A Question for Joe Felsenstein (and Everyone Else)

emotions etc are currently not in the ambit of Science, but not because they are supernatural, simply because they are too complex to be understood (yet). You are a man of faith, Graham :-) tribune7

StephenB:

Voice Call, your argument, consistent with methodological naturalism, can easily be summed up: Science may not consider or study the subject of miraculous healings—period.

That's a poor summary. Here is a better one: Science may examine phenomena such as healing and prayer at length within the framework of MN in search of natural explanations for specific phenomena. Were such explanations nowhere to be found the researchers may say so. Those inclined to take that finding further are welcome to do so - but those further implications aren't science. Why would you want them to be? What MN eschews as part of science proper is the positing of supernatural explanations for those phenomena. This is a reasonable a priori decision because such posits are inherently untestable, beyond the above described search for natural explanations. This has no bearing upon the legitimacy of such posits in a theological context. Voice Coil

Voice Call, your argument, consistent with methodological naturalism, can easily be summed up: Science may not consider or study the subject of miraculous healings---period. Nakashima recognizes this stance as an unreasonable apriori position, which it is. StephenB

StephenB:

The question is this: If they say that, in our best judgment, there is likely no material explanation for this cure, are they, as they provide this scientific opinion, doing science?

I say no, and disagree with Nakashima on this point. First: The statement "we have been incapable of finding a material explanation for this phenomenon" may summarize the result of legitimate scientific efforts. MN can accommodate the investigation of explananda that may be construed by as reflecting supernatural causation (such as the big bang) by those who are so inclined, as I indicated in 191 above. Sometimes explanations cannot be discovered. "There is NO likely material explanation" (my emphasis) cannot be the conclusion of legitimate scientific efforts, because no such effort can rule out a natural/material explanation yet to be discovered. Moreover, it implies a supernatural explanans, which are excluded by MN because incapable of positive investigation. Second: As implied above, it is the means to the conclusions that may or may not be scientific in light of MN, not the report of conclusions or provision of opinions. No one is "doing science" when they announce conclusions. That announcement at best summarizes the outcome of science that has already been done. Like it or not, supernatural explanans were excluded from such means long before the term "methodological naturalism" was first uttered, for the simple reason that no positive dispositive predictions can be devised to test putative supernatural causes. Voice Coil

Mr. Nakashima, thanks for stepping up to the plate. StephenB

Mr StephenB. Yes, I think so. Nakashima

----Nakashima: "It seems to me to always come back to the way in which the doctors frame their response. If they say “Our knowledge is finite and provisional, we don’t know of any material process by which this can happen.” then they are doing science. If they say “Our knowledge is absolute, there can be no material explanation.” then they are not doing science." No one would ever say that their knowledge is absolute. The question is this: If they say that, in our best judgment, there is likely no material explanation for this cure, are they, as they provide this scientific opinion, doing science? StephenB

"It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material...moreover, that materialism is absolute" "If they say “Our knowledge is absolute, there can be no [im]material explanation.” then they are not doing science." - - - - - I guess you are not suggesting a level playing field, but it doesn't matter. Everyone, particularly those who have created and enforce the inequity, knows it isn't. Upright BiPed

Mr StephenB, You are dancing. The question is very simple. If they violate the principle of methodological naturalism by advising the Bishop on nature’s limits, are they doing science? It's not so simple, as you've changed it each time you pose the question. Since you were at pains to be precise with Mr Seversky about what definition of MN was in play, I was merely following your lead. Unfortunately, the current edition of your question doesn't follow Ms Scott's ideas. There is nothing about nature's limits in her definition, MN limits the process of investigation. It seems to me to always come back to the way in which the doctors frame their response. If they say "Our knowledge is finite and provisional, we don't know of any material process by which this can happen." then they are doing science. If they say "Our knowledge is absolute, there can be no material explanation." then they are not doing science. Nakashima

Tp StephenB: Below is an extract from Wikipedia. (Apologies if you dont like Wiki). It asks if a sickness is judged incurable. I guess this is where the doctor comes in. He will be asked to advise if the sickness is curable. If he says it is not, then bingo, the Church declares a miracle. It doesnt sound as though the doctor is doing anything out of the ordinary. Assessing of miracles The miracle may go beyond the possibilities of nature either in the substance of the fact or in the subject, or only in the way it occurs. So three degrees of miracle are to be distinguished. The first degree is represented by resurrection from the dead (quoad substantiam). The second concerns the subject (quoad subiectum): the sickness of a person is judged incurable, in its course it can even have destroyed bones or vital organs; in this case not only is complete recovery noticed, but even wholesale reconstitution of the organs (restitutio in integrum). There is then a third degree (quoad modum): recovery from an illness, that treatment could only have achieved after a long period, happens instantaneously. Graham

---Nakashima: "So following her definition, if the scientists say “I see no material explanation.” they are doing science. If the scientists (not the Bishop) say “The change in the patients condition was due to divine intervention.” then they are not doing science." You are dancing. The question is very simple. If they violate the principle of methodological naturalism by advising the Bishop on nature's limits, are they doing science? StephenB

---Jerry: “Is the Church going to go medieval and proclaim Darwinian evolution as dogma? I already asked Denyse the same.” Jerry, thanks for providing me with the opportunity to comment on this subject. No, the Church will never proclaim Darwinian evolution as dogma. The Church normally issues dogmatic statements only on matters of faith and morals. At times, those pronouncements can define matters at the intersection of science and ethics, as in the life sciences, but it would not be issuing a dogmatic statement on evolution, except to put limits on it as Pius XII did in 1950, declaring as an official teaching in an encyclical that no Catholic can accept materialistic evolution. John Paul II’s comment in 1996, in which he offered support for something like common descent, was not an official teaching but rather a statement of his personal opinion. The same can be said for Benedict XVI, and his comments about the “intelligent project.” Unlike Pius XII, neither was speaking for the universal Church. There is no reason for the Church to issue a special statement on the reality of design in nature, since it has been emphasizing that point for 2000 years. I visited the blog at First Things and reviewed the comments from P. Hampton, the blogger you alluded to. If one reduces his world view to its simplest essence, it is this: God’s design is real, but it cannot be perceived: it must be taken on faith. As Stephen Barr once put it, the “design is inherent in the evolutionary process,” meaning, as I take it, that it is real at some level, but its reality is so subtle and so difficult to ascertain that the only way we can get at it is to muddle through some discursive reasoning process solely dependent on the principles found in evolutionary biology. Is that the official teaching of the Catholic Church? No. On this matter, the Church has always followed the teachings found in the Bible, most notably the arguments expressed in Romans 1:20 and Psalm 19. According to Scripture, design can be perceived by the senses, and its beauty can be appreciated by anyone whose disposition is open to it. Beauty is something that we see and take in through the senses; it has evidential power of a different texture than that which must be accepted through an assent of faith. To say that God’s handiwork has been made manifest is to say that God speaks through nature and that he has demonstrated the reality of his existence in a way that anyone with an open mind can apprehend. True, nature is not always what it seems, and sometimes, science contradicts our intuitions. On the matter or design, however, the Bible’s message is clear: what we see is what we get. There is no way around that Scriptural principle. It is true both at the cosmological level and at the biological level, or as Father Thomas Dubay puts it, design is evident in both the “macro marvels” and the “micro marvels.” If God communicates through nature, as Catholics believe, he does not begin his message “in the heavens,” and then cut it off “at the earth.” That is why the Biblical passages about the evidence for design are followed by a rather startling judgment on those who refuse to acknowledge the point. As it reads, “they are without excuse.” and the reason is that they refused to accept the testimony of their own senses. They rejected that which is obvious and self evident. This is not Scripture presenting a theological statement about faith; this is Scripture presenting a philosophical statement about reason’s road to faith. The Bible is here saying that the leap of faith required for salvation is grounded in nature’s testimony about the existence of God, which separates it from other faiths, which demand a leap without necessarily having first passed the test of reason. Indeed, that is what separates Christianity from other world views—the idea that if a certain form of faith is real and worthy of belief, it must first pass the test of reason. Only then can it presume to start illuminating reason. What, then, can we say of those Catholics, such as Hampton, who tell us, as he did in his comment, that “there is no physical element of design, only a spiritual element. Belief.” We can only say that they are characterizing their personal opinion as official Catholic teaching, which is, at best, presumptuous, and at worst, fraudulent. Do I say the same thing about the Catholics who organized the Darwinist conference last year? You bet I do. As anyone who cares knows, Aquinas, widely accepted as the Church’s official theologian, taught that we can prove the existence of God through the use of unaided reason, beginning with the simple act of observing that which goes on all around us and drawing the relevant conclusions. If, on the other hand, we cannot perceive design at all, if God’s handiwork is not evident, and, going against his own word in Scripture, God actually hid himself in nature, as Hampton and the organizers of the Vatican conference tell us, the only way we could even know there is a design is if they, the TE’s deign to instruct us on the matter. As they would have it, we shouldn’t be atheists, nor should we be design thinkers. Rather, we should simply accept the fact of an imperceptible design on faith without evidence on their say so, and on the say so of evolutionary biologists, 95% of whom, are atheist/agnostic, and who don’t believe design is real in any event. Why would anyone want to establish a world view based on a formula like that? Naturally, Hampton brings back the perennial strawman, telling us that God can use evolution as a tool, as if we didn’t know that already and, as if ID precludes that possibility, confirming the fact that he doesn’t even know what he is criticizing. But the irony doesn’t end there. He doesn’t even know what he believes on his own account. Consider complaint against ID As he quotes a Vatican preacher: “Affirming the reality of an intelligent design for the creation and development of the universe is not a scientific theory, but a statement of faith, said the preacher of the papal household.” This is very, very, strange. Earlier, he characterizes naïve faith in an imperceptible design as a good thing, now he characterizes naïve faith in real design as a bad thing. Never mind the fact, that ID doesn’t posit faith in design at all, but rather proposes an inference to the best explanation based on empirical evidence. Just as I thought that he couldn’t get any more confused, he offers this quote from Tanzella-Nitti ----“But God doesn’t always sign His work. Human reason, unaided by faith, can indeed see convincing evidence of design, Providence, and purpose in nature, but that does not make valid every purported scientific demonstration that God has acted in this specific place or that. And it is deplorable that God’s title of “Intelligent Designer” is now widely seen as depending on highly disputable claims about the mechanics of evolution.” How can human reason “see” convincing evidence of design if the design is imperceptible? Which is it? Do we take it on faith, acknowledging that there is no physical design, [whatever that means] as he said earlier, or to we call on reason to instruct us about that which cannot be seen but must, somehow or another, be real. Tanzella’s comments are muddled enough, but trying to reconcile them with Hampton’s other comments, as if they all add up to a coherent world view is something outside the bounds of reason. StephenB

So far this thread illustrates three things: 1) Theism and theistic scientists don't screw up science. They are not a "danger" to scientific investigation and they never have been. To the contrary, their work has been the source of virtually all of the foundational principles in the fields in which they took an interest. 2) Science has progressed at a stunning pace, and is now in a much better position to actually begin assessing some of the fundamental questions of physical reality. Cosmology has arrived at the singularity, physics has arrived at the boson, and biology has arrived at information. The impact of science upon the questions have changed, and therefore the questions themselves have changed. 3) MN has become PN. MN is enforced as a solution to a problem that historically did not exist, and only exist now if PN is not enforced upon the scientist as a priori ultimate truth. - - - - - - - - This is all illustrated by the fact that the leader of the NCSE thought it appropriate for university faculty to discriminate against doctorate candidates on the basis of their religious beliefs. It would call into question their ability to accept PN. If they were awarded their degrees, then the answers to those bigger questions (which are showing fruit) would be fortified by virtue of their scientific standing and could very likely call into question the acceptance of PN. This could result in (gasp) Behes, Dembskis, Dentons, Thaxtons, Meyers, and Abels, everywhere. As such, the offending activity must be stopped. Upright BiPed

Mr StephenB, From Ms. Scott: Methodological materialism is one of the main differences between science and religion. Religion may use natural explanations for worldly phenomena, but reserves the right to explain through divine intervention; science has no such option. So following her definition, if the scientists say "I see no material explanation." they are doing science. If the scientists (not the Bishop) say "The change in the patients condition was due to divine intervention." then they are not doing science. Nakashima

---seversky: "And I don’t know what strange private version of MN you are using but the customary usage doesn’t say anything like that." If you don't know, it is because you didn't read what I wrote. I used the definition used by Eugenie Scott. Please make a note of it. In any case, you have written another long post without addressing the issue. Are the scientists who help the Church verify miraculous healings really doing science or not? StephenB

Mr Joseph, The fact that Pasteur did not publish the 'Fall From Grace' theory of disease is instructive, then. Nakashima

Nakashima-san, The germ theory was proposed by Pasteur, who was a Creationist. Also I don't think your version of MN is what MN really is. Joseph

Mr Joseph, Medicine does not rely on MN. Not one scientist went into a lab and said “Seeing that everything can be reduced to matter, energy, chance and necessity, the following is the solution.” I disagree. Certainly since the Germ Theory was propounded, scientists do go into the lab and say disease is not caused by evil spirits or sin. There is a physical material cause of the problem. That is methodological naturalism. Nakashima

Also if scientists are seeking the reality behind what it is they are investigating then MN should not have a place at their table because it limits their inferences. Joseph

Prof FX Gumby, Thank you however what I posted refuted Seversky's claim. Seversky said:

In what way did Newton not limit himself to natural explanations. His scientific work does not invoke supernatural causes.

Newton invoked "God". And "God" is supernatural. Joseph

Joseph @199, Thank you (and Seversky @193, whom you have not refuted) for conclusively demonstrating to all doubting onlookers that Christianity and methodological naturalism are not incompatible. Prof. FX Gumby

Seversky, Newton saw science as a way of understand "God's" handy-work. In his "Principia" he flat out states:

This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being....This Being governs all things, not as the soul of the world, but as Lord over all; and on account of his dominion he is wont to be called Lord God "pantokrator," or Universal Ruler

Joseph

Nakashima, Medicine does not rely on MN. Not one scientist went into a lab and said "Seeing that everything can be reduced to matter, energy, chance and necessity, the following is the solution." IOW Nakashima-san once again you prove that you don't know what you are talking about. Joseph

Seversky, MN doesn't work. It hasn't produced anything. Joseph

Mr StephenB, I see that Mr Seversky has already made most of the points I think are relevant. I would add, however, that it is in the interests of the Church to have the most stringent and fair tests possible be performed before calling something a miraculous cure. If Richard Dawkins was an MD, who better to ask to verify the prior diagnosis, the current condition and the lack of material explanation? You know he is not just rubber stamping or going through the motions! Nakashima

StephenB @ 186

If doctors confessed their ignorance of a material explanation, they would be violating the principle of methodological naturalism, which declares that all such questions are inadmissible.

What are you talking about? A confession of ignorance is just that. MN doesn't require that its practitioners be omniscient. It does require that they are honest. If they don't something then they should say they don't know.

Science makes the call on all these aforementioned matters, since the Bishop is not qualified to comment on them.

Exactly. Science decides whether there was a natural disorder with a natural cause there in the first place and tries to exclude any possible naturalistic cure.

Should I believe the Darwinists, whose, rule of methodological naturalism says that the scientists who testify to nature’s limits on medical matters are not doing science, or should I believe the scientists themselves?

False dichotomy. The "Darwinists" to whom you allude are presumably biologists. Are you accusing them of not being scientists? They might have something to say about that. And I don't know what strange private version of MN you are using but the customary usage doesn't say anything like that.

How can one testify to nature’s known limits without acknowledging the possibility of non-natural causes that exceed those limits?

Because we have no way of knowing what, if anything, lies beyond those limits. There might be something, there might be nothing.

According to methodological naturalism, the scientist must study nature as if nature is all there is. There would be no reason for the Church to summon the assistance of a scientist who has already made up his mind that ALL cures must be natural.

Of course there is. There is the very obvious reason that in order to establish a miracle, you must first exclude all possible naturalistic explanations. Who better to do that than some one who spends his or her life studying just that? Seversky

Joseph @ 115

It works? It hasn’t worked in finding out a materialistic origin of life. It hasn’t worked in finding out a materialistic origin to the laws that govern nature. And it hasn’t worked in finding out whether or not the transformations required by the ToE are even possible.

It works because we would not be discussing these issues on this blog if it didn't. You think it proves something to ask questions that we don't have answers for yet? It doesn't. All it shows is that there is a lot we still don't know. That includes you. You have no better idea of the answers to those questions than the rest of us. But we already knew that. Seversky

StephenB @ 106

Dr. Hunter’s point was not that anything supernaturual was in play but that Newton did not limit himself to natural explanations, a point that cannot reasonably be contested since the point was confirmed by his critics. So, rather than address that point, you have simply changed the subject.

In what way did Newton not limit himself to natural explanations. His scientific work does not invoke supernatural causes. If he had wanted, he could have explained gravity as the effect of flights of invisible angels dragging base matter away from heaven and back to the Earth from whence it came. But he did not. He just used natural explanations. Why would he do that unless he were limiting himself in that way? Seversky

Nakashima, Well I see in #178 you made a comment, but I don't see that you made a point. You say: "I wasn’t arguing that anything about the mills was invalidated. I was pointing out that someone else’s argument was invalid because mills do not reproduce." You clearly implied that KF's comment was invalid because "Liebniz’ mill did not reproduce with heritable and variable traits". To which I said "Liebniz’ mill was characterized by mechanistic function. What part of mechanistic heredity would invalidate it?" If it is true that "heredity" invalidates KF's comment through Leibniz' observation, then please state what it is about the mechanistic process of heredity that leads to the invalidation. If you cannot say quality of mechanistic heredity invalidates Leibniz observation that the individual parts of a mechanism do not explain their origin, then I would suggest his observation stands, as well as KF's reference to it. Can you tell us what part of the mechanism of heredity explains its origin? Upright BiPed

StephenB, I have been off debating ID with Catholics and one has made some rather extraordinary claims. It is on the Joe Carter blog at First Things. Here is the link to my last comment. If you then work your way up you will see my other comments as well as a couple others but especially someone named R. Hampton. For all I know he could be a priest. http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2010/01/05/a-walk-to-the-moon/comment-page-1/#comment-6814 I would be interested in your take on this. Is the Church going to go medieval and proclaim Darwinian evolution as dogma? I already asked Denyse the same. One of the advantages to debating ID at First Things is that all those who disagree are polite. jerry

To tribune7: Yes, emotions etc are currently not in the ambit of Science, but not because they are supernatural, simply because they are too complex to be understood (yet). But then this is where the materialists & others part company. Graham

To StephenB: You made some claim about changes to rules of evidence that happened circa 1980, but have steadfastly refused to provide any evidence of this change, despite repeated (and varied) requests, and always with much indignation, that the requests are meaningless. If this is so, then you have created the perfect storm: a claim that can never be tested by evidence! How did you do it ? Graham

StephenB:

How can the rule have impact on intelligent design prior to 1980, if intelligent design didn’t exist until 1980?

The argument is that science has excluded from consideration non-natural phenomena as the explanans of any phenomena at least throughout the 20th century. That exclusion did not originate in 1980 - it was simply given an apt name at that time. The modern apparatus of 20th century science excluded the supernatural prior to 1980, and continued to do so after that date. Nothing changed, although a useful conceptual distinction (between philosophical and methodological naturalism) had been drawn. To show that science itself was changed by the imposition of a new "rule," you need to provide examples in the scientific literature of invocations of non-natural explanantia (cool word) prior to 1980 that would have been excluded had they been evoked subsequent to that date. The much narrower phenomenon of ID arrived and, to the extent that it was construed as advancing an argument for a supernatural explanans (correctly so in my view, its myriad evasions notwithstanding), it ran afoul of that long extant prohibition. The prohibition did not arise in response to ID itself, however, as it antedated ID by many decades.

How can the rule have impact on the Big Bang theory prior to 1980…

Your references to the big bang theory conflate explanans and explanandum. There is no proscription against scientific investigation of explananda that may be amenable to theological or supernatural construal by those who are so inclinded, such as the big bang. What has been eschewed for a century and more are supernatural explanantia for those explananda. >whew< Voice Coil

Graham -- My point was that no supernatural processes were involved. Yeah, I realise spreadsheets are ‘non material’ Graham I was responding to your claim that the process of arriving at the truth in various fields was "inflexibly materialistic" The spreadsheet thing was a throwaway aside. The important point is that commerce and law depend upon very non-material things like trust and faith, which of course cannot be be adequately dealt with via meth-nat. tribune7

---Graham: "To StephenB: You appear to have managed to make a claim for which it is not possible to present supporting evidence. This is sounding depressingly familiar." And you have, once again, made a charge without being specific. StephenB

StephenB,

There would be no reason for the Church to summon the assistance of a scientist who has already made up his mind that ALL cures must be natural.

Exactly, because we know what answer they would give in any situation, for they have begun by begging the question. Clive Hayden

To StephenB: You appear to have managed to make a claim for which it is not possible to present supporting evidence. This is sounding depressingly familiar. Graham

----Nakashima: "I’m going to go out on a limb (not amputated, I hope) and guess that it is the Church, not a doctor, that decides to call a particular change in a patient’s status a miraculous healing. The doctors merely give evidence in material terms of the prior state, the current state, and their ignorance of a material explanation for the change in state." If doctors confessed their ignorance of a material explanation, they would be violating the principle of methodological naturalism, which declares that all such questions are inadmissible. Here is the way the scientist approaches alleged spiritual cures, especially those that occur at Lourdes. For the cure to be recognized as a miracle, it must fulfill several criteria. It is necessary to verify the illness, which must be serious, with an irrevocable prognosis. The illness must be organic or caused by injuries. There must be no treatment at the root of the cure. The latter must be sudden and instantaneous. Finally, the renewal of functions must be total and lasting, without convalescence. Science makes the call on all these aforementioned matters, since the Bishop is not qualified to comment on them. For this reason, it takes several years for the bishop to confirm the miracle. Once recognized as such, the cure is published by the bishop of the diocese where the person resides who experienced the miracle. Should I believe the Darwinists, whose, rule of methodological naturalism says that the scientists who testify to nature’s limits on medical matters are not doing science, or should I believe the scientists themselves? How can one testify to nature's known limits without acknowledging the possibility of non-natural causes that exceed those limits? According to methodological naturalism, the scientist must study nature as if nature is all there is. There would be no reason for the Church to summon the assistance of a scientist who has already made up his mind that ALL cures must be natural. StephenB

---Voice Coil: "Of course the rule doesn’t affect that which occurred prior to its establishment – it affects that which occurrs following its establishment. If what follows has been materially changed by that rule, then it should differ from what came before. So the comparison is potentially quite meaningful. Should no change be apparent, it seems unlikely that the “rule” has had any impact." How can the rule have impact on intelligent design prior to 1980, if intelligent design didn't exist until 1980? How can the rule have impact on the Big Bang theory prior to 1980, if Darwinists conspicuously exempted the big bang theory from their stupid rule in order to avoid looking like complete idiots. In other words, try thinking this through rather than simply agreeing with your side no matter what. I must say that I am amazed at the extent to which Darwinists will deny even hard facts in order to protect some of their most bizarre biases and prejudices. A new rule was instituted and I have presented evidence of both that new rule and the prominent Darwinists who subscribe to it and enforce it. It isn't even a debatable issue, yet Darwinists want to debate it. Remarkable. StephenB

Mr StephenB, I don't know what the Catholic Church asks of doctors or scientists when it tries to verify miraculous intervention. If the doctors merely confirm the state of the patient has changed according to standard tests, eg the patient is out of PVS, the fever is reduced, the amputated limb has grown back, then of course the doctors are doing science. If asked why the status has changed, the doctors can certainly say "We don't know." and still be doing science. I'm going to go out on a limb (not amputated, I hope) and guess that it is the Church, not a doctor, that decides to call a particular change in a patient's status a miraculous healing. The doctors merely give evidence in material terms of the prior state, the current state, and their ignorance of a material explanation for the change in state. Nakashima

To JosephB: For gods sake, just cite some examples to illustrate your point. How long do we have to suffer all this evasion. To tribune7 #169: My point was that no supernatural processes were involved. Yeah, I realise spreadsheets are 'non material', but so is a TV program, and Im pretty sure these arent brought to us by God. Graham1

StephenB:

When a rule is established, it doesn’t affect that which occurred prior to its establishment. Thus, comparing the past to the present is meaningless.

*Scratches head* Of course the rule doesn't affect that which occurred prior to its establishment - it affects that which occurrs following its establishment. If what follows has been materially changed by that rule, then it should differ from what came before. So the comparison is potentially quite meaningful. Should no change be apparent, it seems unlikely that the "rule" has had any impact. Voice Coil

---Nakashima: "Modern medicine is the application of modern science to the human body. Modern science is conducted on the basis of MN, as everyone on this discussion, pro- or anti-ID, religious or non-religious will tell you." So, is it your contention that when the Catholic Church asks medical scientists to verify a miraculous healing, the scientists that they call on are not really doing science at all, nor are they themselves, really medical scientists since true scientists do not make distinctions between miraculous healings and natural healings? StephenB

----Acipenser: "The post in #162 is much like the claim you made in #74 with the same lack of observable evidence to support the claims. A much better case could be made for your argument if you could actually cite some concrete examples of the alleged purging of non-material causes in the science literature." As I have told you several times, your question makes no sense. Voice Coil temporarily rescued you from your own folly with a comprehensible version of your question, but you reverted back to your own irrational formulation after I answered his question. When a rule is established, it doesn't affect that which occurred prior to its establishment. Thus, comparing the past to the present is meaningless. Further, there is no need to look past the fact that a rule was, in fact, established, when no such rule existed previously Further, the establishment of a rule does not constitute a "rule change." Further, if a new definition of science affected "publications," it would also affect the possibility that they are even published at all, which means that there would be nothing there to analyze and no fodder for a comparison/contrast analysis. Further, the only subject matter that would be affected would be intelligent design because Darwinists are not consistent in the application of the rule. Hence, the anti-MN publications of big bang cosmology are not affected. Further, since there was no such thing as ID science prior to 1980, there is no way to compare the past with the present in that context. Further, the medical violations of MN are not necessarily transformed into published articles. You are chasing your own tail. Why not simply accept a fact as a fact and move on. StephenB

Mr Joseph, I don’t think that MN was involved with medicine. When in a hole, the solution is not to keep digging. Modern medicine is the application of modern science to the human body. Modern science is conducted on the basis of MN, as everyone on this discussion, pro- or anti-ID, religious or non-religious will tell you. Nakashima

Mr BiPed, I wasn't arguing that anything about the mills was invalidated. I was pointing out that someone else's argument was invalid because mills do not reproduce. #170 If religious scientists used material means to understand a material world, then why do you mock them with a sixth-grader’s comment? There was no mention of religious scientists in that message. I was castigating Mr Joseph for his lack of gratitude to the benefits of methodological naturalism as displayed within the medical treatments that he had personally received. I do not consider it controversial that these benefits are in fact benefits of MN. They are available today, widely, at low cost because certain non-material alternatives have been excluded and resources focused on things that work. There have never been too many doctors in the world, nor too much research. Resources are scarce. Why is medicine what it is today, instead of being dominated by homeopathy, chiropractic, acupuncture, or other theories of pain, disease and health? Because it works. Nakashima

StephenB:"Untrue. Please read post #162 and consult the FAQ. Originally, I gave you the benefit of the doubt since you are new here. No longer. Your mindless comment about the Catholic Church gave you away." The post in #162 is much like the claim you made in #74 with the same lack of observable evidence to support the claims. A much better case could be made for your argument if you could actually cite some concrete examples of the alleged purging of non-material causes in the science literature. Not being able to do so erodes the foundation of the argument to the point of being nothing more than an untested hypothesis. In science the next hurdle has to be attempted and that is the testing of the hypothesis. The literature is there in black and white and if there have been no changes in content it is time to revise the hypothesis and try again. As I stated as far as I am aware none of the Catholic claims of medical miracles have been submitted and published in the science literature. If I have erred perhaps you could provide a citation, or two, that demonstrates the incorrectness of my statement. It would also bolster your argument of persecution in the published literature. Acipenser

A parting shot5 for now: First, thanks back to all and may the new year be better than the last! But on reproducing machines, we have Paley Ch 2 -- which I find suspiciously absent from discussions on his more specifically empirical arguments: ________________ >>Suppose, in the next place, that the person who found the watch should after some time discover that, in addition to all the properties which he had hitherto observed in it, it possessed the unexpected property of producing in the course of its movement another watch like itself -- the thing is conceivable; that it contained within it a mechanism, a system of parts -- a mold, for instance, or a complex adjustment of lathes, baffles, and other tools -- evidently and separately calculated for this purpose . . . . The first effect would be to increase his admiration of the contrivance, and his conviction of the consummate skill of the contriver. Whether he regarded the object of the contrivance, the distinct apparatus, the intricate, yet in many parts intelligible mechanism by which it was carried on, he would perceive in this new observation nothing but an additional reason for doing what he had already done -- for referring the construction of the watch to design and to supreme art . . . . He would reflect, that though the watch before him were, in some sense, the maker of the watch, which, was fabricated in the course of its movements, yet it was in a very different sense from that in which a carpenter, for instance, is the maker of a chair -- the author of its contrivance, the cause of the relation of its parts to their use. [Emphases added. (Note: It is easy to rhetorically dismiss this argument because of the context: a work of natural theology. But, since (i) valid science can be -- and has been -- done by theologians; since (ii) the greatest of all modern scientific books (Newton's Principia) contains the General Scholium which is an essay in just such natural theology; and since (iii) an argument 's weight depends on its merits, we should not yield to such “label and dismiss” tactics. It is also worth noting Newton's remarks that “thus much concerning God; to discourse of whom from the appearances of things, does certainly belong to Natural Philosophy.” )] >> ___________ In short, once we look at the complex organisation and coding, algorithmic requisites of a von Neumann self-replicator, we are ever deeper into design inference friendly territory:

such a machine uses . . . (i) an underlying code to record/store the required information and to guide procedures for using it, (ii) a coded blueprint/tape record of such specifications and (explicit or implicit) instructions, together with (iii) a tape reader [[called “the constructor” by von Neumann] that reads and interprets the coded specifications and associated instructions, and (iv) implementing machines (and associated organisation and procedures) to carry out the specified replication (including that of the constructor itself); backed up by (v) either: (1) a pre-existing reservoir of required parts and energy sources, or (2) associated “metabolic” machines carrying out activities that provide required specific materials and forms of energy by using the generic resources in the surrounding environment. Also, parts (ii), (iii) and (iv) are each necessary for and together are jointly sufficient to implement a self-replicating von Neumann universal constructor. That is, we see here an irreducibly complex set of core components that must all be present in a properly organised fashion for a successful self-replicator to exist. [[Take just one core part out, and function ceases: the replicator is irreducibly complex (IC).]. This irreducible complexity is compounded by the requirement (i) for codes, requiring organised symbols and rules to specify both steps to take and formats for storing information, and (v) for appropriate material resources and energy sources. Immediately, we are looking at islands of organised function for both the machinery and the information in the wider sea of possible (but mostly non-functional) configurations. In short, outside such functionally specific -- thus, isolated -- information-rich target zones, want of correct components and/or of proper organisation and/or co-ordination will block function from emerging or being sustained. So, once the set of possible configurations is large enough and the islands of function are credibly sufficiently specific/isolated, it is unreasonable to expect such function to arise from chance, or from chance circumstances driving blind natural forces under the known laws of nature. Now, too, a tape of 1,000 bits (= 125 bytes) is plainly insufficient to specify the parts and instructions for a von Neumann replicator. But, the number of possible configurations of 1,000 bits is 1.07 * 10^301, more than ten times the square of the 10^150 states the 10^80 atoms of our observed universe would take up across a reasonable estimate of its lifespan. So, viewing our observed universe as a search device, it would scan less than 1 in 10^150th part of even so “small” a configuration space. That is, it would not carry out a credible “search” for islands of function, making such islands sufficiently isolated to be beyond the reasonable reach of a blind search . . .

G'day GEM of TKI kairosfocus

Acipenser: "If we cannot point to what should be obvious changes in the published literature than the implementation of the 1980’s MN rule has changed nothing whatsoever." Untrue. Please read post #162 and consult the FAQ. Originally, I gave you the benefit of the doubt since you are new here. No longer. Your mindless comment about the Catholic Church gave you away. StephenB

"I don’t wish your painful experiences on anyone, but for you the benefits of MN start pretty close to home." This is below Nakashima's normal level of irrelevant comments. Just because someone is good in creative writing does not mean that person will be an excellent geologist. Though some may. Just because science has done well in some areas of medicine does not mean it has done equally well in other areas such as history. Oh yes, science is applied to historical data. Science does well when the only current conditions working are the four laws of physics and the boundary conditions are well known. When science gets away from these very controlled conditions, it is not so successful. One of the premise's of ID is that science has a lousy track record with certain phenomena of the world but not all phenomena. A lot of the phenomena that science has a bad track record with has to do with origins. And by the way MN has no practical benefit in science. It does not help science one iota. A philosophical approach that includes the possibilities of intelligence interventions in physical phenomena does not preclude the examination of phenomena where there has been no direct intelligent involvement. How many times must someone be told that ID subsumes current science and does nothing more than expand its horizons. So the real flat earthers are those who cling to MN. jerry

Naskashima, #169 Liebniz' mill was characterized by mechanistic function. What part of mechanistic heredity would invalidate it? #170 If religious scientists used material means to understand a material world, then why do you mock them with a sixth-grader's comment? Upright BiPed

Nakashima-san, I don't think that MN was involved with medicine. IOW I seriously doubt tat someone went into a lab and said "Everything is reducible to matter, energy, chance and necessity so the solution is X." IOW you are giving MN credit for something it had nothing to do with. Joseph

Mr Joseph, I hear all this talk about MN yet what has it done? Have your knees been helped more by medicine or prayer, Joe? Ever take take a steroid or NSAID to reduce swelling, or did you splash holy water on the site of the inflammation? Did sacrificing a small animal make your pain go away? I don't wish your painful experiences on anyone, but for you the benefits of MN start pretty close to home. Nakashima

KF-san, Happy New Year! Good luck with using a cybernetic controller model. The world is waiting for the discovery of the interfaces you describe. So far it is all neurons chasing each other's tail. Liebniz' mill did not reproduce with heritable and variable traits. Brains do. have you read Valentino Braitenburg's little book "Vehicles"? I strongly recommend it if this is an area of interest for you. Nakashima

The process of arriving at the truth is inflexibly materialistic in the Law, Science, Industry, Medicine, Commerce, the Military, Graham, you're wrong, at least in matters of commerce and the law and probably the military too. With commerce, the truth is arrived at via symbolic representations of material goods or, more often than not, inflexibly not-material services, in accounting spreadsheets, which ironically have become non-material themselves. Even money is usually non-material and when it is it material it is almost always based on the non-material full-faith and trust of a government. If commerce was inflexibly material Bernie Madoff would never have gotten away with his scam for as long as he did. Of course, otoh, a lot of homes and highways and sewer plants would never have been built. In law, evidence is presented via human testimony usually not subject to empirical measurement, and the decision as to how much credence its given are left to the non-empirically measurable instincts of judges and juries. As far as the military, well, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have had their shares of assumptions and guesses. tribune7

Hi KF. Happy New Year. tribune7

Graham 1- what has it done? I hear all this talk about MN yet what has it done? Joseph

Seversky, Judge Jones is a dolt and his ruling only applies to a small insignificant dustrict in Pennsylvania. Judge Jones wouldn't know science if it introduced itself to him. Also Darwin flat out stated "Creator" in his book- not a rough draft but the actual released version:

There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone circling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.- Charles Darwin in “The Origin of Species by means of Natural Selection” last chapter, last sentence (bold added)

So by your "logic" the theory of evolution is a Creationists' theory. But I digress. I understand that you have to attack ID in this manner because you sure as hell cannot support the claims made by your position. Joseph

StephenB:

Sorry, but you are barking up the wrong tree. The only thing necessary to show a change is to demonstrate the establishment of a rule where none existed previously.

That doesn't work, because the argument is that the term "methodological naturalism" was devised not as a rule, but as a descriptive term that captured something important vis methods and assumptions already long governing, and in a sense defining, scientific investigation. A demonstration of a significant shift in the kinds of evidence and theory considered in scientific work after 1980 or so would support your thesis that a "new rule" had been imposed. The failure to detect such a shift would be consistent with the argument that the term was descriptive, only, deftly capturing long standing procedures and assumptions that were never before named, and distinguishing those assumptions and procedures from the much stronger claims of philosophical naturalism. Voice Coil

kairosfocus: So much to chew on there. I see many of the old chestnuts trotted out. In the end, I think what the evil materialists want to see is how the supernatural can actually achieve something useful. The process of arriving at the truth is inflexibly materialistic in the Law, Science, Industry, Medicine, Commerce, the Military, etc etc etc, in other words wherever people actually expect results. Your posts sound impressive, but invariaby, wherever people expect actual results, they use the strictly materialistic. Even Newton who you quoted at length (im not sure why) produced a description of the calculus, behaviour of light, etc that owed absolutely nothing to the supernatural. Sure, like many of his time he was devout (he was also an alchemist), but so what ? This plays absolutely no part whatsoever in the final form of his work, similarly Boyle, and the other names you mentioned. I went through my entire science education without ever encountering a single instance of the supernatural that was relevant to the science. So, I dont think researchers ignore the supernatural because of some decree on high, they simply ignore it because it is unproductive. Just think: If the church could cure a disease by preying, wouldnt they do it ? Why havent they done it yet ? Are they too shy ? Whats the hold up ? Why dont the police consult psychics ? (late-night TV dramas notwithstanding). Graham1

PPS: I am on non-US time and I am an insomniac, both. Got it from my poppa; who used to write Ja's budget in the wee hours of the morning. PPPS: And, it has not escaped OUR notice, that here is a very tight coupling between the sort of censoring impositional methodological naturalism we are discussing, a priori evolutionary materialism, atheism and amoralist secularism. That is, if being a theist disqualifies one as a scientist -- and the ghosts of Newton, Pascal, Maxwell and Kelvin will have something sharpish to say about that! -- then the motives and views of the meth nat advocates are just as disqualifying. So, we see plain self referential incoherence on the part of those who play the "creationism in a cheap tuxedo" rhetorical card. We need to get beyond personalities and motive mongering to address issues on the merits, sir. kairosfocus

PS: On the design inference: Graham, I also see that you have championed the idea that the only credible alternative to "natural" is supernatural, which of course comes with some very loaded associations in a deeply polarised age in which we have militant secularism. I therefore draw your attention to UD Weak Argument Corrective no 17 [cf also no 18 . . . see we are up to 39 now -- but what is going to be 38?], which clarifies the empirically grounded inference being made in design theory work: ______________ >> 17] Methodological naturalism is the rule of science Methodological naturalism is simply a quite recently imposed “rule” that (a) defines science as a search for natural causes of observed phenomena AND (b) forbids the researcher to consider any other explanation, regardless of what the evidence may indicate. In keeping with that principle, it begs the question and roundly declares that (c) any research that finds evidence of design in nature is invalid and that (d) any methods employed toward that end are non-scientific. For instance, in a pamphlet published in 2008, the US National Academy of Sciences declared:

In science, explanations must be based on naturally occurring phenomena. Natural causes are, in principle, reproducible and therefore can be checked independently by others. If explanations are based on purported forces that are outside of nature, scientists have no way of either confirming or disproving those explanations. [Science, Evolution and Creationism, p. 10. Emphases added.]

The resort to loaded language should cue us that there is more than mere objective science going on here! A second clue is a basic fact: the very NAS scientists themselves provide instances of a different alternative to forces tracing to chance and/or blind mechanical necessity. For, they are intelligent, creative agents who act into the empirical world in ways that leave empirically detectable and testable traces. Moreover, the claim or assumption that all such intelligences “must” in the end trace to chance and/or necessity acting within a materialistic cosmos is a debatable philosophical view on the remote and unobserved past history of our cosmos. It is not at all an established scientific “fact” on the level of the direct, repeatable observations that have led us to the conclusion that Earth and the other planets orbit the Sun. In short, the NAS would have been better advised to study the contrast: natural vs artificial (or, intelligent) causes, than to issue loaded language over natural vs supernatural ones. Notwithstanding, many Darwinist members of the guild of scholars have instituted or supported the question-begging rule of “methodological naturalism,” ever since the 1980’s. So, if an ID scientist finds and tries to explain functionally specified complex information in a DNA molecule in light of its only known cause: intelligence, supporters of methodological naturalism will throw the evidence out or insist that it be re-interpreted as the product of processes tracing to chance and/or necessity; regardless of how implausible or improbable the explanations may be. Further, if the ID scientist dares to challenge this politically correct rule, he will then be disfranchised from the scientific community and all his work will be discredited and dismissed. Obviously, this is grossly unfair censorship. Worse, it is massively destructive to the historic and proper role of science as an unfettered (but intellectually and ethically responsible) search for the truth about our world in light of the evidence of observation and experience. >> _________________ Moreover, you would do well to consider the wider framework of scientific empirical investigations here, which formalises how applied scientists, e.g., routinely operate in a forensic context. And, that context shows that intelligent/ articficial causes are empirically real and observable, leaving reliable traces. Intelligent design, in that context, is the science that investigates such signs and how we may infer from sign to signified intelligent cause. As a consequent of that, it concludes that certain features of the observed cosmos are better explained as to their origins, by intelligence rather than credibly undirected stochastic contingency [aka chance] and/or blind mechanical forces that give rise to natural regularities [aka necessity]. Specific cases of interest include the functionally specific, code-based functional complexity and algorithmic information of the cell, the increments in this FSCI required to explain major body plans, and the finely tuned, organised complexity of the observed cosmos [you'll love the presentation . . . ] that allows it to facilitate such C-chemistry cell based life. You will observe, furter that NONE of this depends on a priori commitment to any metasphysical doctrine or texts from any religious tradition. in fact, it operates by cutting across the imposition of such censorship by the New, Lewontinian materialist Magisterium in places such as NSCE [great catch Stephen!], NAS, NSTA and the Kansas Board of Education, not to mention judge Copycat Jones' courtroom over in Dover! kairosfocus

kairosfocus: It was just a gentle nudge to remind the ID camp that the tight relationship between ID & religion doesnt go unnoticed. However, I actually feel somewhat chastened that you replied at some length and with obvious feeling. Your colleagues arent nearly so polite. Not that I expect any quarter. But Im confused as to your time zone. Im in Oz so its OK, but you are either non-US time or an insomniac. Graham1

Ah Graham: I see . . . ye olde intended "outing," meant to prejudice attitudes and polarise discussion. Ironic isn't it when -- Jiu-Jitsu like -- such an intended power move turns against you: for, it never seems to register with Lewontinian secular humanist evolutionary materialists that many of us care deeply for BOTH Science and souls! (Not to mention for the grounding of mind, reasoning, knowledge and morality that such evolutionary materialism undermines through its materialistic determinism on mechanical necessity and chance circumstances, leading to self referential incoherence on the mind and inescapable and utterly destructive amorality on the issue of right and wrong. This last having been well understood since the days in about 360 BC when Plato penned the Laws, Book X.) Nor, that -- per Rom 1:20 -- we find we can do so as freely as Newton wrote as follows in his General Scholium to the Principia. Yes, THAT Principia, the greatest book of modern science:

. . . This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being. And if the fixed stars are the centres of other like systems, these, being formed by the like wise counsel, must be all subject to the dominion of One; especially since the light of the fixed stars is of the same nature with the light of the sun, and from every system light passes into all the other systems: and lest the systems of the fixed stars should, by their gravity, fall on each other mutually, he hath placed those systems at immense distances one from another. This Being governs all things, not as the soul of the world, but as Lord over all; and on account of his dominion he is wont to be called Lord God pantokrator, or Universal Ruler . . . . And from his true dominion [i.e. Creation, the law-ordered, complex and elegantly beautiful cosmos in which mathematics is "unreasonably effective"] it follows that the true God is a living, intelligent, and powerful Being; and, from his other perfections, that he is supreme, or most perfect. He is eternal and infinite, omnipotent and omniscient; that is, his duration reaches from eternity to eternity; his presence from infinity to infinity; he governs all things, and knows all things that are or can be done. He is not eternity or infinity, but eternal and infinite; he is not duration or space, but he endures and is present. He endures for ever, and is every where present; and by existing always and every where, he constitutes duration and space. Since every particle of space is always, and every indivisible moment of duration is every where, certainly the Maker and Lord of all things cannot be never and no where . . . . We know him only by his most wise and excellent contrivances of things, and final cause [i.e from his designs]: we admire him for his perfections; but we reverence and adore him on account of his dominion: for we adore him as his servants; and a god without dominion, providence, and final causes, is nothing else but Fate and Nature. Blind metaphysical necessity, which is certainly the same always and every where, could produce no variety of things. [i.e necessity does not produce complex contingency] All that diversity of natural things which we find suited to different times and places could arise from nothing but the ideas and will of a Being necessarily existing. [That is, he implicitly rejects chance, Plato's third alternative and explicitly infers to the Designer of the Cosmos.] But, by way of allegory, God is said to see, to speak, to laugh, to love, to hate, to desire, to give, to receive, to rejoice, to be angry, to fight, to frame, to work, to build; for all our notions of God are taken from. the ways of mankind by a certain similitude, which, though not perfect, has some likeness, however. And thus much concerning God; to discourse of whom from the appearances of things, does certainly belong to Natural Philosophy.

Y'see, back in C17 - 18, they had a sounder view. they understood that an investigation of the empirical world was a project in epistemology, so they logically saw it as an exercise in natural philosophy. Then, when solid findings, reliable ones, emerged, these, they termed knowledge, i.e. -- they usually wrote in Latin after all (universal language of scholarship and all that) -- Science. And in that context, it was a natural thing to think on how it might be possible that:

Rom 1:20 . . . since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood [i.e. this is where the concept of self-evident truth seen as true on understanding it comes from] from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. [cf. here on where that leads, on wider worldview analysis]

So, Graham, I think you need to do some wider reading and thinking beyond the narrow circle of evolutionary materialism wearing the lab coats of Science. G'day GEM of TKI kairosfocus

kairosfous mission: Towards the Transformation of "All Things" Under the Christocentric Fulness Vision as Stated in Paul's Epistle to the Ephesians Graham1

Vivid I'se been busy elsewhere, now winding down. (I am learning just how royally messed up things are here in the Caribbean, too!) I am also -- slowly . . . -- working with a circle of others on a critical survey of origins science, from soup to nuts hydrogen to humans. (Do drop me a line via my linked page.) Have fun all G kairosfocus

PS: On the side issue over mind s and brains and bodies, I think the diagram and discussion here, tracing to Eng Derek Smith's two-tier controller cybernetic model might just be helpful. In a nutshell, the i/o front end controller is dependent on an imaginative, creative, decisional supervisor to have a reference for servocontrol etc. And the internal organization and physical force mediated cause-effect bonds of such an i/o controller do not explain the imaginative, creative and decisional information that uses it. In short, per Liebniz's discussion of he gearing in the mill, the mill does not explain or originate its own organization. kairosfocus

StephenB:"Sorry, but you are barking up the wrong tree. The only thing necessary to show a change is to demonstrate the establishment of a rule where none existed previously. I have already done that. " If we cannot point to what should be obvious changes in the published literature than the implementation of the 1980's MN rule has changed nothing whatsoever. Acipenser

Happy New Year to you as well KF. BTW miss your regular posts. Vivid vividbleau

Folks: Greetings, jus a pass tru . .. I note that we can cut tot he chase, once we see that:

Science at its best is the unfettered (but intellectually and ethically responsible) progressive pursuit of the truth about our world, based on observational evidence and reasoned discussion among the informed

That is what gave science its credibility, and it is what is being subtly censored by the imposition of so-called methodological naturalism on origins science. For, the underlying issue is as Lewontin long ago acknowledged:

It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.

So, regardless of how effectively we may analyse many phenomena on lawlike natural forces and chance circumstances, if we are to address the truth about our world, we must leave room for the study of intelligent action and its empirical traces. And, in fact, we do that routinely -- save where the imposition of a priori materialism is at stake. Lewontin has told us why. (And, the interventions and impositions by the NAS and the NSTA in Kansas tell us even more on why.) Chillingly so. G'day GEM of TKI PS: New Year's greetings to all. kairosfocus

----Acipenser: "If we cannot point out these differences then the sensible conclusion would be that nothing has changed." Sorry, but you are barking up the wrong tree. The only thing necessary to show a change is to demonstrate the establishment of a rule where none existed previously. I have already done that. StephenB

“StephenB, I guess my point is let’s do it on our terms.” . . .What did you have in mind? Agree that meth-nat is just fine and dandy for things like resolving engineering issues but insist that it fails miserably in answering the far more important questions such as how people should live together. And further insist that while it is certainly a legitimate method of science it is clearly not the only one. And since I'm about ready to go to bed, and since someone is likely to challenge me for an example, I'll note that any gedankenexperiment involving Maxwell's Demon or Schrodinger's cat would work. Or they could go back and find that link to Godel's Ontological Proof Of God I posted earlier. tribune7

errr...this should read: If we could point to some examples of how implementing the rule of MN caused a shift in the scientific content of the published literature it would certainly bolster the claim that has been made. Acipenser

StephenB:"OK. Then we can let my answer to him will suffice as my answer to you." Sure whatever you wish to provide is fine. My interest is in the claim of the types of evidence that once was accepted (and I presume published) and now is not. I think if the claim of a change in 'rules' were true we should be able to peruse the scientific literature and point to examples of a change in content/types of evidence from then and now. At least 20 years have passed since the 80's and it would seem that there would exist a sufficiently large database to draw upon for comparison If we cannot point out these differences then the sensible conclusion would be that nothing has changed. If we could point to some examples of how implementing the rule of MN, in the 1980's, caused a shift in the scientific content of the literature. The Catholic Church, as far as I am aware, have never submitted any of the miracles in a manuscript form for publication in the science literature. Acipenser

---Tribune 7: "StephenB, I guess my point is let’s do it on our terms." What did you have in mind? Maybe I could sign on. I am an open minded kind of guy. Meanwhile, take a look at Alvin Plantinga's well researched artical on methodological naturalism and tell me what you think. You can google Alvin Plantinga: Methodological naturalism, one and two. StephenB

StephenB --Indeed, I submit that the term naturalistic causes should not be included in any definition of science at all. And I agree with that as does Popper and Plantinga per Wiki believer it or not tribune7

However, most Darwinists who come here have no clue about those kinds of things. It helps when we standardize our vocabulary. StephenB, I guess my point is let's do it on our terms. The way the Eugenie Scotts use the phrase is as propaganda and political dogma not to clarify communication or increase understanding. Like all good propaganda there is a nugget of truth in their claim. Let's take it and turn it back on them. We are pro-science. People who use propaganda to get what they want are not. tribune7

---Acipenser: No, Voice Coil was correct that was my question. OK. Then we can let my answer to him will suffice as my answer to you. I will leave it to you to find the published articles on Big Bang theory and the Catholic Church's record of medical miracles, since both violate the principle of methdological naturalism as conceived by the Darwinist academy, the point that seems to interest you. StephenB

StephenB–Methodological naturalism does not indicate that natural causes are to be preferred but rather that they are required. ----tribune 7: “And that works just fine in many circumstances.” Agreed. ----“Which gets us into the question of definitions. If science is defined as a systematic study then it would not have always been primarily about natural causes.” Again, I agree. Indeed, I submit that the term naturalistic causes should not be included in any definition of science at all. Taking it one step further, I submit that the whole idea of “demarcation” is misguided. I was simply trying to make the distinction between the hard definition and the soft definition rather than pit science against metaphysics, which overlaps with science in many ways. It is very difficult to cover every conceivable objection coming from every conceivable vantage point. ----“ Metaphysics, which does not deal with natural causes,is the prefect example. — Britannica.com calls it “The Science of First Principles and the Catholic Encyclopedia says it was understood to mean “the science of the world beyond nature” Agreed. We have to be careful even with the way we use the word “science.” In keeping with that point, philosophers used to call Theology the queen of the sciences. However, most Darwinists who come here have no clue about those kinds of things. It helps when we standardize our vocabulary. ----“Something to keep in mind is that to the neutral observer, the soft definition makes perfect sense and he might be wondering what the fuss is about when it is attacked.” Yes, you are right, and yes, some of the onlookers may be neutral. That is why I went to the trouble of defining MN as it is used by the Darwinists who are in power. I think it is important to know that Darwinists use both definitions, the hard definition to persecute ID and the soft definition to claim that MN is historical. We should not let them get away with that. ----“Something else to keep in mind is that the neutral observer would think the hard definition is remarkably silly i.e. since it would require the rejection of things like the Big Bang and The First Law of Thermodynamics.” Yes, of course. Nevertheless, the hard definition seems to be the official definition. Reread Eugenie Scott. Read the Kansas science standards. If you continue to use the soft definition, why not at least point out to onlookers that the Darwinists in power are not using that same definition. Frankly, I think ID advocates should stop using the soft definition. ----“The final thing to keep in mind is that ID perfectly fulfills the soft definition and perfectly follows the tradition of things like the First Law of Thermodynamics.” Yes, I have made that point. Again, however, the Darwinist academy is not using the soft definition when it declares that ID is not science. Neither Judge Jones nor the ACLU nor the NAS nor anyone else I know of that persecutes ID use the soft definition. So, why should we use it when it puts us at a disadvantage by allowing our adversaries to muddy the debate waters? Once we point out that Darwinist methodology rules out the big bang, onlookers will finally get it. They will not get it if we continue to use the soft definition. Indeed, several Darwinists on this very thread have already tried to take advantage of this kind of confusion. StephenB

StephenB:"I don’t understand that to be his question, but I can answer your amendment to his question." No, Voice Coil was correct that was my question. Are you aware of any specific examples contained within the published literature? Prior to the 1980's of course. Acipenser

----Voice Coil: "You are not quite grasping the question. He is asking for an instance scientific evidence gathered and accepted as valid before 1980 that would now be “forbidden” in light of methodological naturalism." I don't understand that to be his question, but I can answer your amendment to his question. Using Eugenie Scott's definition, or the Kansas educational standards, any scientific study of a miraculous healing would violate the principle of methodological natrualism. Indeed, even the big bang theory would be in jeopardy since many attribute it to a "supernatural" cause. According to the Darwinist bureaucracy, any evidence that can be construed to hint at the "supernatural," is inadmissible, which is precisely the rationale that is used against intelligent design. StephenB

----seversky: “The same applies today and that is more than enough to ensure it will continue to be used for the foreseeable future.” Which definition of methodological naturalism are you using? Eugenie Scott’s hard definition or your soft definition? ----That is what the Catholic Church does when it investigates claims of miraculous cures at Lourdes. It has to eliminate naturalistic possibilities before it can consider the possibility of a miracle.” According to methodological naturalism, the Catholic Church is not doing science if it considers the possibility that any cause other than a natural cause is responsible for the healing. Reread Eugenie Scott’s definition of MN, which is definitive. -----“This is glass house territory. Both sides have their fair share of the normal human failings. Can you name any ID scientist who fabricated evidence, made up hoaxes, or persecuted his adversary.” ----“Judge Jones ruled that the attempt to open the way for ID to be introduced into the science classroom ……..” Judge Jones said that ID’s methodology depends on religion. That is a lie. StephenB

#137 "Nothing was refuted. None of the scientists listed employed supernatural causation in their work. They employed a naturalistic methodology to study and explain the phenomena they were studying for pragmatic reasons. It worked." I think what everybody is missing is that it was not possible for Newton, Boyle, etc to employ MN. MN requires scientists that when doing science one must assume that PN is true. This concept would be so foreign to them that they would have thought such an idea insane. Vivid vividbleau

StephenB:

Thus, since there was no such thing as inadmissible evidence or any such thing as the science of intelligent design prior to 1980, I cannot provide examples of something that didn’t exist. Does that help?

You are not quite grasping the question. He is asking for an instance scientific evidence gathered and accepted as valid before 1980 that would now be "forbidden" in light of methodological naturalism. An example from the 20th century would be most interesting. Such an example would demonstrate that impact of the so-called "rule" of methodological naturalism upon real science. A specific example of a theoretical model or proposed causal relationship considered valid when proposed but now forbidden due to methodological naturalism would be even more interesting. Again, something from 1900 through 1980 would be best. Voice Coil

StephenB:"Does that help?" Sure, thanks! but let me make sure I am clear on what you mean. It is your position that prior to the 1980's the body of science literature was open to the publication of manuscripts that proposed non-natural causes as explanations for observed phenomena. However, for the duration of the published science literature (up to the 1980's) no one bothered to ever publish anything resembling a manuscript that proposed non-natural causes for their observed experimental observations. Is that a fair summary and udnerstanding of why there is no available examples of the forbidden evidence from the literature? thanks again for the explanation it helped a lot. Acipenser

StephenB @ 105

That point has already been refuted by Cornelius Hunter @83. Even if they had limited themselves solely to natural causes, which they didn’t, that is no argument for saying that everyone else should follow them. There was no methodological rule.

Nothing was refuted. None of the scientists listed employed supernatural causation in their work. They employed a naturalistic methodology to study and explain the phenomena they were studying for pragmatic reasons. It worked. The same applies today and that is more than enough to ensure it will continue to be used for the foreseeable future. If someone wants to propose a theory of origins based on the concept a supernatural intelligent designer, go right ahead. Knock yourself out. No one is going to stop you. But no one is going to accept it, either. Not without being given good reasons and good evidence. Why should they?

Not all questions are alike; not all ways of getting answers are alike. One could not, for example, investigate the possibility of a medical miracle using methodological naturalism.

Of course you can. That is what the Catholic Church does when it investigates claims of miraculous cures at Lourdes. It has to eliminate naturalistic possibilities before it can consider the possibility of a miracle.

Explain that to the Darwinists, whose ethical challenges are legendary— complete with hoaxes, fabricated evidence, and academic tyranny.

This is glass house territory. Both sides have their fair share of the normal human failings.

How about Judge Copycat Jones, who used the power of the state to discredit ID.

Judge Jones ruled that the attempt to open the way for ID to be introduced into the science classroom was a violation of the First Amendment. Evidence like the notorious "cdesign proponentsists" made it abundantly clear that ID grew out of the creation science movement and was little more than a repackaging exercise intended to circumvent previous legal rulings. Seversky

StephenB:@74: ”There was no real change in the methodology itself—only in the rules about what kinds of evidence is admissible in the name of science.” -----Acipenser: “I really wasn’t interested in when you thought MN came into existence but I was interested in learning from you about the types of evidence that was (and is) no longer accepted as per your claim in #74 -----“It seems obvious from your claim that prior to the alleged rule changes (in the 1980’s)evidence that formerly was accepted is no longer acceptable and publishable. I was only wondering if you had any specific examples that would demonstrate this change in the types of evidence once embraced but no longer." Your question makes no sense. -----“The question seems quite logical, and sensical, given the claim that you made in #74” Well, I am feeling magnanimous today, so I will try to help you out here. Inasmuch as the rule of MN was conceived in the 1980’s, and, inasmuch as the idea of inadmissible evidence was conceived right along with it, it follows that there could be no such thing as inadmissible evidence prior to 1980, since there was no rule to make it inadmissible nor, indeed, was there even a conception of such a thing inadmissibility with respect to scientific evidence. Further, the major ID paradigms, which provide the only evidence that Darwinists now consider inadmissible, had not yet been presented. Thus, since there was no such thing as inadmissible evidence or any such thing as the science of intelligent design prior to 1980, I cannot provide examples of something that didn’t exist. Does that help? StephenB

#111 "To StephenB: There is no mind" Graham this explains alot. No wonder all your postings are mindless LOL. BTW why post any of your (oops there is no your) mindless (oops there is no mind) ideas (oops there are no ideas)when you (oops there is no you) cant help why you (oops again there is no you)think (oops there is no thinking) the things you (oops for the third time there is no you)think ( oops for the second time there is no thinking)? Furthermore why try to change anyones (oops there is no anyone)mind (ooops there are no minds) when they ( oops there are no they)cant help themselves (oops there are no selves)as to their (oops there is no their there either)thoughts ( oops there is no thoughts)? Vivid vividbleau

StephenB:"Your question makes no sense. The science of intelligent design did not exist prior to 1980, and therefore there was nothing like it to be published. As I have stated at least five times, methodological naturalism, as I have defined it, did not exist prior to the 1980’s, which is exactly the same time that intelligent design made its appearance." I really wasn't interested in when you thought MN came into existence but I was interested in learning from you about the types of evidence that was (and is) no longer accepted as per your claim in #74 StephenB:"There was no real change in the methodology itself—only in the rules about what kinds of evidence is admissible in the name of science." It seems obvious from your claim that prior to the alleged rule changes (in the 1980's)evidence that formerly was accepted is no longer acceptable and publishable. I was only wondering if you had any specific examples that would demonstrate this change in the types of evidence once embraced but no longer. The question seems quite logical, and sensical, given the claim that you made in #74. Acipenser

Graham -- What happens to our mind when we die ? How would meth-nat attempt to address that question? tribune7

StephenB--Methodological naturalism does not indicate that natural causes are to be preferred but rather that they are required. And that works just fine in many circumstances. Science, as we know, has always been “primarily” about natural causes," Which gets us into the question of definitions. If science is defined as a systematic study then it would not have always been primarily about natural causes. Metaphysics, which does not deal with natural causes,is the prefect example. -- Britannica.com calls it "The Science of First Principles and the Catholic Encyclopedia says it was understood to mean "the science of the world beyond nature" I would not be quick to concede science to meth-nat. And that gets us to things like is meth-nat the arbiter of truth -- which by Schafersman's definition it would not be. Which would get us to things like are the actions of Schafersman & Scott et al consistent in keeping to what they define, and they are not. Something to keep in mind is that to the neutral observer, the soft definition makes perfect sense and he might be wondering what the fuss is about when it is attacked. Something else to keep in mind is that the neutral observer would think the hard definition is remarkably silly i.e. since it would require the rejection of things like the Big Bang and The First Law of Thermodynamics. The final thing to keep in mind is that ID perfectly fulfills the soft definition and perfectly follows the tradition of things like the First Law of Thermodynamics. tribune7

StephenB:

You bet they require explanation, and you have none because you reject minds.

I don't reject "minds." I reject "immaterial minds."

How does the brain allow for self-control? You don’t have a clue. Do you believe that self control is possible? What faculty would allow that to happen? You don’t have a clue.

We have countless and steadily accumulating clues, arriving from several directions, regarding self control. We know, for example, that the human brain is organized hierarchically, with loops of regulation culminating in abstract frontal modeling and monitoring of self relative to one's physical and social environment and related goals. The prefrontal cortex is directly concerned with self-regulation and inhibition in light of these representations (and meta-representations of others' representations of us, and so on for several recursive levels). There are massive literatures addressing the underlying structures, the clinical implications of damage to those structures, and the development of these structures and capacities across childhood, and so on. Where have you been?

that has nothing to do with the fact the a mind is the only reasonable explanation for the phenomenon of self control, qualia, creativity, or a number of other factors. You are confusing a fact of existence with a process and assuming that since the process is not known, the attendant faculty does not exist.

An explanation with no content. "Immaterial mind" is an empty placeholder that has no content, explains nothing, and is incapable of being further investigated. Voice Coil

@129 Was posted prematurely. —-Acipenser: “Actually, no. but it would be easy to see if you would provide an example, or two, of the evidence that was previously allowed to be published (prior to the 1980’s rule change you mentioned) and that are no longer permitted to be published as a record of Science.” Your question makes no sense. The science of intelligent design did not exist prior to 1980, and therefore there was nothing like it to be published. As I have stated at least five times, methodological naturalism, as I have defined it, did not exist prior to the 1980's, which is exactly the same time that intelligent design made its appearance. StephenB

----Acipenser: "Actually, no. but it would be easy to see if you would provide an example, or two, of the evidence that was previously allowed to be published (prior to the 1980’s rule change you mentioned) and that are no longer permitted to be published as a record of Science." Your question is illogical. The science of intelligent design did not exis prior to 1980, and therefore there was ,o reason to disallow. StephenB

StephenB:"See how that works? Actually, no. but it would be easy to see if you would provide an example, or two, of the evidence that was previously allowed to be published (prior to the 1980's rule change you mentioned) and that are no longer permitted to be published as a record of Science. Acipenser

----tribune 7: "I think a lot of this thread is coming down to people talking past each other and using different definitions of words." I am the only one who has defined the term. Everyone else uses it, first in its "soft" version, to claim that it has always been around, then in its "hard" version, to claim that ID does not meet its standards. Incredibly, almost no one can see through this. Even ID qualifies under the soft version, as you suggest. However, the term means more than that. Methodological naturalism does not indicate that natural causes are to be preferred but rather that they are required. Science, as we know, has always been "primarily" about natural causes, but it has never been, as MN would have it, "exclusively" about natural causes. The difference is essential. Here is how Eugenie Scott defines MN: “Science is a way of knowing about the natural world. As practiced in the 20th and likely in the 21st centuries, science restricts itself to explaining the natural world using natural causes. This RESTRICTION of evolution to explanation through natural cause is referred to as “methodological materialism”, materialism in this context referring to matter, energy, and their interaction. Methodological materialism is one of the main differences between science and religion. Religion may use natural explanations for worldly phenomena, but reserves the right to explain through divine intervention; science has no such option. Whether or not miracles occur, they cannot be part of a scientific explanation.” Thus, methodological naturalism entails a RESTRICTION to natural causes and it is reputed here to be a necessary. non-negotiable condition for science. In other words, it is a RULE. Thus, your soft definition of preferring natural causes, which does not include the act of imposing it on everyone, is NOT methodological naturalism as the academy enforces it when it persecutes ID, but it IS the definition they use when they claim that it is historical, and, cannot, therefore, be persecution. See how that works? StephenB

To StephenB: You keep attributing stuff to me that was posted by Voice Coil. I dont mind, but it just looks odd. Lastly (Im at work now), could you answer my question: What happens to our mind when we die ? Graham

---Graham: "How do immaterial minds accomplish these things? You haven’t a clue." How does the brain allow for self-control? You don't have a clue. Do you believe that self control is possible? What faculty would allow that to happen? You don't have a clue. No one know the HOW these things are done, but that has nothing to do with the fact the a mind is the only reasonable explanation for the phenomenon of self control, qualia, creativity, or a number of other factors. You are confusing a fact of existence with a process and assuming that since the process is not known, the attendant faculty does not exist. StephenB

---Graham: "All you have really done is list functions that require explanation," You bet they require explanation, and you have none because you reject minds. --- "rejected the relevant brain science, and then attributed the remainder to an entirely empty placeholder." I don't reject brain science, I simply reject Darwinist tales of magic. ----"By contrast, considerable progress continues to be made in the cognitive neurosciences on at least some of these questions, with considerable promise of more to come." Oh sure. StephenB

I think a lot of this thread is coming down to people talking past each other and using different definitions of words. Naturalism holds that nature is all that is -- since Wiki is notably hostile to ID there should be no problem using it to make my point. The article describes, via noted anti-IDist Steven Schafersman, methodological naturalism as "the adoption or assumption of philosophical naturalism within scientific method with or without fully accepting or believing it" which would be something I'd have no problem with if people like Schafersman didn't try to apply it to a all science and even try to turn it into an de facto authority for determining all truth. So, if limited, meth-nat would have a use in things like geology or ecology as even Popper seems to concede at the link. Something ID opponents overlook is that they have to torture definitions when declaring ID to be not meth-nat. There is nothing supernatural about ID -- it simply attempts to describe nature using nature and doesn't go beyond nature. ID critics say that because ID doesn't define the cause of the design it is not science. Well, the Big Bang Theory doesn't define the cause of the Big Bang, would they say that's not science? Monsignor Lemaitre, of course, assumed it was God. The Law of Biogenesis -- which may be the guiding principle in public health and sanitation -- does not attempt to say what the initial source of life was. Pasteur, of course, assumed it was God. The First Law of Thermodynamics -- the practicality of which should be obvious -- does not attempt to say from where energy/matter initially came. Kelvin, of course, assumed it was God. One suspects that those interested in understanding the physical world might find it to be more of use, to rather assume there is no God, assume there is one and put their effort into answering how he arranged things. It is the glory of God to conceal a matter; to search out a matter is the glory of kings. Proverbs 25:2 tribune7

Joseph: It hasnt cured cancer either. So should we start praying instead ? Would that be more effective ? Graham1

To StephenB: What happens to the mind when we die ? Graham1

StephenB:

Wow, are you turned around. Brains are mere organs and must obey the physical laws of the universe of which they are a part. The issues that you mention argue in favor of a mind and against the concept of “brain only.”

To state, "The issues that you mention argue in favor of a mind" says exactly nothing, given that "immaterial mind" is a notion empty of content and empty of explanatory power. It is not enough to assert your belief that brain based explanations are insufficient: you must offer an alternative with at least a modicum of explanatory power, and "immaterial mind" offers exactly none. Zero explanation of learning and memory, zero explanation of the construction of representations and conceptual structures, zero explanation of subjectivity, qualia, intentionality and consciousness, zero explanation of freedom and creativity. Indeed, it offers zero explanation of "self-control," other than to posit the existence of an immaterial self that controls - a notion again otherwise utterly empty of content. How do immaterial minds accomplish these things? You haven't a clue. All you have really done is list functions that require explanation, rejected the relevant brain science, and then attributed the remainder to an entirely empty placeholder. By contrast, considerable progress continues to be made in the cognitive neurosciences on at least some of these questions, with considerable promise of more to come.

The word for that is “self control,” a word one NEVER hears from Darwinists. Perhaps that explains their proclivity to never say no to themselves or to resist any temptation of any kind. Whatever their body tells them to do, they do—because its “natural.” There is word for that—slavery.

Now you're just trying to endear yourself. Voice Coil

----Graham: "To StephenB: There is no mind." Speak for yourself. StephenB

---Graham: "Some knotty conceptual puzzles, such as intentionality, qualia and agency are equally knotty problems for advocates of “immaterial mind”: how are immaterial minds conscious, and do they exhibit intentionality, and how do they experience qualia?" ----"How do immaterial minds play sublime jazz, or account for Mozart? How are immaterial minds conscious? How are immaterial minds capable of “will” and “free will?” Wow, are you turned around. Brains are mere organs and must obey the physical laws of the universe of which they are a part. The issues that you mention argue in favor of a mind and against the concept of "brain only." Indeed, one the most important functions of the mind is to resist the negative and destructive impulses that come from the brain, the passions, the appetites and other functions of the body. The word for that is "self control," a word one NEVER hears from Darwinists. Perhaps that explains their proclivity to never say no to themselves or to resist any temptation of any kind. Whatever their body tells them to do, they do---because its "natural." There is word for that---slavery. StephenB

----Nakashami: "As they say of God and beetles, you must like strawmen, you make so many of them." Well, let's put it to the test and find out if it really is a strawman. Explain to me the cause of an ancient hunter's spear. StephenB

----Michael Tuite: "Geochemists do. Ecologists do too. I’m sure there are others." Methodological naturalism does not merely imply one science ruling out non-natural causes for itself. It implies ruling out non-natural causes for ALL sciences, regardless of their research question. Do geochemists and ecologists take that stand? I say they don't. StephenB

StephenB: "Who, other than Darwinists, “prefer” it [MN]?" Geochemists do. Ecologists do too. I'm sure there are others. Michael Michael Tuite

Seversky:

MN is the preferred method because it works and because there is nothing else remotely as effective.

It works? It hasn't worked in finding out a materialistic origin of life. It hasn't worked in finding out a materialistic origin to the laws that govern nature. And it hasn't worked in finding out whether or not the transformations required by the ToE are even possible. Joseph

Absent from this discussion, always, is any notion of how the notion of "immaterial mind" explains anything, other than by unstated assumptions. How do immaterial minds exert intelligence or engage in cognitive activities such as perception, learning and memory, representation, concept formation, and executive functions? How do immaterial minds play sublime jazz, or account for Mozart? How are immaterial minds conscious? How are immaterial minds capable of "will" and "free will?" The fact is that no one has the faintest notion regarding any of these questions. Nor are there any means, conceptual or empirical, for approaching questions such as these. Meanwhile neuroscience continues to make hard won progress in understanding the neurobiological bases of many of these cognitive functions, and promises to continue doing so. Some knotty conceptual puzzles, such as intentionality, qualia and agency are equally knotty problems for advocates of "immaterial mind": how are immaterial minds conscious, and do they exhibit intentionality, and how do they experience qualia? The fact is that the advocate of "immaterial mind" faces the same conceptual problems as any monist, entirely bereft of any way to investigate or even think further on these problems. indeed, I've never seen any advocate of immaterial mind even pose them. The only sense in which "immaterial mind" offers solutions to these questions is through implicit assumptions, in essence, "that's what immaterial mind means." I've never seen any attempt to cash out those assumptions. "Immaterial mind" therefore proves to be a useless concept when you attempt to make it do any work. I'll stay with the neuroscience, which is actually getting something done. Voice Coil

Experience is the most central and manifest aspect of our mental lives, and indeed is perhaps the key explanandum in the science of the mind. Because of this status as an explanandum, experience cannot be discarded like the vital spirit when a new theory comes along. Rather, it is the central fact that any theory of consciousness must explain. A theory that denies the phenomenon “solves” the problem by ducking the question.

Everyone working in cognitive research can go home. Graham figured it out. Upright BiPed

poof It doesn't exist. Upright BiPed

To StephenB: There is no mind. The sharpening of spears is an act performed by the brain. Thats what brains do, its why we have the great big thing on our shoulders. I presume you have one too. If its not to direct the rest of the body (as years of neurology confirm) then what on earth is it for?. See ? No gods, no spirits or phantoms, nothing supernatural. None needed. Graham1

Mr StephenB, Fallout from the natural/supernatural dichotomy: If, as the anti-Darwinist claims that minds don’t exist for the sake of argument, or that they are merely “grounded” in matter for the sake of argument, it follows that when an ancient hunter uses his material brain to construct a spear, the event resulted from a natural cause. If, on the other hand, the anti-Darwinist argues that immaterial minds do exist, it follows that when an ancient hunter uses his immaterial mind to design a spear, the event resulted from a supernatural cause. This is anti-Darwinist logic on parade. As they say of God and beetles, you must like strawmen, you make so many of them. Nakashima

Fallout from the natural/supernatural dichotomy: If, as the Darwinist claims that minds don't exist, or that they are merely "grounded" in matter, it follows that when an ancient hunter uses his material brain to construct a spear, the event resulted from a natural cause. If, on the other hand, the Darwinist grants, for the sake of argument, that immaterial minds could exist in principle, it follows that when an ancient hunter uses his immaterial mind to design a spear, the event resulted from a supernatural cause. This is Darwinist logic on parade. StephenB

----seversky: "MN is the preferred method because it works and because there is nothing else remotely as effective." Who, other than Darwinists, "prefer" it? StephenB

---Graham1: "Unfortunately, ID (apparantly) has a far more tortured division, see StephenB at #43." By your standard, an ancient hunter constructing a spear is a supernatural event. That is about a tortured as logic can get. StephenB

----seversky: "Leibniz was entitled to his opinion, of course, but that does not mean that there is anything supernatural about field phenomena." Dr. Hunter's point was not that anything supernaturual was in play but that Newton did not limit himself to natural explanations, a point that cannot reasonably be contested since the point was confirmed by his critics. So, rather than address that point, you have simply changed the subject. StephenB

----seversky: "They also found, as a practical matter, that they were able to use only naturalistic resources to explain the phenomena they were investigating. They had no need of anything else." That point has already been refuted by Cornelius Hunter @83. Even if they had limited themselves solely to natural causes, which they didn't, that is no argument for saying that everyone else should follow them. There was no methodological rule. Not all questions are alike; not all ways of getting answers are alike. One could not, for example, investigate the possibility of a medical miracle using methodological naturalism. ----"They are still working on information. The problem seems to be reaching some agreement on what it actually is. There are a whole lot of definitions out there." So what? Scientists should not be hamstrung because their definitions do not please their adversaries. What kind of an argument is that. ---"As for what can be done in the name of science, scientists are bound by the same laws and the same ethical codes as anyone else. They cannot do just anything." Explain that to the Darwinists, whose ethical challenges are legendary--- complete with hoaxes, fabricated evidence, and academic tyranny. ---"The National Academy of Sciences here in the US can issue guidance and recommendations and position statements but it has no power to enforce them on American let alone foreign scientists." They can provide the ammunition for others. Let me start the list and I will add to it as you like. How about Judge Copycat Jones, who used the power of the state to discredit ID. How about the Kansas educational system, who has installed methodological naturalism as the governments official anti-ID propaganda machine. How about the University system that "expels" anyone who dares go against it's preferred ideology. StephenB

To Vivid: Its all about definitions, isnt it ?. If you choose to define 'natural' as per #43, then fine. Im merely suggesting that the English language already has this binary (natural/supernatural) concept built in, and I think its a better starting point. Now, based on my (preferred) definition, the entire discipline of Science is 'natural'. Are you suggesting that Science in its entirety is irrational ? BTW, im in a state of moderation, so my replys will be sporadic. Graham

#102 Stephen also wrote this in #43 "For the Darwinist/Atheist/Materialist, on the other hand, everything is grounded in matter and energy, including the brain, and therefore everything is simply a natural cause. Did you write a paragraph? That resulted from a natural cause. Did a valcano erupt? That, too, resulted from a natural cause. Did an ancient hunter construct a spear? Like everything else, it resulted from a natural cause. Everything that happens is the result of a natural cause and there are no other kinds of causes. Obviously, no one can have a rational discussion with those kinds of definitions, and, of course, that is the reason they are used—to avoid all rational discussions." Describes you rather well. Vivid vividbleau

Seversky: I agree exactly with your binary division between natural/supernatural. The former is Science, the latter religion/faith/whatever. Unfortunately, ID (apparantly) has a far more tortured division, see StephenB at #43. Graham

Cornelius Hunter @ 83

False, Newton violated MN. He invoked action at a distance for his theory of gravity. Leibniz complained and called it an occult force.

Leibniz was entitled to his opinion, of course, but that does not mean that there is anything supernatural about field phenomena. I can still remember using iron filings to reveal the lines of force around a bar magnet in a school physics class. It was spooky but there was no suggestion that it was supernatural, just mysterious. My own view is that anything which has an effect in the Universe which we can observe, however indirectly, is part of the natural order of things. The supernatural is, therefore, by definition, beyond the reach of science. Seversky

StephenB @ 73

Also, you cannot have it both ways. On the one hand, you declare that methodological naturalism is the required method for science. On the other hand, you question the idea that [any] scientific authority has ever said so

MN is the preferred method because it works and because there is nothing else remotely as effective. I am not questioning the idea that some scientific bodies or eminent scientists have asserted something along the lines you have suggested. What I am saying, however is that none of them have the authority or the power to impose that view on others. Seversky

StephenB @ 69

For these men, science was “primarily” about natural causes because, among other things, they were confronting the problem of superstition, which tends to attribute all actions to miraculous events. On the other hand, they never indicated, nor would they have presumed to suggest, that science is “exclusively” about natural causes.

They also found, as a practical matter, that they were able to use only naturalistic resources to explain the phenomena they were investigating. They had no need of anything else.

More recently, scientists have been trying to solve the problem of information, which means they cannot limit themselves to natural causes. It is no one’s place to tell them that they cannot do that in the name of science.

They are still working on information. The problem seems to be reaching some agreement on what it actually is. There are a whole lot of definitions out there. As for what can be done in the name of science, scientists are bound by the same laws and the same ethical codes as anyone else. They cannot do just anything. On the other hand, no one is in a position to tell them what they can or cannot investigate or that some explanatory resources are out-of-bounds for ideological reasons. The National Academy of Sciences here in the US can issue guidance and recommendations and position statements but it has no power to enforce them on American let alone foreign scientists. In the UK, the Royal Society performs a similar role but it has no authority whatsoever over American researchers. The same is true of other national science bodies. The fact is there is no supreme global scientific authority with the power to do what you are suggesting was done. And any scientific body which tried it without the consent of scientists would quickly find itself ignored. Seversky

Mike, As has been stated, it is the scientist himself who is to decide the appropriate method for those questions he is attempting to answer. It is not for someone else to say "nay" because it might lead to inferences that offend their metaphysical worldview. Their metaphysical worldview cannot trump the evidence. In Lenski's case, I believe there is already a fairly well-established process. In fact, I am still waiting for his results, as I believe they will confirm Behe. I am still awaiting for the result from the Adriatic lizards study for the same reason. Upright BiPed

----Acipenser: "I was hoping that you would have been able to elaborate on what kinds/types of evidence were formerly (pre-1980) accepted by science but are now rejected based on the new rules that were put in place sometime in the 1980’s." According to methodological naturalism, all evidence for biological design is to be disregarded. ----"I think the evidentiary requirements of science have been consistent and I have not been able to locate any examples of specific types of evidence that was once accepted and embraced but is now (since the 1980’s)frowned upon and rejected. Could you provide an example or two for clarification?"\ Here is a good example from Eugenie Scott: "Science is a way of knowing about the natural world. As practiced in the 20th and likely in the 21st centuries, science restricts itself to explaining the natural world using natural causes. This restriction of evolution to explanation through natural cause is referred to as "methodological materialism", materialism in this context referring to matter, energy, and their interaction. Methodological materialism is one of the main differences between science and religion. Religion may use natural explanations for worldly phenomena, but reserves the right to explain through divine intervention; science has no such option. Whether or not miracles occur, they cannot be part of a scientific explanation." Thus, from the perspective of methodological naturalism, any explanation that suggests a non-natural cause or any evidence that would lead to such an explanation is inadmissible as scientific input. By that standard, the scientist may not posit design as an explanation, so any evidence that points to design, is, by that same standard, useless. StephenB

----mikev6: "I don’t recall saying they were. That was your argument – that science before 1980 (and ID) are non-MN." I don't know how I could make it more clear. There were no rules about scientific methodology before the 1980's. It was understood that since the scientist is the only one who knows which question he is trying to answer, he/she is the only one who can devise a methodology appropriate for the question. That should be obvious. Nothing has changed about that standard except in the mind of Darwinists, who, fearful that their own paradigm is in jeopardy, would prefer that ID not use its own methods. StephenB

StephenB:"The new rule, established by the Darwinist community of bureaucrats [around 1980], holds that the scientist must study nature “as if nature is all there is.” If the scientist fails to conform to that rule, then, we are told, he/she is not really doing science at all. The rule is arbitrary, illogical, and oppressive; it has no other purpose except to discredit the science of intelligent design " Your initial statement (#74) on the issue stated that prior to 1980 some types of evidence were once accepted and that has been changed. I was hoping that you would have been able to elaborate on what kinds/types of evidence were formerly (pre-1980) accepted by science but are now rejected based on the new rules that were put in place sometime in the 1980's. I think the evidentiary requirements of science have been consistent and I have not been able to locate any examples of specific types of evidence that was once accepted and embraced but is now (since the 1980's)frowned upon and rejected. Could you provide an example or two for clarification? Acipenser

Mikev6--So you agree that life on our planet could arise by chance and mechanisms like natural selection? All ID does is show that the meth-nat evidence strongly suggests that such a thing did not occur :-) tribune7

Upright BiPed:

If we were to soveriegnly act in the best interest of a “search for truth in reality”, then the “we don’t know” should be placed after the evidence for design, not before it.

I don't necessarily disagree with this. My comments were around trying to see how a science that included non-MN components should operate under the assumption that such components exist. Let's take a more concrete example: The scientific community wakes up tomorrow and embraces ID. We now all accept that a designer was involved in biodiversity. Lenski looks at his E. Coli. dish and notices that they've developed another new ability hitherto unknown. His first question is "Cool - how did that happen?". He has the following options to investigate: a) a purely naturalistic evolutionary process b) a naturalistic part of a mixed environment that includes both specifically designed and naturalistic elements c) intervention by the designer d) intervention by the designer that exactly mimics a purely evolutionary process e) some other effect. How would you guide Lenski on his next steps? mikev6

Joseph:

So you agree that life on our planet could arise by chance and mechanisms like natural selection? Natural selection starts once life begins

Good point - let me amend that to "life in its present form". mikev6

Upright BiPed:

“If ID has no evidence as to who the agent is, how do you know it isn’t the same agent that Newton et. al. didn’t invoke in their findings?” I find this question meaningless.

Perhaps so, but it was your statement that ID didn't know the identity of the designer while also saying that the ID designer is not the God of Newton and Boyle. I was wondering how you made this determination when you feel you have no evidence. mikev6

mikev6:

So you agree that life on our planet could arise by chance and mechanisms like natural selection?

Natural selection starts once life begins. Joseph

StephenB:

Whatever gave you the idea that ID science is synonymous with Newton and Boyle?

I don't recall saying they were. That was your argument - that science before 1980 (and ID) are non-MN. mikev6

tribune7:

You can say it’s a rational inference that if ID is true “life as we know it would not exist in its present form without the direct involvement of an “other cause”" but ID never declares it as such.

So you agree that life on our planet could arise by chance and mechanisms like natural selection? Most of the arguments for ID are based on the observation that something (DNA, information, biological functions) could not have arisen by chance and are hence the products of design. mikev6

Methodological naturalism runs into issues in that natural processes only exist in nature and therefor cannot account for its origins. Also what ID is arguing against is the premise that everything can be reduced to matter, energy, chance and necessity. As for Newton, Kepler, et al., they saw science as a way to understand "God's" handy-work. Linneaus was searching for the originally created Kinds when he developed binomial nomenclature. Joseph

Acipenser: "Interesting. What rules were changed and what kinds of evidence are now permitted, or not permitted, by these ‘new’ rules?" The new rule, established by the Darwinist community of bureaucrats [around 1980], holds that the scientist must study nature "as if nature is all there is." If the scientist fails to conform to that rule, then, we are told, he/she is not really doing science at all. The rule is arbitrary, illogical, and oppressive; it has no other purpose except to discredit the science of intelligent design StephenB

---mikev6: "I think you may be confusing different types of naturalism. The work of Newton, Boyle and Einstein is valid whether or not you believe in the existence of other causes – they did not actually invoke those “other causes” to make their theories operate." I am not confusing anything, on the other hand, you appear to be confusing a rule with a process. It isn't necessary to "invoke other processes" to violate the arbitrarily established rule of methodological naturalism. ---"ID, on the other hand, says that life as we know it would not exist in its present form without the direct involvement of an “other cause” – it’s an integral part of the theory." Whatever gave you the idea that ID science is synonymous with Newton and Boyle? StephenB

Mikev6--OK, although I would class this as a logic exercise rather than scientific research. Remember, any systematic study is science. Science doesn't have to involve itself in the study of the material. Meth-nat limits itself to the material but meth-nat is only part of science. ID, on the other hand, says that life as we know it would not exist in its present form without the direct involvement of an “other cause” – it’s an integral part of the theory. No. ID says: 1. Design exists 2. It has discrete qualities 3. These qualities are objectifiable 4. Life has these qualities 5. Life is designed. You can say it's a rational inference that if ID is true "life as we know it would not exist in its present form without the direct involvement of an “other cause"" but ID never declares it as such. Now, let's turn it around: Darwinism says that all biodiversity can be explained via random genomic changes being fixed by natural selection. Advocates of the theory, however, cannot demonstrate any pathways to account for such a claim. How is that science? tribune7

Seversky 66:

But if you look at the work of, say, Galileo or Copernicus or Kepler or Newton or Boyle or Darwin or Maxwell you will not find any invocations of supernatural causes. They may have held religious beliefs but they practiced strictly naturalistic science.

False, Newton violated MN. He invoked action at a distance for his theory of gravity. Leibniz complained and called it an occult force. Cornelius Hunter

Mike, "If ID has no evidence as to who the agent is, how do you know it isn’t the same agent that Newton et. al. didn’t invoke in their findings?" I find this question meaningless. Upright BiPed

mike, I understand. On the other hand, while we carry on a manufactured and illegitimate fight over the rules that are to apply to science, what is left is the observable evidence of design - some of which is simply intractible in non-agency terms. The question quickly arises as to the motivations of those who wish for the evidence to be bent into a fitting within a rule. To answer that question, one only need observe the comments from those who wish it. Their comments betray their motivations, and those motivations are clearly not to address the evidence, nor to save science (ie. an unfettered search for the truth of reality). In practice, what we end up with is dogma surrounding an entirely non-falsifiable assumption of materialism, isolated by ideology from a mountain of evidence to the contrary. This, of course, is not science. You say that you are comfortable with "we don't know". This is a good thing of course, but in practice it never seems to come up. I find that most materialists who are comfortable with "we don't know" are only comfortable with it when it's placed after their assumption that they do, in fact, know. Which is exactly what the aforementioned rule is meant to accomplish. In other words, to say "we don't know" under such a rule is completely and demonstrably meaningless. If we were to soveriegnly act in the best interest of a "search for truth in reality", then the "we don't know" should be placed after the evidence for design, not before it. Upright BiPed

Upright BiPed:

ID does not invoke in its findings the same cause that Boyle and Newton didn’t invoke in theirs. ID does invoke agency as a force operating in the natural world. The reason for this is rather simple, and completely appropriate to science: While there is ample evidence of agency, there is no evidence as to who or what that agent was.

If ID has no evidence as to who the agent is, how do you know it isn't the same agent that Newton et. al. didn't invoke in their findings? mikev6

Upright BiPed:

Natural Law does not explain the existence of the singularity (even though we may unpack the events that followed). Yet, we have no problem with accepting the theory.

Sure - but I'm quite comfortable with "we don't know". The complaint about methodological naturalism is that it could hide a solution that lies outside naturalism. I see two challenges to going beyond MN in a science: 1) distinguishing between that which we don't know (yet) and a non-naturalistic explanation, and 2) determining which option (MN or not) applies to a specific phenomenon. Either of these could cause a non-MN explanation to hide a valid MN-based solution. An effective non-MN science that promotes on-going investigation where one researcher builds on the work of previous efforts would have to (in my mind) solve these issues, and I'm assuming Cornelius and team have workable solutions to these problems. Hence my interest in actual examples of on-going scientific research incorporating non-MN concepts. mikev6

mike, ID does not invoke in its findings the same cause that Boyle and Newton didn't invoke in theirs. ID does invoke agency as a force operating in the natural world. The reason for this is rather simple, and completely appropriate to science: While there is ample evidence of agency, there is no evidence as to who or what that agent was. Upright BiPed

StephenB:

In other words, the entire history of science from Newton to Boyle to Einstein would violate the principle of methodological naturalism, because none of these men declared that no other kinds of causes exist.

I think you may be confusing different types of naturalism. The work of Newton, Boyle and Einstein is valid whether or not you believe in the existence of other causes - they did not actually invoke those "other causes" to make their theories operate. ID, on the other hand, says that life as we know it would not exist in its present form without the direct involvement of an "other cause" - it's an integral part of the theory. mikev6

tribune7:

And since you want something specific, here’s Godel’s effort.

OK, although I would class this as a logic exercise rather than scientific research. Others on this blog can say if this is what they mean by science including non-materialistic concepts. mikev6

StephenB:"There was no real change in the methodology itself—only in the rules about what kinds of evidence is admissible in the name of science." Interesting. What rules were changed and what kinds of evidence are now permitted, or not permitted, by these 'new' rules? I wasn't aware of this change in rules is why I am asking about them. Acipenser

---mike v6: "I don’t recall any grand change in scientific methodology around 1980 – perhaps you could provide some specifics?" There was no real change in the methodology itself---only in the rules about what kinds of evidence is admissible in the name of science. StephenB

@70 to seversky should read: " Also, you cannot have it both ways. On the one hand, you declare that methodological naturalism is the required method for science. On the other hand, you question the idea that [any] scientific authority has ever said so StephenB

@71 should read, "We don’t really need those examples, however, because any scientist who searches for natural causes without insisting that are no other kinds of causes, would violate the principle of methodological naturalism." StephenB

----mikev6: "Sure. I’m not differing on definitions – I’d like a specific example of science research using a non-naturalistic component or argument." The first and most noticeable example would be the science of intelligent design. Another example, very far removed from the first, would be the Catholic Church's practice of using medical science to confirm reports of miraculous healings attributed to saints during the canonization process. We don't really need those examples, however, because any who searches for natural causes without insisting that are not other kinds of causes, would violate the principle of methodological naturalism. In other words, the entire history of science from Newton to Boyle to Einstein would violate the principle of methodological naturalism, because none of these men declared that no other kinds of causes exist. To simply search for natural causes is not to practice methodological naturalism because methodological naturalism goes beyond that threshold by intruding itself as a rule that forbids any other approach. StephenB

----seversky: "You have failed to produce any decree from a supreme scientific authority by which all scientists are commanded to exclude any consideration of supernatural causation on pain of being excommunicated from the body scientific in the 1980s or any other decade." How can I fail to produce that which I had not yet been asked to produce. You can begin with Eugenie Scott and work your way forward to the Kansas Educational system. Also, you cannot have it both ways. On the one hand, you declare that methodological naturalism is the required method for science. On the other hand, you question the idea that no scientific authority has ever said so. StephenB

----serversky: "But if you look at the work of, say, Galileo or Copernicus or Kepler or Newton or Boyle or Darwin or Maxwell you will not find any invocations of supernatural causes. They may have held religious beliefs but they practiced strictly naturalistic science." For these men, science was "primarily" about natural causes because, among other things, they were confronting the problem of superstition, which tends to attribute all actions to miraculous events. On the other hand, they never indicated, nor would they have presumed to suggest, that science is "exclusively" about natural causes. That is because only the scientist knows which problems he is trying to solve, so only the scientist can decide on which methods he/she should use. More recently, scientists have been trying to solve the problem of information, which means they cannot limit themselves to natural causes. It is no one's place to tell them that they cannot do that in the name of science. StephenB

Oops. Wow. My post at 48 was a mistake. Everything prior to "The first strategy..." was entirely unintended. My apologies. Mike, Natural Law does not explain the existence of the singularity (even though we may unpack the events that followed). Yet, we have no problem with accepting the theory. Upright BiPed

mikv6 -- I’d like a specific example of science research using a non-naturalistic component or argument. Since we are not arguing definitions and metaphysics is defined as science any ontological argument would fit the bill. And since you want something specific, here's Godel's effort. tribune7

StephenB @ 61

How about the example of every scientific enterprise from the beginning of time until 1980, when methodological naturalism was arbitrarily established solely as a means of discrediting intelligent design.

Authorship of the term "methodological naturalism" (MN) is attributed to Paul De Vries who, at the time, was teaching at Wheaton College, a conservative Christian institution. Is that in question? You have failed to produce any decree from a supreme scientific authority by which all scientists are commanded to exclude any consideration of supernatural causation on pain of being excommunicated from the body scientific in the 1980s or any other decade. We have found historians and philosophers of science who have testified that MN was practiced by natural philosophers and scientists, albeit not under that name, going back at least to the medieval period. You have cited some of the great scientists of the past who proclaimed - or, at least, paid lip service to - strong religious beliefs. This is not in dispute though, and, in fact, it would probably be true to say that most people in past centuries who practiced what we now called science held religious beliefs of one sort or another. But if you look at the work of, say, Galileo or Copernicus or Kepler or Newton or Boyle or Darwin or Maxwell you will not find any invocations of supernatural causes. They may have held religious beliefs but they practiced strictly naturalistic science. Accusing the scientific establishment of having created MN as a means of discrediting Intelligent Design sounds too much like sour grapes. If ID has failed to win acceptance in academia it is because, by and large, it has failed to practice the science that it preaches. Most of it consists of pointing out the more speculative parts of evolutionary theory, where evidence is sparse or non-existent, and neo-Paleyist "I can't believe it's not butter" arguments from design and incredulity. But even if all the above claims were conceded, there is still nothing currently being proposed that comes close to being able to supplant the theory of evolution. All that is on offer are expressions of disbelief in the explanatory power of evolution, hotly-disputed probability estimates and information metrics, an unproven protocol for testing for the presence of design and an invincible refusal, probably for good legal reasons, to speculate on, let alone investigate, the nature of any non-human designer. As Paul Nelson wrote in Touchstone magazine in 2004:

Easily the biggest challenge facing the ID community is to develop a full-fledged theory of biological design. We don’t have such a theory right now, and that’s a problem. Without a theory, it’s very hard to know where to direct your research focus. Right now, we’ve got a bag of powerful intuitions, and a handful of notions such as ‘irreducible complexity’ and ‘specified complexity’-but, as yet, no general theory of biological design.

Seversky

tribune7/StephenB: Sure. I'm not differing on definitions - I'd like a specific example of science research using a non-naturalistic component or argument. I'd like to understand how one should operate in this broader science. I don't recall any grand change in scientific methodology around 1980 - perhaps you could provide some specifics? mikev6

----mike ev6: "This discussion would be more effective if we had some specific examples of a form of science effectively going beyond methodological naturalism." How about the example of every scientific enterprise from the beginning of time until 1980, when methodological naturalism was arbitrarily established solely as a means of discrediting intelligent design. "The biggest hurdle I see in accepting an extension to MN in science is determining how one can form a continuing line of investigation based on things we can’t measure or evaluate." It isn't a case of "extending" from methodological naturalism to science but rather a reverse case contracting and constricting science into the arbitrary rule methodological naturalism StephenB

mikev6--The biggest hurdle I see in accepting an extension to MN in science Science should not be synonymous with MN. The first definitions for the word mean the "state of knowing" or "a department of systematized knowledge as an object of study" and Merriam-Webster Online even uses "the science of theology" as a example. The Encyclopedia Britannica refers to metaphysics as "The Science of First Principles." What you are doing is basically asking for an extension of MN in MN -- not science -- which is pointless. MN is fine as it is. It just can't answer everything. tribune7

This discussion would be more effective if we had some specific examples of a form of science effectively going beyond methodological naturalism. The biggest hurdle I see in accepting an extension to MN in science is determining how one can form a continuing line of investigation based on things we can't measure or evaluate. Surely Cornelius or others have developed a method to allow science to proceed effectively under an extended paradigm? Do we have results from this new science? It would certainly help me accept this new definition more readily. mikev6

----Graham1f: "To StephenB: I use the term ’supernatural’ in its dictionary meaning, ie: non-natural, I dont intend any religious connection at all." I have already explained why that definition will not do. According to your definition of supernatural, which characterizes gods, souls, and immaterial minds as supernatural, one of the following must be true: [a] If I have a soul, one faculty of which is an immaterial mind, then the paragraph that I just wrote had a "supernatural cause," placing it in the same category as a miracle from heaven. [b] If I have no soul or mind, meaning if I have only a brain, then the paragraph I just wrote had a "natural" cause, which puts it in the same category as a valcano eruption. The only way out of this insanity for purposes of discussing science is to abandon terms like "natural" and "supernatural," and use the terms, "natural cause" [law/ chance] and "non-natural cause" [human agency or any other kind of agency]. Thus, the paragraph I just wrote is, by definition [not by argument (please learn the difference)] a non-natural cause, and a valcano eruption is a natural cause. Thus, for the materialist Darwinist, all causes are, by definition, natural causes and for ID, not all causes are natural causes, meaning that some are, by definition non-natural. That is a very simple, very tidy, and very truthful way of expressing what both sides believe, and the language used facilitates a rational discussion. StephenB

----Cabal: "What other methods for arriving at ‘truth’ about the manifest world do we have? I don’t know of any." Since the scientist is the only one who knows which question he/she is trying to answer, only the scientist can choose the proper method for answering it. What is so hard about that? StephenB

There might be an invisible pink unicorn in the room with each and every one of us right now, except that not only is it invisible but it cannot be touched, heard, tasted or smelled. It neither emits nor absorbs radiation of any kind and does not interact with matter at any level. It is completely inaccessible to us. Graham, why would anyone believe in an invisible pink unicorn? Why do most people believe in God? God is accessible to us through reason, through emotion, just not via meth-nat. If you depend on meth-nat to find God you will never find Him. That doesn't mean He doesn't exist. tribune7

Graham @ 30 - “In science, if a phenomenon has observable effects – in other words, it is part of the observable Universe – then it can be studied using the scientific method. If it has no observable effects then we have no reason to think it exists at all, so there is nothing to study.” That rules out dark matter and dark energy as well as some subatomic particles that scientists aren’t sure exist but think they might (the Higgs-Boson, for example). So those physicists aren’t doing real science according to you. “We can imagine or suppose anything. There might be an invisible pink unicorn in the room with each and every one of us right now, except that not only is it invisible but it cannot be touched, heard, tasted or smelled. It neither emits nor absorbs radiation of any kind and does not interact with matter at any level. It is completely inaccessible to us. Even if it can be said to exist in any sense, it is simply irrelevant since it might as well not exist for all the effect it has.” On a personal note, I have had it with atheists/agnostics/whomever using the invisible pink unicorn argument. It is beyond stupid and proves nothing. “People here are fond of the aphorism about following the evidence wherever it might lead. But what if there is no evidence? Surely the sensible course then is to put the matter aside until there is some evidence, some reason to think the soul exists, for example. Until then, our time and other resources are better spent elsewhere.” For a long time there was no evidence that other planets rotated around the sun or that the Earth wasn’t the center of the universe, yet early astronomers such as Copernicus and Galileo believed it did. Eventually, evidence was found. Your methodology would have stopped both of those esteemed scientists cold. So much for the Renaissance! Barb

Cabel, and recognizing that such a thing as "truth" exists is a philosophical axiom without which meth-nat would not work. tribune7

Cabal-- What other methods for arriving at ‘truth’ about the manifest world do we have? Logic flowing from axioms and even instinct would be superior in many circumstances to meth-nat at arriving at truth. For instance: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights is certainly not meth-nat but is far superior to anything cooked up via meth-nat for relating the governed with the governors. And when a hiring an employee or saying a particular thing to your girlfriend at particular time, you would hopefully trust your gut than try meth-nat. Obviously, instinct and logic following axioms are much inferior to meth nat in things like engineering. BTW, you would not use meth-nat for the "manifest" world since the word means "readily perceived by the senses" and "easily understood by the mind". :-) Meth-nat shines in understanding the not-so-apparent things about the physical world. tribune7

Tribune7,

The problem isn’t methodological naturalism but the claim that it is the arbiter of truth.

What other methods for arriving at 'truth' about the manifest world do we have? I don't know of any. I don't for example find philosophy, be it full-blown or just an amateur variety usable in that context. Cabal

----Graham: "As for the rest of the grading, referring to Human actions as ‘non natural’, seems weird, but then you are assuming (if I understand it) that our will to act comes from a non-material ‘mind’. It isn't weird if the word "natural" means law and chance and nothing else. ---"Im afraid this is where it all gets a bit theological for me. It suggests that you have already decided that the ‘mind’ exists, and thats another thing I am frequently chastised for: sweeping initial assumptions. Could you cite some evidence for this ‘mind’ ?" For the third time, I am not, at this juncture, arguing for the existence of a human mind. I am distinguishing the IDEA of a human mind or soul, both of which are immaterial by definition, from the IDEA of God, which is also immaterial by definition. You are placing both IDEAS in the same category by calling each "supernatural." StephenB

I think we are about to get into duelling experts. Ill go will Bertrand Russel (who denied the existence of a mind). I could cut/paste great slabs of stuff but I think that is enough. Graham1

----Graham: "StephenB: You start with the assumption that we have a ‘non material mind’ (whatever that is)." Good grief. Can you not read? I stated no assumptions. I defined a series of terms that may help Darwinists like yourself, who place human souls, immaterial minds, and gods in the same supernatural category, to think more clearly. Has it not yet occurred to you that, by your terms, the act of an ancient hunter who uses his immaterial mind to design a spear qualifies as a "supernatural" cause? ----"If that is your starting point, then all the rest follows." It isn't my starting point. I am simply responding to your comment. ----"So, I think your gods, your intelligent designer, your soul (that transcends the natural world!), etc all fall exactly into this definition." Yes, I know, I know. For you, God and my soul are both supernatural entities. That makes absolutely no sense. Thus, I am trying to help you out of your intellectual confusion by introducing categories that will allow you to make reasonable distinctions. ----"But havent I been chewed out for making similar starting assumptions that colour everything that follows ? Do you have some evidence for the existence of this ‘non material mind’ ?" I am not arguing for the existence of a non-material mind. I am placing the idea of a non-material mind in a specific category so you can distinguish between it and God. StephenB

Graham, "It suggests that you have already decided that the ‘mind’ exists, and thats another thing I am frequently chastised for: sweeping initial assumptions" Do you think the mind does not exists? David Chalmers:

The first is the "neurobiological theory of consciousness" outlined by Crick and Koch (1990; see also Crick 1994). This theory centers on certain 35-75 hertz neural oscillations in the cerebral cortex; Crick and Koch hypothesize that these oscillations are the basis of consciousness. This is partly because the oscillations seem to be correlated with awareness in a number of different modalities - within the visual and olfactory systems, for example - and also because they suggest a mechanism by which the binding of information contents might be achieved. Binding is the process whereby separately represented pieces of information about a single entity are brought together to be used by later processing, as when information about the color and shape of a perceived object is integrated from separate visual pathways. Following others (e.g., Eckhorn et al 1988), Crick and Koch hypothesize that binding may be achieved by the synchronized oscillations of neuronal groups representing the relevant contents. When two pieces of information are to be bound together, the relevant neural groups will oscillate with the same frequency and phase. The details of how this binding might be achieved are still poorly understood, but suppose that they can be worked out. What might the resulting theory explain? Clearly it might explain the binding of information contents, and perhaps it might yield a more general account of the integration of information in the brain. Crick and Koch also suggest that these oscillations activate the mechanisms of working memory, so that there may be an account of this and perhaps other forms of memory in the distance. The theory might eventually lead to a general account of how perceived information is bound and stored in memory, for use by later processing. Such a theory would be valuable, but it would tell us nothing about why the relevant contents are experienced. Crick and Koch suggest that these oscillations are the neural correlates of experience. This claim is arguable - does not binding also take place in the processing of unconscious information? - but even if it is accepted, the explanatory question remains: Why do the oscillations give rise to experience? The only basis for an explanatory connection is the role they play in binding and storage, but the question of why binding and storage should themselves be accompanied by experience is never addressed. If we do not know why binding and storage should give rise to experience, telling a story about the oscillations cannot help us. Conversely, if we knew why binding and storage gave rise to experience, the neurophysiological details would be just the icing on the cake. Crick and Koch's theory gains its purchase by assuming a connection between binding and experience, and so can do nothing to explain that link. I do not think that Crick and Koch are ultimately claiming to address the hard problem, although some have interpreted them otherwise. A published interview with Koch gives a clear statement of the limitations on the theory's ambitions.

Well, let's first forget about the really difficult aspects, like subjective feelings, for they may not have a scientific solution. The subjective state of play, of pain, of pleasure, of seeing blue, of smelling a rose - there seems to be a huge jump between the materialistic level, of explaining molecules and neurons, and the subjective level. Let's focus on things that are easier to study - like visual awareness. You're now talking to me, but you're not looking at me, you're looking at the cappuccino, and so you are aware of it. You can say, `It's a cup and there's some liquid in it.' If I give it to you, you'll move your arm and you'll take it - you'll respond in a meaningful manner. That's what I call awareness." ("What is Consciousness", Discover, November 1992, p. 96.)

The second example is an approach at the level of cognitive psychology. This is Baars' global workspace theory of consciousness, presented in his book A Cognitive Theory of Consciousness. According to this theory, the contents of consciousness are contained in a global workspace, a central processor used to mediate communication between a host of specialized nonconscious processors. When these specialized processors need to broadcast information to the rest of the system, they do so by sending this information to the workspace, which acts as a kind of communal blackboard for the rest of the system, accessible to all the other processors. Baars uses this model to address many aspects of human cognition, and to explain a number of contrasts between conscious and unconscious cognitive functioning. Ultimately, however, it is a theory of cognitive accessibility, explaining how it is that certain information contents are widely accessible within a system, as well as a theory of informational integration and reportability. The theory shows promise as a theory of awareness, the functional correlate of conscious experience, but an explanation of experience itself is not on offer. One might suppose that according to this theory, the contents of experience are precisely the contents of the workspace. But even if this is so, nothing internal to the theory explains why the information within the global workspace is experienced. The best the theory can do is to say that the information is experienced because it is globally accessible. But now the question arises in a different form: why should global accessibility give rise to conscious experience? As always, this bridging question is unanswered. Almost all work taking a cognitive or neuroscientific approach to consciousness in recent years could be subjected to a similar critique. The "Neural Darwinism" model of Edelman (1989), for instance, addresses questions about perceptual awareness and the self-concept, but says nothing about why there should also be experience. The "multiple drafts" model of Dennett (1991) is largely directed at explaining the reportability of certain mental contents. The "intermediate level" theory of Jackendoff (1988) provides an account of some computational processes that underlie consciousness, but Jackendoff stresses that the question of how these "project" into conscious experience remains mysterious. Researchers using these methods are often inexplicit about their attitudes to the problem of conscious experience, although sometimes they take a clear stand. Even among those who are clear about it, attitudes differ widely. In placing this sort of work with respect to the problem of experience, a number of different strategies are available. It would be useful if these strategic choices were more often made explicit. The first strategy is simply to explain something else. Some researchers are explicit that the problem of experience is too difficult for now, and perhaps even outside the domain of science altogether. These researchers instead choose to address one of the more tractable problems such as reportability or the self-concept. Although I have called these problems the "easy" problems, they are among the most interesting unsolved problems in cognitive science, so this work is certainly worthwhile. The worst that can be said of this choice is that in the context of research on consciousness it is relatively unambitious, and the work can sometimes be misinterpreted. The second choice is to take a harder line and deny the phenomenon. (Variations on this approach are taken by Allport 1988, Dennett 1991, and Wilkes 1988.) According to this line, once we have explained the functions such as accessibility, reportability, and the like, there is no further phenomenon called "experience" to explain. Some explicitly deny the phenomenon, holding for example that what is not externally verifiable cannot be real. Others achieve the same effect by allowing that experience exists, but only if we equate "experience" with something like the capacity to discriminate and report. These approaches lead to a simpler theory, but are ultimately unsatisfactory. Experience is the most central and manifest aspect of our mental lives, and indeed is perhaps the key explanandum in the science of the mind. Because of this status as an explanandum, experience cannot be discarded like the vital spirit when a new theory comes along. Rather, it is the central fact that any theory of consciousness must explain. A theory that denies the phenomenon "solves" the problem by ducking the question. In a third option, some researchers claim to be explaining experience in the full sense. These researchers (unlike those above) wish to take experience very seriously; they lay out their functional model or theory, and claim that it explains the full subjective quality of experience (e.g. Flohr 1992, Humphrey 1992). The relevant step in the explanation is usually passed over quickly, however, and usually ends up looking something like magic. After some details about information processing are given, experience suddenly enters the picture, but it is left obscure how these processes should suddenly give rise to experience. Perhaps it is simply taken for granted that it does, but then we have an incomplete explanation and a version of the fifth strategy below. A fourth, more promising approach appeals to these methods to explain the structure of experience. For example, it is arguable that an account of the discriminations made by the visual system can account for the structural relations between different color experiences, as well as for the geometric structure of the visual field (see e.g., Clark 1992 and Hardin 1992). In general, certain facts about structures found in processing will correspond to and arguably explain facts about the structure of experience. This strategy is plausible but limited. At best, it takes the existence of experience for granted and accounts for some facts about its structure, providing a sort of nonreductive explanation of the structural aspects of experience (I will say more on this later). This is useful for many purposes, but it tells us nothing about why there should be experience in the first place. A fifth and reasonable strategy is to isolate the substrate of experience. After all, almost everyone allows that experience arises one way or another from brain processes, and it makes sense to identify the sort of process from which it arises. Crick and Koch put their work forward as isolating the neural correlate of consciousness, for example, and Edelman (1989) and Jackendoff (1988) make similar claims. Justification of these claims requires a careful theoretical analysis, especially as experience is not directly observable in experimental contexts, but when applied judiciously this strategy can shed indirect light on the problem of experience. Nevertheless, the strategy is clearly incomplete. For a satisfactory theory, we need to know more than which processes give rise to experience; we need an account of why and how. A full theory of consciousness must build an explanatory bridge.

Upright BiPed

To StephenB: I use the term 'supernatural' in its dictionary meaning, ie: non-natural, I dont intend any religious connection at all. Seversky described it well at #30. As for the rest of the grading, referring to Human actions as 'non natural', seems weird, but then you are assuming (if I understand it) that our will to act comes from a non-material 'mind'. Im afraid this is where it all gets a bit theological for me. It suggests that you have already decided that the 'mind' exists, and thats another thing I am frequently chastised for: sweeping initial assumptions. Could you cite some evidence for this 'mind' ? Graham1

---Graham: "Im frequently chastised for introducing religion. Are you sure you want to proceed with this ?"' That's right. Darwinists introduce religion by using the term "supernatural." Given that intrusion, I am simply listing all the possibilities using that inferior natural/supernatural dichotomy, making explicit that which you introduced and left unclear and unexplained. On the other hand, I would prefer, and do ask, that Darwinists use the proper categories, namely law, chance, and agency. Since I know that they will not honor that request or respect ID's own definitions, I am proposing a new language to communicate with them on a semi-rational basis since they refuse to communicate on a rational basis, using the law, chance, agency formulation. See how that works? StephenB

On second thought, I think that list @40 needs to be modified. Naturally, I would prefer that Darwinists simply use ID terms to avoid confusion. In that case, we would have three categories: Law, chance, and agency. On the other hand, if they insist on alluding to the natural/supernatural dichotomy, then I recommend the following categories, which are, nevertheless, inferior to the ID formulations: Non Natural Causes: ----Divine ----Superhuman ----Human Natural Causes: ----Law ----Chance StephenB

Graham: "Im frequently chastised for introducing religion. Are you sure you want to proceed with this" Please read a book. It may help you understand your unfettered run of illogical statements. May I suggest one by a non-ID proponent who is a agnostic of Jewish heritage who says he cannot bring himself to pray to a God? David Berlinski The Delvils Delusion Upright BiPed

Graham: "Jeez, give it a rest. OK ?" Welcome to the exasperation that ID proponents feel at your behest. I believe this would be the kettle calling the pot black. This exchange captures a sense of responsibility that no one here truly expects you to live up to... Now, going back to the conversation at hand: So you have nothing to support your repeated claim that ID tries to study things that have no evidence. It will now be for you to stop making the claim. Do you plan on doing so? Upright BiPed

Tp StephenB: Sorry, I didnt read all of your post. It just got better and better. Divine Cause—-[God] Im frequently chastised for introducing religion. Are you sure you want to proceed with this ? Graham1

Upright Biped: Jeez, give it a rest. OK ? StephenB: You start with the assumption that we have a 'non material mind' (whatever that is). If that is your starting point, then all the rest follows. Hell, ID is just fine, the soul, gods, angels, they all fall into place. But havent I been chewed out for making similar starting assumptions that colour everything that follows ? Do you have some evidence for the existence of this 'non material mind' ? Graham1

----Graham1 "So, I think your gods, your intelligent designer, your soul (that transcends the natural world!), etc all fall exactly into this definition. If they were explainable by natural laws then they would have been adopted by Science long ago." By your standard, if an ancient hunters uses his non-material mind to conceive the design of his spear, the activity qualifies as a supernatural cause or event. If, on the other hand, absent a non-material mind, he uses his material brain to design the spear, that very same activity would suddenly qualify as a natural cause. Obviously, neither formulation makes any sense in the context of the other. That is why the words "natural" and "supernatural" should be omitted since no one knows that they mean. Here is a more realistic description of causes: Divine Cause----[God] Superhuman cause----[Angels, Extraterrestrials, beings with superior intelligence etc.], Non Natural Cause----[Intelligent/Agent, including minds, souls, wills etc.] Natural Cause----[Law and Chance, including matter, brains etc]. In each case, the meaning is clear: Thus, for the theist, the interaction between mind and brain is an interaction between non-natural and a natural cause, both being distinct from a supernatural or Divine cause. For the Darwinist/Atheist/Materialist, on the other hand, everything is grounded in matter and energy, including the brain, and therefore everything is simply a natural cause. Did you write a paragraph? That resulted from a natural cause. Did a valcano erupt? That, too, resulted from a natural cause. Did an ancient hunter construct a spear? Like everything else, it resulted from a natural cause. Everything that happens is the result of a natural cause and there are no other kinds of causes. Obviously, no one can have a rational discussion with those kinds of definitions, and, of course, that is the reason they are used---to avoid all rational discussions. StephenB

Graham at 36. -- "There is evidence all around us. It is a matter of how we interpret it." So you have nothing to support your repeated claim that ID tries to study things that have no evidence. It will now be for you to stop making the claim. Do you plan on doing so? - - - - - - -- "You may catch him [presumably God] and surprise us all, but the outlook is not promising." I kindly refer you to the comment above. - - - - - -- "Regarding the Abels affair, Im so sorry you are still miffed. I was exceeding gracious (or so I thought) to admit I made a mistake..." You were wrong from the start, you were then shown you were wrong, you were then given additional information to make it completely clear you were wrong, you were then given the actual text of the website to make it stupendously obvious you were wrong, you were then then given the actual address to make it undeniably certain you were wrong. And after all that...you then came back with the same line you were using from the very start. It suited your position and you refused to correct yourself until the weight of your position simply became defensively untenable. Me being "miffed" or you applauding yourself for finally giving up the position had nothing to do with it. - - - - - - -- As for the bile, I mock your ideas but I dont mock your person. That wouldnt be Christian, would it ? You make it a personal quest to mis-represent ID proponents at every turn. That is what you have done on this thread and virtually every thread you have appeared on. If that is not mocking the person, then the word itself has no meaning at all. Upright BiPed

Graham 33:

I think I see where the confusion is. When you say ‘all phenomena’ in A, If you really mean all phenomena, then choice A just becomes silly. I presumed that there was some sort of common-sense filter happening.

I'm afraid there is no such common sense with those who mandate MN. Cornelius Hunter

Seversky 30:

Any discussion of the possible failure of methodological naturalism is moot until you tell us what you mean by ‘natural’ and ’supernatural’.

I assume that what MN advocates intend is that science should be restricted to known natural laws and causes which can be described mathematically, whereas supernatural cannot be so described.

In previous discussions of the influence of religion on science, you equivocated on the meaning of “religious” to the absurd point where almost any human activity could be so described under your elastic definition.

So when Ken Miller says God wouldn't create the mosquito, that's not really religious?

My position is that the natural/supernatural distinction is a false dichotomy,

So why do evolutionists mandate MN?

On the other hand, if it has any effect at all in the material world, even if it is the briefest, feather-light brush of a neutrino against another particle, then there is something for science to study using methodological naturalism.

How would that work, say for example with SETI? Cornelius Hunter

To Upright Biped: that for which there is no physical evidence There is evidence all around us. It is a matter of how we interpret it. If you think the round stones were fashioned by gods, then I think you are chasing a phantom. You may catch him and surprise us all, but the outlook is not promising. Regarding the Abels affair, Im so sorry you are still miffed. I was exceeding gracious (or so I thought) to admit I made a mistake in following a link, appologized, and ceased to malign poor Mr Abels. As for the bile, I mock your ideas but I dont mock your person. That wouldnt be Christian, would it ? Graham1

Graham, You apparently agree with Seversky's comment that "In science, if a phenomenon has observable effects – in other words, it is part of the observable Universe – then it can be studied using the scientific method"... which is the exact position of ID. But then in your incessant need to mis-characterize ID, you then say "What do we do here? The ID crowd would (presumably) start investigating supernatural causes, but Science would apply Ockams razor..." Your inconsistencey is just astonishing. I would like to challnge you. Can you please point to any method of design detection which attempts to study that for which there is no physical evidence? Its a straighforward question, Graham. You can post the page numbers from any ID book (Dembski, Meyer, Behe, etc) and perhaps give us your overview of the process whereby an ID proponent is trying to study that which has no observable evidence, or, you can post from perhaps a paper on the web, or from the archive here at UD. If you cannot provide the evidence for which you repeatedly make your claim, then be honest about it and stop making the claim. Upright BiPed

To Seversky: You stated that the distinction between natural/supernatural is a false one, but then gave a very articulate description of exactly what the difference is. I disagree with the 1st part, but thought the 2nd part was very clear. Graham1

To CH: I think I see where the confusion is. When you say 'all phenomena' in A, If you really mean all phenomena, then choice A just becomes silly. I presumed that there was some sort of common-sense filter happening. If I see a car (or Paleys watch etc etc), I can apply common sense and just assign it to the 'non-natural' category. Surely we can filter out such trivial cases ? A more interesting case is the large stones that have been found, (S America?) which are sufficiently close to round to suggest they are man-made, but sufficiently irregular that they could be natural. What do we do here? The ID crowd would (presumably) start investigating supernatural causes, but Science would apply Ockams razor and look for a less complex solution. This is not to say that the supernatural is completely ruled out, its just that it has proved to be so unproductive in the past, and that it is such a severe violation of the principle of parsimony, that we would need some extraordinary evidence to even consider the supernatural. Hence Science would simply ignore the supernatural. If you can produce some useful results to change this situation, then the world is waiting. Graham1

Seversky: "In science, if a phenomenon has observable effects – in other words, it is part of the observable Universe – then it can be studied using the scientific method." This is exactly the position of ID. Graham: "And I dont think spitting bile does you any credit". I didn't think that you wilfully condemning David Abel's research as religious (prior to, and even after, it was proven to you otherwise) did you any credit either...and I told you so. And I will continue to do so. Upright BiPed

Graham1 27:

Of course an intelligent signal (prime no.s or whatever) would be deemed to be ‘non natural’, so it must be produced by an intelligent agent. Our friends on Beetlejuice may pick up our signals and conclude exactly the same thing. So what ?

So Choice A would outlaw such a finding. Cornelius Hunter

Any discussion of the possible failure of methodological naturalism is moot until you tell us what you mean by 'natural' and 'supernatural'. In previous discussions of the influence of religion on science, you equivocated on the meaning of "religious" to the absurd point where almost any human activity could be so described under your elastic definition. However, if you want me to lead the way then I will. My position is that the natural/supernatural distinction is a false dichotomy, rather like that between conventional and alternative medicine. The only property that counts in medicine is efficacy. In other words, medicine either works or it doesn't. That is all that matters. In science, if a phenomenon has observable effects - in other words, it is part of the observable Universe - then it can be studied using the scientific method. If it has no observable effects then we have no reason to think it exists at all, so there is nothing to study.

Clearly, methodological naturalism will fail if it attempts to explain a phenomenon that is not completely naturalistic. For instance, imagine that human consciousness and will amount to more than mere atoms in motion. Perhaps, for example, there is a soul that transcends the material world.

We can imagine or suppose anything. There might be an invisible pink unicorn in the room with each and every one of us right now, except that not only is it invisible but it cannot be touched, heard, tasted or smelled. It neither emits nor absorbs radiation of any kind and does not interact with matter at any level. It is completely inaccessible to us. Even if it can be said to exist in any sense, it is simply irrelevant since it might as well not exist for all the effect it has. On the other hand, if it has any effect at all in the material world, even if it is the briefest, feather-light brush of a neutrino against another particle, then there is something for science to study using methodological naturalism. Similarly, if this alleged soul cannot be detected in any way then what reason do we have for thinking it exists at all, apart from certain age-old superstitions? What purpose is served by assuming it exists? People here are fond of the aphorism about following the evidence wherever it might lead. But what if there is no evidence? Surely the sensible course then is to put the matter aside until there is some evidence, some reason to think the soul exists, for example. Until then, our time and other resources are better spent elsewhere.

Seversky

To Upright Biped: ID methods do not posit the supernatural Im using 'supernatural' in the sense that it is anything other than the 'natural': above or beyond what is natural; unexplainable by natural law or phenomena So, I think your gods, your intelligent designer, your soul (that transcends the natural world!), etc all fall exactly into this definition. If they were explainable by natural laws then they would have been adopted by Science long ago. Now, if the search for the supernatural were able to actually produce something, I would have to change my tune, but until then I will apply Ockams razor and choose the more parsimonious explanation. And I dont think spitting bile does you any credit. Graham1

For those who have not met Graham here before: He is simply playing a game. As odd as it sounds, he consciously chooses to remain ignorant of the issues surrounding ID. He wilfullly conflates his personal distaste for "supernatural" things with the empirical process of design detection. At the same time, he ignores the foundational concepts of science while clinging to them as a means to be enlightened. In doing so he is left to repeat himself. The cycle never stops. - - - - - - - Example: Graham: The supernatural is BS. ID Prop: ID methods do not posit the supernatural. Graham: The supernatural is BS. ID Prop: There is nothing in the observable evidence for ID that demands a supernatural event. ID is approproiately limited to what the evidence shows using the same rational methods as other empirical sciences. The claims made by ID are no different than, say, the claims made by Big Bang theorists. They are identical in that regard, and are appropriate to scientific investigation. If there are metaphysical implications that give you pause in ID, then they can legitimately be no more powerful than those you might get from the accepted foundational theory of modern cosmology. In either case, if science is to be a search for truth in reality, then it must be allowed to explore the evidence without limits placed upon it by the personal whim of the investigator. You do agree with that view of science don't you? Graham: The supenatural is BS. Upright BiPed

Cornelius: Eh? I agree up to (but excluding) the last sentence. Of course an intelligent signal (prime no.s or whatever) would be deemed to be 'non natural', so it must be produced by an intelligent agent. Our friends on Beetlejuice may pick up our signals and conclude exactly the same thing. So what ? It simply means we arent alone. There is absolutely no requirement whatsoever to invoke the supernatural. Graham1

Graham1 #20:

I think Science doesnt so much say that ‘Naturalism is all there is’, but rather ‘Naturalism is the only one that works’, …

So SETI doesn’t work?

I dont understand this comment. Of course SETI works. In fact, there may be aliens on Beetlejuice doing exactly the same thing, trying to detect us.

The SETI algorithms search for signals that are not reasonably explained by known natural causes. If discovered, SETI concludes that such signals are not produced by known natural laws. Therefore SETI violates MN and, according to your statement above, doesn't work. Cornelius Hunter

To show us what we are missing, could you give an example of some useful result the supernatural has provided for us in the past ? That we don't have to be afraid of death and that venerating material objects -- either natural or man made -- is pointless. tribune7

If there were some reason to take it seriously (ie: evidence) then Science would do Graham1, how can science address the supernatural? tribune7

Or CPR? Adel DiBagno

Other people have been trying to invoke MN for much longer than 2000 years and they haven’t produced anything useful. I think that is also telling us something.

So PCR isn't useful? Dave Wisker

Graham 1- Other people have been trying to invoke MN for much longer than 2000 years and they haven't produced anything useful. I think that is also telling us something. Joseph

Cornelius Hunter: So SETI doesn’t work? I dont understand this comment. Of course SETI works. In fact, there may be aliens on Beetlejuice doing exactly the same thing, trying to detect us. Does this mean that MN should not be used when it fails to produce useful results?. My point was that (some) people have been trying to invoke the supernatural for about 2000 years, and in that time they havent produced anything useful. I think that is telling us something. Graham1

Trubune7: The supernatural is exactly as decribed by Bertrand Russels teapot. If there were some reason to take it seriously (ie: evidence) then Science would do just that, but until then, Science will treat the supernatural in exactly the same way as the teapot, ie: ignore it. To show us what we are missing, could you give an example of some useful result the supernatural has provided for us in the past ? And, do you really believe I can end up in hell ? Graham1

Graham1 --If someone could use the supernatural to actually produce some useful results, then maybe the world will take notice. Graham, if a methodology declares a reality to be false there is a serious problem with either that methodology or how that methodology is being used. For instance, if a methodology declares God not to exist and He exists, the methodology fails. If a methodology declares something important to be irrelevant, the methodology also obviously fails. For instance, if you say God, the soul, and Heaven and Hell are irrelevant because science can't address them, and you end up in Hell, your methodology has failed you. tribune7

C is closest to my answer, but I would change it to this: "If no naturalistic explanation for a phenomenon can yet be found, science is content to provisonally state that." Of course, the above neither precludes a supernatural, nor an eventual naturalistic, explanation. Dave Wisker

Cornilius Hunter, let me fix this for you: "Why does lacking the skill will to work on a problem make it uninteresting?" Oh wait... "Why does lacking the skill integrity to work on a problem make it uninteresting?" Upright BiPed

The answer, for me anyway, lies between choices B and D. B states: "If methodological naturalism ever fails then science, constrained to methodological naturalism, will lead to the wrong answer. Don't worry, it is fine if science is sometimes incorrect." This is true, as science is a good but imperfect enterprise. It can tell us much about the universe and our planet as well as the many species that inhabit our planet. The problem lies in determing where science has gone wrong. How do scientists determine that their data is faulty, their methodology sloppy, or their conclusions false? It's one thing to state that science is sometimes wrong, it's quite another thing to know that you're heading in the wrong direction and need to make adjustments in order to head in the right direction. Choice D states: "Science should not be constrained to methodological naturalism." Carl Sagan wrote that the cosmos is all that is or was or will be. How did Sagan know this for sure? He is a finite human being with extensive but limited knowledge. You have to be willing to follow the evidence where it leads, not where you would like it to lead. Barb

Graham1: I think Science doesnt so much say that ‘Naturalism is all there is’, but rather ‘Naturalism is the only one that works’, … Cornelius Hunter: So SETI doesn’t work?

SETI is a naturalistic hypothesis. Zachriel

#11:

Can I change my answer ?

Yes, sure. In fact, some people may want to give multiple answers, depending for instance on what type of science they're doing.

I think Science doesnt so much say that ‘Naturalism is all there is’, but rather ‘Naturalism is the only one that works’, ...

So SETI doesn't work?

so Science doesnt reject the supernatural, it just ignores it as uninteresting.

Why does lacking the skill to work on a problem make it uninteresting?

If someone could use the supernatural to actually produce some useful results, then maybe the world will take notice.

Does this mean that MN should not be used when it fails to produce useful results? How does your mandating of MN safeguard you from the very problems you are identifying? Cornelius Hunter

Science is restricted only to the reality behind the existence of that we are investigating- whatever that reality is. Ya see if it isn't interested in reality then science fiction is just as good as science. Is that where we want to go? Joseph

Cornelius Hunter: There remains the question of what to do when methodological naturalism doesn’t work.

If there are unexplained Gaps in scientific understanding, then there are Gaps in scientific understanding. Science can't resolve the validity of all possible claims. Some problems are not amenable to scientific investigation because the terms of the problem can't be clearly expressed or defined in empirical terms. Other problems are simply not resolved at this time. So? Beauty is Truth. (As mentioned elsewhere, Methodological Naturalism is merely a heuristic. A careful definition of the Scientific Method avoids the ambiguity between natural and supernatural.) Zachriel

Great post Cornelius. The problem isn't methodological naturalism but the claim that it is the arbiter of truth. There are places were MN is appropriate such as engineering and medicine and computer science -- the worlds strangely enough IDists seem to inhabit -- but what our culture has done is attempt to use it to address questions such as "why are we here?" "do we have souls?" and "does God exists?" the answer of which will always be "no" if the rules of MN are followed. And by doing so, ironically, rather than exalt science we have brought back pagan superstition. "Oh we must rip down the hydro-electric dams to save the salmon and appease an angry Mother Earth." "Oh no, we must stop driving cars for Gaia is upset." I don't intend to see the movie but I understand that that is the plot of Avatar. tribune7

Can I change my answer ? Its sort of box A but not quite as CH worded it (and ignoring the flippant tone) I think Science doesnt so much say that 'Naturalism is all there is', but rather 'Naturalism is the only one that works', so Science doesnt reject the supernatural, it just ignores it as uninteresting. If someone could use the supernatural to actually produce some useful results, then maybe the world will take notice. Graham1

So, in the hypothetical situation where science tries to explain a phenomena that is not purely materialistic, you choose A) Don't worry, methodological naturalism never fails because nature is always fully materialistic. The conclusion, then, clearly comes before the evidence. An excellent choice; and I would bet you see this as based in science. I wonder, how would you falsify the notion that everything in the universe has a purely material explanation? Upright BiPed

I would answer C, but I can't see how we would know that such a case had been reached. I look forward to enlightenment (possibly!) in Dr. Hunter's next post. Heinrich

Oh, I see. I ticked box A. Graham1

Eh? Whats the question ? Graham1

Graham, why do you avoid answering Dr Hunter's question? Upright BiPed

I go for C. I am not sure what a soul is, or how free will is not "lawlike". But if there are such things, they are not amenable to science and the scientist should stick to the all important traditions of scepticism and being prepared to say "I don't know". Of course, from the scientist's point of view it is impossible to tell whether the explanation for something mysterious is something beyond the realm of science, or something within the realm of science that the scientist has not yet discovered. Mark Frank

To StephenB: The burden of proof falls on those who propose methodological naturalism Have you guys ever heard of Ockams razor ? I think the burden of proof lies with the party that proposes the most expensive explanation, and the more expensive, the better the proof needed. If you propose gods and spirtits and all that stuff, then you have to have some pretty good evidence to support it. And a soul that transcends the material world. Oh Jeez. Graham1

#1:

You have nicely (& conveniently) omitted the 5th possibility: that maybe naturalism is not incomplete at all.

I did not omit that possibility. That is Answer A.

How do you know that a ’soul’ is needed to complete an explanation ?

I didn't make that claim.

how do you know when to abandon naturalism ?

Good question. That is the question for people who answer with C. It is also relevant for B, so that one knows whether the answer if fiction or real. But we're getting ahead of ourselves (that is for the next blog). First things first, what is your answer? Cornelius Hunter

Graham, Let me help you out here. The post said these words:

Clearly, methodological naturalism will fail if it attempts to explain a phenomenon that is not completely naturalistic. For instance, imagine that human consciousness and will amount to more than mere atoms in motion. Perhaps, for example, there is a soul that transcends the material world. Then science's attempts to explain our thinking will rule out the right answer if science is constrained to methodological naturalism. Methodological naturalism would be wrong, and the question is: how should we handle such cases?

Do you see your mistake yet? See that word, the sixth one from the start of the paragraph? It helps set up a premise. And see that punctuation mark at the very end of the paragraph? That forms a question. Shall we simply rule out ontology as a valued asset in understanding reality? Upright BiPed

----Graham1: "You have nicely (& conveniently) omitted the 5th possibility: that maybe naturalism is not incomplete at all." That is just another version of choice [A] "Don't worry, methodological naturalism never fails because nature is always fully materialistic." ----"How do you know that a ’soul’ is needed to complete an explanation ?" How do you know that a soul is not needed to complete the explanation. ----"I admit that the ‘goddidit’ is a convenient way out, but how do you know when to abandon naturalism ?" Once again, you have reversed the logic. How do you know when to insist on "naturalism." The burden of proof falls on those who propose methodological naturalism as a rule, not those who protest against it. It is the Darwinists rule, so it is their responsibility to justify it. StephenB

You have nicely (& conveniently) omitted the 5th possibility: that maybe naturalism is not incomplete at all. How do you know that a 'soul' is needed to complete an explanation ? I admit that the 'goddidit' is a convenient way out, but how do you know when to abandon naturalism ? Graham1