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

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_{January 2, 2010
January
01
Jan
2
02
2010
05:49 AM
5
05
49
AM
PDT}

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

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_{January 2, 2010
January
01
Jan
2
02
2010
01:18 AM
1
01
18
AM
PDT}

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_{January 2, 2010
January
01
Jan
2
02
2010
01:10 AM
1
01
10
AM
PDT}

Oh, I see. I ticked box A.Graham1_{January 2, 2010
January
01
Jan
2
02
2010
01:02 AM
1
01
02
AM
PDT}

Eh? Whats the question ?Graham1_{January 2, 2010
January
01
Jan
2
02
2010
12:56 AM
12
12
56
AM
PDT}

Graham, why do you avoid answering Dr Hunter's question?Upright BiPed_{January 2, 2010
January
01
Jan
2
02
2010
12:42 AM
12
12
42
AM
PDT}

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_{January 2, 2010
January
01
Jan
2
02
2010
12:39 AM
12
12
39
AM
PDT}

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_{January 2, 2010
January
01
Jan
2
02
2010
12:31 AM
12
12
31
AM
PDT}

#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_{January 1, 2010
January
01
Jan
1
01
2010
11:20 PM
11
11
20
PM
PDT}

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_{January 1, 2010
January
01
Jan
1
01
2010
11:11 PM
11
11
11
PM
PDT}

----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_{January 1, 2010
January
01
Jan
1
01
2010
11:08 PM
11
11
08
PM
PDT}

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_{January 1, 2010
January
01
Jan
1
01
2010
10:41 PM
10
10
41
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 6 7 8

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply