition, it was never supernatural in the first place but only a hitherto unexplained natural phenomenon.” This is the fourth time I have asked you to read Dr. Hunter’s post and the FAQ. Since you refuse to do the basic work for dialogue, I will simply take note of the fact that you refuse to become acquainted with the subject matter. In any case, you are the one who has a problem with reading comprehension. Here is the relevant passage: “To become more than a logical possibility, supernaturalism must be confirmed with unequivocal empirical evidence, and such confirmation would only demonstrate that this newly verified aspect of reality had all along never been supernatural at all, but rather a natural phenomenon which just awaited an appropriate scientific test. “ The key words are these: “and such confirmation would only demonstrate that this newly verified aspect of reality had all along never been supernatural at all” That means that real science will confirm the fact that there is no such thing as a supernatural phenomenon. In other words, if any other conclusion is arrived at, it is not real science. That is pure ideology. The conclusion is set even before the investigatin begins. I know you can’t face it, but there it is. ---- “Supernaturalism”, presumably, would mean a belief in the supernatural, the only coherent definition of which I gave above. And, no, it has no bearing on the scientific method.” That is not the way Barbara Forrest defines it. Whose definition should I accept, yours or hers? ----“This sounds perilously close to some kind of paranoid conspiracy theory.” I have interacted with many people who have been persecuted by the system. The movie “expelled,” provided the theme that is replayed every day in academia. -----“Methodological naturalism”, according to historian of science Ronald Numbers, was a label created in 1983 for a methodology that had existed in one form or another for hundreds of years before that:” Ronald Numbers has been roundly refuted by real historians like Rodney Stark and Thomas Woods. Indeed, since I have read them, I know more about the subject than does Ronald Numbers, as I have made clear with my examples, which you, at the moment, are blithely unaware of having ignored everything except your own writing. In any case, we don’t accept argument by authority on this web-site. You have to make your case. Explain all those scientists who appealed to theological formulations to inform their science. I know that you don’t know what I am talking about since you didn’t read the posts, but whose problem is that? ----The phrase “methodological naturalism” seems to have been coined by the philosopher Paul de Vries, ……… This information has already been covered in the thread, but of course, you do not read anything except your own writing, which explains why you are so far behind the curve. . -----So, just who is trying to rewrite history? You are. Ronald Numbers doesn’t know what he is talking about as Rodney Stark, Thomas Woods. [and myself] have made clear. Also, you might address William J. Murray's question. You wrote, The only coherent definition of “supernatural” is that it refers to phenomena for which there is no natural cause.” He asks: "Does this make the big bang a supernatural event?"StephenB_{June 20, 2009
June
06
Jun
20
20
2009
08:55 PM
8
08
55
PM
PDT}

Seversky says: "The only coherent definition of “supernatural” is that it refers to phenomena for which there is no natural cause." Does this make the big bang a supernatural event?William J. Murray_{June 20, 2009
June
06
Jun
20
20
2009
07:21 PM
7
07
21
PM
PDT}

Seversky, that quote from the Numbers interview is nice. Numbers is a first-rate historian whose work has been praised by many on all sides. I doubt he's part of any conspiracy.David Kellogg_{June 20, 2009
June
06
Jun
20
20
2009
06:25 PM
6
06
25
PM
PDT}

StephenB @ 354
Seversky, why do you invest over a dozen long paragraphs so say what can be said in a few sentences.
You might more usefully address that concern with 'kairosfocus'or 'DATCG' whose posts are typically much longer than mine.
I have already read the quotes that you allude to many times, and they can easily be summarized as follows: [A] Methodological naturalism is the rule which states that the scientist must study nature “as if nature is all there is.” [B] Philosophical naturalism is dogmatic assertion that “nature is all there is.”
Not quite. Methodological naturalism, as the name suggests, is a methodology or "procedural protocol" - to quote Barbara Forrest - for studying the natural world. It is employed because it is successful and for no other reason. That success is what commends it to scientists, not some decree from on high. The inference of philosophical naturalism is warranted by the continuing success of methodolological naturalism.
Good, I will translate the key passage for you.
—–“To become more than a logical possibility, supernaturalism must be confirmed with unequivocal empirical evidence, and such confirmation would only demonstrate that this newly verified aspect of reality had all along never been supernatural at all, but rather a natural phenomenon which just awaited an appropriate scientific test. “
Here is what that passage means: If science could, indeed, confirm “supernaturalism,” that would only mean that there is no such thing as supernaturalism at all. Please try to comprehend the level of nonsense contained in that proposition?
I see you have a problem reading for comprehension. This point has been made a number of times before but let me try it again in a different way. The only coherent definition of "supernatural" is that it refers to phenomena for which there is no natural cause. It follows from this that if an alleged supernatural phenomenon is found to have natural causes then, by definition, it was never supernatural in the first place but only a hitherto unexplained natural phenomenon.
On other matters, you will not presume on my patience if you can say what you have to say in as few words as possible, and if you would address the issues on the table: [A] “Supernaturalism” has not been defined, and cannot, therefore, be used as a standard for describing or criticizing scientific methods.
"Supernaturalism", presumably, would mean a belief in the supernatural, the only coherent definition of which I gave above. And, no, it has no bearing on the scientific method.
[B] Methodological naturalism is an immoral, anti-intellectual, and arbitrarily-established RULE that one group of scientists have presumed to impose on another group of scientists. Only the scientist knows what problem he is trying to solve, so only the scientist can know which methodology is best for solving that problem.
This sounds perilously close to some kind of paranoid conspiracy theory. "Methodological naturalism", according to historian of science Ronald Numbers, was a label created in 1983 for a methodology that had existed in one form or another for hundreds of years before that:
The phrase “methodological naturalism” seems to have been coined by the philosopher Paul de Vries, then at Wheaton College, who introduced it at a conference in 1983 in a paper subsequently published as “Naturalism in the Natural Sciences,” Christian Scholar’s Review, 15(1986), 388-396. De Vries distinguished between what he called “methodological naturalism,” a disciplinary method that says nothing about God’s existence, and “metaphysical naturalism,” which “denies the existence of a transcendent God.”
And, in spite of your fears, there is no scientific Pope issuing ex vitro edicts decreeing what is doctrinal orthodoxy, neither are there enforcers from a scientific Inquisition going around threatening researchers a bit like the "Vercotti brothers" in the Monty Python sketch: "Nice laboratory you have here, Professor. Be a shame if something happened to it, wouldn't it?"
[C] As I have made abundantly clear, no such rule ever existed before 1983. It is on that subject that Darwinists display their highest degree of intellectual honesty by trying to rewrite history.
In this interview, for example, historian of science Ronald Numbers begs to disagree:
The term "methodological naturalism" didn't exist until the 1980s, but the movement, based on the idea that scientists should limit themselves to nonsupernatural explanations, existed before then. Thus, if you come to a tough spot, and you say "God did it and there was a miracle," that's not doing science. Under the rule of methodological naturalism, that's cheating. That's a science stopper right there. From roughly 1750-1850, in one scientific discipline after another, the scientific practitioners lined up with the notion that there would be no more miracles in what was coming to be called "science." You could believe in miracles, but it wouldn't count as science. You could, for example, still share your beliefs about the role of God in nature with your church group, but you couldn't invoke God in, say, an article for the American Journal of Science and say, "And here's where God stepped in." This became a fundamental rule, and not just in science. Even historians adopted it and quit appealing to God or to Satan. Christians became avid practitioners of methodological naturalism because it didn't require them to deny their faith.
So, just who is trying to rewrite history?Seversky_{June 20, 2009
June
06
Jun
20
20
2009
06:17 PM
6
06
17
PM
PDT}

----RDK: “No, in this case MN did not forbid the effectiveness of prayer a priori because the point of the experiment was to see whether or not prayer had any tangible effect on the well-being of the patients. It obviously did not, so it’s safe to assume that notions of the helpfulness of prayer are misguided and superstitious.” What on earth do you mean with the phrase, “forbid the effectiveness of prayer?” Do you mean that methodological naturalism does not forbid research about the effectiveness of prayer in this case? I don’t know how to break this to you, but methodological naturalism establishes the rules for which kinds of experiments are permitted IN ALL CASES. Under that rule, no experiment whatsoever would be permitted that purports to analyze a supernatural event such as the possible benefits of prayer. It doesn’t matter what the results of the experiment would be because methodological naturalism forbids you to ask the question. Also, you are evidently still under the impression that a study is scientific if the hypothesis is confirmed and that it is unscientific if the hypothesis is negated. Here is a clue: Both kinds of studies would be scientific if the methods employed are sound. A study doesn’t suddenly become scientific or unscientific after the results come in. It was either scientific all along or it wasn’t. ----“Once again I ask you, since it seems you skipped over the question (purposefully or otherwise): what exactly is the problem with setting out to falsify a hypothesis such as the one listed above? The ID camp whines all day about mainstream science ignoring your side, and when we give you the benefit of the doubt (as clearly shown by the Harvard study), religious expectations underperform as usual.” There is nothing at all wrong with setting up such a hypothesis. It was perfectly good science. The problem is that an unjustified rule, called methodological naturalism, established by anti-ID partisans to rule out ID in principle, rules apriori, that any such questions are, by definition, unscientific and may not be pursued under any circumstances in the name of science. It is now clear that you don’t have a clue about why Clive asked the question about the Harvard study in the first place. Just for fun, what do you think that purpose was? What, however, does studying prayer have to do with “giving” the science of intelligent design the “benefit of the doubt?” Are you trying to make the following leap: [a] Inasmuch as one study on prayer showed that no benefits were produced then [b] it is illogical and unscientific to look for evidence of design in nature? -----“That’s exactly what the Harvard study was for, and it showed that prayer had no quantifiable effect on the well-being of the patients.” Yes, a perfectly valid experiment produced a perfectly legitimate scientific conclusion. What about it? ----This is what usually happens when supernatural explanations are scientifically examined, which is why any scientist worth his salt knows that there’s no merit to these superstitions.” So what? What superstitions are you talking about? Are you saying that scientists have shown that all prayer is ineffective because it was shown not to be effective in this case? Are you saying that, inasmuch as one study showed prayer to be ineffective, that methodological naturalism has been vindicated? Are you suggesting that no other studies have shown prayer to be effective? Do you have any idea what you are saying at all?StephenB_{June 20, 2009
June
06
Jun
20
20
2009
06:16 PM
6
06
16
PM
PDT}

RDK [361]:
the point of the experiment was to see whether or not prayer - a decidedly supernatural action - had any tangible effect on the well-being of those patients.
Everybody's talking as though prayer is supernatural. It may claim to invoke the supernatural, but prayer seems better characterized as a mental activity.David Kellogg_{June 20, 2009
June
06
Jun
20
20
2009
05:53 PM
5
05
53
PM
PDT}

Hey Stephen B,
As an addendum to #362, I should point out that methodological naturalism forbids the supernatural hypothesis in the first place. I thought surely everyone understood that, but I guess not. So, you must decide between [A] and [B]. [A] MN is a valid rule, so the experiment was not scientific or [B] The experiment was scientific, therefore MN is not a valid rule. Please try to grasp this.
It seems that you're the one having a hard time understanding. Allow me to make this even simpler for you in the hopes that you can wrap your head around this one. No, in this case MN did not forbid the effectiveness of prayer a priori because the point of the experiment was to see whether or not prayer had any tangible effect on the well-being of the patients. It obviously did not, so it's safe to assume that notions of the helpfulness of prayer are misguided and superstitious. Once again I ask you, since it seems you skipped over the question (purposefully or otherwise): what exactly is the problem with setting out to falsify a hypothesis such as the one listed above? The ID camp whines all day about mainstream science ignoring your side, and when we give you the benefit of the doubt (as clearly shown by the Harvard study), religious expectations underperform as usual.
How do you determine whether or not a supernatural explanation is plausible unless you hypothesize a supernatural explanation?
That's exactly what the Harvard study was for, and it showed that prayer had no quantifiable effect on the well-being of the patients. This is what usually happens when supernatural explanations are scientifically examined, which is why any scientist worth his salt knows that there's no merit to these superstitions. Please try real hard to focus on the above material and formulate a response worthy of my time.RDK_{June 20, 2009
June
06
Jun
20
20
2009
04:53 PM
4
04
53
PM
PDT}

Clive Hayden @ 349
Wow. She actually says that philosophical naturalism is a conclusion that is empirically grounded. For one, you have to assume it as a methodology before any physical methodology begins, i.e. “given the proven reliability of methodological naturalism in yielding knowledge of the natural world,” so for it to also be the conclusion means that Forrest is arguing in a circle. Two, it is not empirically grounded at all. All that is empirically grounded are things like stones and the weather and atoms moving about.
We can argue that a metaphysical claim is empirically grounded if we can show that it is an inference warranted by the available evidence. This does not mean that it is true in any absolute sense, only that it is a tentative conclusion. What is now called methodological naturalism has proven successful as a means for explaining those aspects of the natural world to which it has been applied to date without recourse to supernatural causation. This is sufficient grounds for us to say that we have found no evidence for the supernatural thus far and that perhaps it does not exist at all. Or, as Barbara Forrest puts it in the paper I cited previously:
Since philosophical naturalism is an outgrowth of methodological naturalism, and methodological naturalism has been validated by its epistemological and technological success, then every expansion in scientific understanding lends it further confirmation. For example, should life be genuinely created in the laboratory from the non-organic elements which presently comprise living organisms, this discovery would add tremendous weight to philosophical naturalism. Should cognitive science and neurobiology succeed conclusively in explaining the phenomenon of human consciousness, mind-body dualism would be completely undermined, and philosophical naturalism would again be immeasurably strengthened.
Seversky_{June 20, 2009
June
06
Jun
20
20
2009
04:42 PM
4
04
42
PM
PDT}

RDK:
the point of the experiment was to see whether or not prayer - a decidedly supernatural action - had any tangible effect on the well-being of those patients.
Actually, I disagree. I would suggest that prayer is a natural activity engaged in by natural actors. It is the purported answering of prayers that is the supernatural event.specs_{June 20, 2009
June
06
Jun
20
20
2009
04:16 PM
4
04
16
PM
PDT}

Clive Hayden @ 347
I actually like this discussion. It shows that methodological naturalism cannot be supported by anything except a philosophy that comes first.
Why should a methodology like MN require any justification other than success? Put simply, does it work? Whether you can infer any metaphysical consequences from that success, assuming it happens, is a different matter.Seversky_{June 20, 2009
June
06
Jun
20
20
2009
04:16 PM
4
04
16
PM
PDT}

As an addendum to #362, I should point out that methodological naturalism forbids the supernatural hypothesis in the first place. I thought surely everyone understood that, but I guess not. So, you must decide between [A] and [B]. [A] MN is a valid rule, so the experiment was not scientific or [B] The experiment was scientific, therefore MN is not a valid rule. Please try to grasp this.StephenB_{June 20, 2009
June
06
Jun
20
20
2009
03:37 PM
3
03
37
PM
PDT}

DATCG @153
Now why does biology research include Electronic Engineers? Surely Engineers are not equipped for biology. Nor are software Pioneers.
Engineers are equipped to build models. That's what they do. That's what they are doing for Microsoft. Engineers are not equipped for ID. Engineers, doing engineering, don't presume that there are unknown intelligent actors controlling nature. Further, they don't do design detection, in the ID sense of the term. IDists don't build models. Per Dr. Dembski, ID is not a mechanistic theory. If more IDists thought like engineers there would be fewer IDists.Freelurker__{June 20, 2009
June
06
Jun
20
20
2009
03:36 PM
3
03
36
PM
PDT}

----RDK: "The experiment in itself wasn’t necessarily non-scientific; the point of the experiment was to see whether or not prayer - a decidedly supernatural action - had any tangible effect on the well-being of those patients. It was an attempt at falsification, and it’s quite obvious that the supernatural did not pass the test." ---RDK: "Are you purporting that falsification of certain hypotheses is a no-no under methodological naturalism? MN deals with how experiments are done, and what conclusions are drawn from them. Positing a supernatural designer when there is A) no evidence for such a thing and B) no way to even falsify such a hypothesis would indeed be shunned by MN. Exactly what is the problem here?" I started to untangle this mess and then realized it would be easier to just send you to @362 since it answers your confusion @359, which is less incomprehensible than your current confusion.StephenB_{June 20, 2009
June
06
Jun
20
20
2009
03:28 PM
3
03
28
PM
PDT}

---RDK to Clive: "I looked up the results to that study. Not only did prayer not help the patients, those that were told they were being prayed for experienced more complications." So, in your judgment, if the hypothesis is confirmed, it is a scientific experiment, but if the hypothesis is negated, it is not a scientific experiment. ----"You might do well to choose an instance where supernatural explanations actually garner positive results in such studies." You might do well to consider that the purpose of science is to determine whether or not the results are positive. ----Otherwise, your forceful insertion of supernatural explanations into science doesn’t have a prayer." How do you determine whether or not a supernatural explanation is plausible unless you hypothesize a supernatural explanation?StephenB_{June 20, 2009
June
06
Jun
20
20
2009
03:13 PM
3
03
13
PM
PDT}

Hey Stephen B,
The answer is, yes, it was a scientific experiement, and, since if [sic]violates the standards of methodological naturalism, methodological naturalism is a useless standard and, under the circumstances, is itself a “straightjacket.”[
The experiment in itself wasn't necessarily non-scientific; the point of the experiment was to see whether or not prayer - a decidedly supernatural action - had any tangible effect on the well-being of those patients. It was an attempt at falsification, and it's quite obvious that the supernatural did not pass the test. Are you purporting that falsification of certain hypotheses is a no-no under methodological naturalism? MN deals with how experiments are done, and what conclusions are drawn from them. Positing a supernatural designer when there is A) no evidence for such a thing and B) no way to even falsify such a hypothesis would indeed be shunned by MN. Exactly what is the problem here?RDK_{June 20, 2009
June
06
Jun
20
20
2009
02:54 PM
2
02
54
PM
PDT}

----Diffaxial: "It follows that, however much astronomy of that day was motivated and guided by a theistic framework, that theism was ultimately conceptually and empirically unhelpful in determining the actual facts of the matter." It was the theistic framework that launched the entire scientific enterprise in the first place. Obviously, that was very helpful. In any case, what does that have to do with what is being argued, which is the fact that methodological naturalism has no history? Thank you, though, for at least approaching the subject with a realisic appraisal of the facts.StephenB_{June 20, 2009
June
06
Jun
20
20
2009
02:51 PM
2
02
51
PM
PDT}

Hey Clive,
You never got back to me about the Harvard Intercessory Prayer experiment. Was that science or not?
I looked up the results to that study. Not only did prayer not help the patients, those that were told they were being prayed for experienced more complications. You might do well to choose an instance where supernatural explanations actually garner positive results in such studies. Otherwise, your forceful insertion of supernatural explanations into science doesn't have a prayer. Pun not intended.RDK_{June 20, 2009
June
06
Jun
20
20
2009
02:45 PM
2
02
45
PM
PDT}

Clive, I've had guests so haven't bene able to respond. On the prayer it seems to me broadly scientific, though you are wrong to characterize it as a "scientific experiment of the supernatural event of intercessory prayer." Calling the event "supernatural" is unnecessary.David Kellogg_{June 20, 2009
June
06
Jun
20
20
2009
01:53 PM
1
01
53
PM
PDT}

---Diffaxial: "No, that wasn’t my answer. Read it again, but first doff the straightjacket of “YES or NO.” While you are mulling over Clives question, I have one of my own. Can the rule of methodological naturalism, which presumes to differentiate between science and non science in all cases, characterize the Harvard prayer experiment as science or non-science? That question should be easy to answer. If the answer is no, then it convicts itself as being unable to make the distinction between science and non-science in all cases. Under those circumstances, it obviously cannot rule on ID since it has already confessed that it is not equipped to draw that line of demarcation in non-routine situations. If, on the other hand, it can make that determination, and concludes that the Harvard experiment IS science, then it contradicts its own rule which forbids the study of non-empirical causes. If, again, it concludes that it IS NOT science, then why have MN advocates on this thread not “outed” these researchers as pseudo-scientists? Clearly, the question is answerable in yes or no terms. I have no trouble answering the question. The answer is, yes, it was a scientific experiement, and, since if violates the standards of methodological naturalism, methodological naturalism is a useless standard and, under the circumstances, is itself a "straightjacket." If you disagree, please explain why. [Hopefully, you will address all the elements in my post.]StephenB_{June 20, 2009
June
06
Jun
20
20
2009
01:22 PM
1
01
22
PM
PDT}

Clive @ 353:
So, your answer is “no”, the Harvard Prayer Experiment was not scientific.
No, that wasn't my answer. Read it again, but first doff the straightjacket of "YES or NO."Diffaxial_{June 20, 2009
June
06
Jun
20
20
2009
12:14 PM
12
12
14
PM
PDT}

Oops, [C] should read, "it is on that subject that Darwinists display their highest degree of intellectual [dishonesty]......StephenB_{June 20, 2009
June
06
Jun
20
20
2009
11:06 AM
11
11
06
AM
PDT}

Seversky, why do you invest over a dozen long paragraphs so say what can be said in a few sentences. I have already read the quotes that you allude to many times, and they can easily be summarized as follows: [A] Methodological naturalism is the rule which states that the scientist must study nature “as if nature is all there is.” [B] Philosophical naturalism is dogmatic assertion that “nature is all there is.” Forrest, Kurtz, Hook, Scott, and you keep reminding us that [A] is not [B], and I keep reminding you that I am not accusing anyone of asserting [B] I am protesting their use of [A]. Please try to focus. -----“Rather than presume upon your patience any longer, I will conclude with one brief passage from near the end of the paper which says, in more scholarly language, what some here have also been saying:” Good, I will translate the key passage for you. -----“To become more than a logical possibility, supernaturalism must be confirmed with unequivocal empirical evidence, and such confirmation would only demonstrate that this newly verified aspect of reality had all along never been supernatural at all, but rather a natural phenomenon which just awaited an appropriate scientific test. “ Here is what that passage means: If science could, indeed, confirm “supernaturalism,” that would only mean that there is no such thing as supernaturalism at all. Please try to comprehend the level of nonsense contained in that proposition? On other matters, you will not presume on my patience if you can say what you have to say in as few words as possible, and if you would address the issues on the table: [A] “Supernaturalism” has not been defined, and cannot, therefore, be used as a standard for describing or criticizing scientific methods. [B] Methodological naturalism is an immoral, anti-intellectual, and arbitrarily-established RULE that one group of scientists have presumed to impose on another group of scientists. Only the scientist knows what problem he is trying to solve, so only the scientist can know which methodology is best for solving that problem. [C] As I have made abundantly clear, no such rule ever existed before 1983. It is on that subject that Darwinists display their highest degree of intellectual honesty by trying to rewrite history. You have remained silent on all three of these critical matters, choosing instead to question my knowledge of methodological naturalism, which I understand all too well and which you have yet to familiarize yourself.StephenB_{June 20, 2009
June
06
Jun
20
20
2009
10:58 AM
10
10
58
AM
PDT}

Diffaxial, ------"In light of this and similar reasoning, there is no finding that cannot be rationalized as resulting from the will of one’s preferred supernatural agent. Hence, while the proposed association may be investigated and potentially disconfirmed (as occurred in this instance), the postulated causal agency cannot." So, your answer is "no", the Harvard Prayer Experiment was not scientific.Clive Hayden_{June 20, 2009
June
06
Jun
20
20
2009
10:48 AM
10
10
48
AM
PDT}

Clive @ 348:
You never got back to me about the Harvard Intercessory Prayer experiment. Was that science or not?
David can certainly speak for himself. I also have a reply. Many assertions regarding facts in the world arising from religious belief are testable by scientific means. That doesn't make them scientific assertions. The research you cite makes this point. The proposed impact of intercessory prayer is amenable to empirical investigation - just as the personality correlations postulated by astrology are amenable to empirical investigation. Indeed, most assertions about the world however motivated can be investigated by scientific means. That doesn't render the causal story that motivated the assertion itself scientific. The study you cite reports that no evidence of an effect for intercessory prayer was detected. Do you regard the ability of God to intervene in the world in response to prayer has having been disconfirmed as a result? I suspect not, and rationales are ready at hand: "Perhaps it wasn't God's will that his response to prayer be amenable to empirical test." In light of this and similar reasoning, there is no finding that cannot be rationalized as resulting from the will of one's preferred supernatural agent. Hence, while the proposed association may be investigated and potentially disconfirmed (as occurred in this instance), the postulated causal agency cannot.Diffaxial_{June 20, 2009
June
06
Jun
20
20
2009
10:38 AM
10
10
38
AM
PDT}

The last sentence in @350 was accidentally posted and it represents seversky's comment.StephenB_{June 20, 2009
June
06
Jun
20
20
2009
09:54 AM
9
09
54
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 5 6 7 8 9 … 19 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply