A Question for Joe Felsenstein (and Everyone Else)

_{Cornelius Hunter

January 2, 2010

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Joe Felsenstein, and most other evolutionists, tell us that science must be restricted to law-like causes and explanations. In a word, they require the scientific method to be restricted to naturalism. While this methodological naturalism seems like a reasonable way to do science, it is an incomplete instruction. There remains the question of what to do when methodological naturalism doesn’t work. Read more

Comments

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_{January 5, 2010
January
01
Jan
5
05
2010
03:58 PM
3
03
58
PM
PDT}

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_{January 5, 2010
January
01
Jan
5
05
2010
03:55 PM
3
03
55
PM
PDT}

@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_{January 5, 2010
January
01
Jan
5
05
2010
03:10 PM
3
03
10
PM
PDT}

----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_{January 5, 2010
January
01
Jan
5
05
2010
03:06 PM
3
03
06
PM
PDT}

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_{January 5, 2010
January
01
Jan
5
05
2010
02:55 PM
2
02
55
PM
PDT}

----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_{January 5, 2010
January
01
Jan
5
05
2010
02:03 PM
2
02
03
PM
PDT}

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_{January 5, 2010
January
01
Jan
5
05
2010
01:46 PM
1
01
46
PM
PDT}

---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_{January 5, 2010
January
01
Jan
5
05
2010
01:35 PM
1
01
35
PM
PDT}

---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_{January 5, 2010
January
01
Jan
5
05
2010
01:25 PM
1
01
25
PM
PDT}

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 25:2tribune7_{January 5, 2010
January
01
Jan
5
05
2010
01:19 PM
1
01
19
PM
PDT}

Joseph: It hasnt cured cancer either. So should we start praying instead ? Would that be more effective ?Graham1_{January 5, 2010
January
01
Jan
5
05
2010
12:22 PM
12
12
22
PM
PDT}

To StephenB: What happens to the mind when we die ?Graham1_{January 5, 2010
January
01
Jan
5
05
2010
12:20 PM
12
12
20
PM
PDT}

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_{January 5, 2010
January
01
Jan
5
05
2010
10:18 AM
10
10
18
AM
PDT}

----Graham: "To StephenB: There is no mind." Speak for yourself.StephenB_{January 5, 2010
January
01
Jan
5
05
2010
09:43 AM
9
09
43
AM
PDT}

---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_{January 5, 2010
January
01
Jan
5
05
2010
09:12 AM
9
09
12
AM
PDT}

----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_{January 5, 2010
January
01
Jan
5
05
2010
08:56 AM
8
08
56
AM
PDT}

----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_{January 5, 2010
January
01
Jan
5
05
2010
08:45 AM
8
08
45
AM
PDT}

StephenB: "Who, other than Darwinists, “prefer” it [MN]?" Geochemists do. Ecologists do too. I'm sure there are others. MichaelMichael Tuite_{January 5, 2010
January
01
Jan
5
05
2010
07:07 AM
7
07
07
AM
PDT}

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_{January 5, 2010
January
01
Jan
5
05
2010
05:49 AM
5
05
49
AM
PDT}

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_{January 5, 2010
January
01
Jan
5
05
2010
05:05 AM
5
05
05
AM
PDT}

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_{January 5, 2010
January
01
Jan
5
05
2010
12:01 AM
12
12
01
AM
PDT}

poof It doesn't exist.Upright BiPed_{January 4, 2010
January
01
Jan
4
04
2010
11:57 PM
11
11
57
PM
PDT}

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_{January 4, 2010
January
01
Jan
4
04
2010
11:40 PM
11
11
40
PM
PDT}

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_{January 4, 2010
January
01
Jan
4
04
2010
10:32 PM
10
10
32
PM
PDT}

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_{January 4, 2010
January
01
Jan
4
04
2010
09:53 PM
9
09
53
PM
PDT}

----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_{January 4, 2010
January
01
Jan
4
04
2010
09:42 PM
9
09
42
PM
PDT}

---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_{January 4, 2010
January
01
Jan
4
04
2010
09:33 PM
9
09
33
PM
PDT}

----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_{January 4, 2010
January
01
Jan
4
04
2010
09:28 PM
9
09
28
PM
PDT}

----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_{January 4, 2010
January
01
Jan
4
04
2010
07:18 PM
7
07
18
PM
PDT}

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_{January 4, 2010
January
01
Jan
4
04
2010
06:58 PM
6
06
58
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 … 8 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply