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

----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_{January 2, 2010
January
01
Jan
2
02
2010
08:37 PM
8
08
37
PM
PDT}

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_{January 2, 2010
January
01
Jan
2
02
2010
08:26 PM
8
08
26
PM
PDT}

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_{January 2, 2010
January
01
Jan
2
02
2010
07:58 PM
7
07
58
PM
PDT}

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_{January 2, 2010
January
01
Jan
2
02
2010
07:56 PM
7
07
56
PM
PDT}

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_{January 2, 2010
January
01
Jan
2
02
2010
07:54 PM
7
07
54
PM
PDT}

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_{January 2, 2010
January
01
Jan
2
02
2010
07:35 PM
7
07
35
PM
PDT}

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_{January 2, 2010
January
01
Jan
2
02
2010
07:06 PM
7
07
06
PM
PDT}

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_{January 2, 2010
January
01
Jan
2
02
2010
06:59 PM
6
06
59
PM
PDT}

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_{January 2, 2010
January
01
Jan
2
02
2010
06:58 PM
6
06
58
PM
PDT}

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_{January 2, 2010
January
01
Jan
2
02
2010
06:41 PM
6
06
41
PM
PDT}

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_{January 2, 2010
January
01
Jan
2
02
2010
06:39 PM
6
06
39
PM
PDT}

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_{January 2, 2010
January
01
Jan
2
02
2010
06:09 PM
6
06
09
PM
PDT}

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_{January 2, 2010
January
01
Jan
2
02
2010
05:35 PM
5
05
35
PM
PDT}

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_{January 2, 2010
January
01
Jan
2
02
2010
04:10 PM
4
04
10
PM
PDT}

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_{January 2, 2010
January
01
Jan
2
02
2010
03:56 PM
3
03
56
PM
PDT}

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_{January 2, 2010
January
01
Jan
2
02
2010
02:49 PM
2
02
49
PM
PDT}

If there were some reason to take it seriously (ie: evidence) then Science would do Graham1, how can science address the supernatural?tribune7_{January 2, 2010
January
01
Jan
2
02
2010
02:46 PM
2
02
46
PM
PDT}

Or CPR?Adel DiBagno_{January 2, 2010
January
01
Jan
2
02
2010
02:27 PM
2
02
27
PM
PDT}

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_{January 2, 2010
January
01
Jan
2
02
2010
02:23 PM
2
02
23
PM
PDT}

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

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_{January 2, 2010
January
01
Jan
2
02
2010
01:57 PM
1
01
57
PM
PDT}

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_{January 2, 2010
January
01
Jan
2
02
2010
01:46 PM
1
01
46
PM
PDT}

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_{January 2, 2010
January
01
Jan
2
02
2010
12:45 PM
12
12
45
PM
PDT}

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_{January 2, 2010
January
01
Jan
2
02
2010
12:26 PM
12
12
26
PM
PDT}

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_{January 2, 2010
January
01
Jan
2
02
2010
12:01 PM
12
12
01
PM
PDT}

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_{January 2, 2010
January
01
Jan
2
02
2010
11:55 AM
11
11
55
AM
PDT}

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_{January 2, 2010
January
01
Jan
2
02
2010
10:51 AM
10
10
51
AM
PDT}

#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_{January 2, 2010
January
01
Jan
2
02
2010
10:26 AM
10
10
26
AM
PDT}

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_{January 2, 2010
January
01
Jan
2
02
2010
07:45 AM
7
07
45
AM
PDT}

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_{January 2, 2010
January
01
Jan
2
02
2010
06:41 AM
6
06
41
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 5 6 7 8 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply