The Louisiana Science Education Act a decade later: Darwin not worshipped, swamp monsters not on the loose

_{News
July 2, 2018

Darwinism, Intelligent Design, science education

2}_{Categories
Darwinism
Intelligent Design
science education}

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

Louisiana Science Education Act From David Klinghoffer at ENST:

This week we’re celebrating the tenth anniversary of the passage of the Louisiana Science Education Act. It was a turning point in the effort to secure academic freedom for science teachers. That effort was never going to be an overnight success, but the LSEA marked an important beginning.

Yes. Who could forget Pants-in-knot and the hysteria he generated about the dark ages emerging from the swampy Bayou?

In fact, West notes, the LSEA shattered clichés like that in several ways. For one, it enjoyed broad bipartisan support — it was not a matter of Republicans versus Democrats. That’s got to be one reason it has resisted attempts at repeal led by activist Zack Kopplin, who has since moved on to other pursuits (as Sarah Chaffee notes here). For another, it enjoyed support from scientists. It was, again, not a battle of citizens versus science.

Finally, it was not “anti-science” at all but on the contrary, pro-science: that is, if by science you mean an enterprise entailing critical, objective analysis and weighing of evidence. In fact, the LSEA took inspiration from Darwin himself, who wrote that in scientific inquiries, “a fair result can be obtained only by fully stating and balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question.” More.

Podcast

See also: Pants in knot: “Creationism” in Louisiana schools

and

Pants in knot II: Creationism growth sparks concern in Ivy League

Comments

PS: Notice how in Jan 2000 -- a few months before that statement was issued in July, Lewontin let the cat out of the bag on what was coming on the education agenda:
. . . to put a correct [--> Just who here presume to cornering the market on truth and so demand authority to impose?] view of the universe into people's heads
[==> as in, "we" the radically secularist elites have cornered the market on truth, warrant and knowledge, making "our" "consensus" the yardstick of truth . . . where of course "view" is patently short for WORLDVIEW . . . and linked cultural agenda . . . ]
we must first get an incorrect view out [--> as in, if you disagree with "us" of the secularist elite you are wrong, irrational and so dangerous you must be stopped, even at the price of manipulative indoctrination of hoi polloi] . . . the problem is to get them [= hoi polloi] to reject irrational and supernatural explanations of the world [--> "explanations of the world" is yet another synonym for WORLDVIEWS; the despised "demon[ic]" "supernatural" being of course an index of animus towards ethical theism and particularly the Judaeo-Christian faith tradition], the demons that exist only in their imaginations,
[ --> as in, to think in terms of ethical theism is to be delusional, justifying "our" elitist and establishment-controlling interventions of power to "fix" the widespread mental disease]
and to accept a social and intellectual apparatus, Science, as the only begetter of truth
[--> NB: this is a knowledge claim about knowledge and its possible sources, i.e. it is a claim in philosophy not science; it is thus self-refuting]
. . . . To Sagan, as to all but a few other scientists [--> "we" are the dominant elites], it is self-evident
[--> actually, science and its knowledge claims are plainly not immediately and necessarily true on pain of absurdity, to one who understands them; this is another logical error, begging the question , confused for real self-evidence; whereby a claim shows itself not just true but true on pain of patent absurdity if one tries to deny it . . . and in fact it is evolutionary materialism that is readily shown to be self-refuting]
that the practices of science provide the surest method of putting us in contact with physical reality [--> = all of reality to the evolutionary materialist], and that, in contrast, the demon-haunted world rests on a set of beliefs and behaviors that fail every reasonable test [--> i.e. an assertion that tellingly reveals a hostile mindset, not a warranted claim] . . . . It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us [= the evo-mat establishment] 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 [--> another major begging of the question . . . ] 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 [--> i.e. here we see the fallacious, indoctrinated, ideological, closed mind . . . ], for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door . . . [--> irreconcilable hostility to ethical theism, already caricatured as believing delusionally in imaginary demons]. [Lewontin, Billions and billions of Demons, NYRB Jan 1997,cf. here. And, if you imagine this is "quote-mined" I invite you to read the fuller annotated citation here.]
kairosfocus_{July 9, 2018
July
07
Jul
9
09
2018
05:47 PM
5
05
47
PM
PST}

JDK, I simply reiterate my markup of what the NSTA did, to document my point:
PREAMBLE: All those involved with science teaching and learning should have a common, accurate view of the nature of science. Science is characterized by the systematic gathering of information through various forms of direct and indirect observations and the testing of this information by methods including, but not limited to, experimentation. The principal product of science is knowledge in the form of naturalistic concepts and the laws and theories related to those concepts [--> ideological imposition of a priori evolutionary materialistic scientism, aka natural-ISM; this is of course self-falsifying at the outset] . . . . [S]cience, along with its methods, explanations and generalizations, must be the sole focus of instruction in science classes to the exclusion of all non-scientific or pseudoscientific [--> loaded word that cannot be properly backed up due to failure of demarcation arguments] methods, explanations [--> declaration of intent to censor instructional content], generalizations and products [--> declaration of intent to ideologically censor education materials] . . . . Although no single universal step-by-step scientific method captures the complexity of doing science, a number of shared values and perspectives characterize a scientific approach to understanding nature. Among these are a demand for naturalistic explanations supported by empirical evidence that are, at least in principle, testable against the natural world. Other shared elements include observations, rational argument, inference, skepticism, peer review and replicability of work [--> undermined by the question-begging ideological imposition and associated censorship] . . . . Science, by definition, is limited to naturalistic methods and explanations [--> ideological imposition of a loaded definition] and, as such, is precluded from using supernatural elements [--> question-begging false dichotomy, the proper contrast for empirical investigations is the natural (chance and/or necessity) vs the ART-ificial, through design . . . cf UD's weak argument correctives 17 - 19, here] in the production of scientific knowledge.
In short, the point was there right from the outset. Further, at no point have you been able to show that the following understanding of naturalism and its implications per the CED is wrong:
NATURALISM . . . 5. (Philosophy) philosophy a. a scientific account of the world in terms of causes and natural forces that rejects all spiritual, supernatural, or teleological explanations b. the meta-ethical thesis that moral properties are reducible to natural ones, or that ethical judgments are derivable from nonethical ones.
Likewise, this markup from SEP as introduced by Sev, remains:
The self-proclaimed “naturalists” [of early-mid C20] . . . urged that reality is exhausted by nature [= the physical], containing nothing “supernatural”, and that the scientific method should be used to investigate all areas of reality [–> i.e. if all that is is ultimately physical, the point of knowledge is to understand how that matrix gave rise to all things we see], including the “human spirit” (Krikorian 1944; Kim 2003) [–> this of course runs into the challenge of reducing mindedness to a GIGO-limited computational substrate, thus becomes self-refuting as I and many others note. This is the historical context of Haldane’s sawing off the branch remark] . . . . The great majority of contemporary philosophers would happily accept naturalism as just characterized—that is, they would both reject “supernatural” entities, and allow that science is a possible route (if not necessarily the only one) to important truths about the “human spirit” [–> so, naturalism, i.e. evolutionary materialistic scientism, has ruled the roost for the past century or so, and has of course had consequences] . . .
Last but not least, at 80 just above, I explored what results from trying to broaden naturalism so that it is not so explicitly tied to physicalism:
if for argument “nature” is broadened to imply reality in toto, whatever it may contain [say, including God], then “nature” loses meaning, and “the supernatural” would then by definition be a term for non-being. So, we can safely hold that the term natural in praxis implies physical and quasi-physical as the substratum of reality. All else that is, comes from ultimately blind interactions of said substratum. And, as it is the sciences which give knowledge of that substratum and how it may act (through blind mechanical necessity and/or chance/stochastic processes) then indeed we see where science becomes the framework of reliable and grounded knowledge. Once one swallows the frame, in whatever vague form, the above consequences become self-reinforcing. One may speak of even religious naturalism or of “merely” methodological naturalism as a reliable and successful way to learn about the world, even stipulating that there are other ways to acquire knowledge but the end result is the same. So soon as “science” so redefined comes knocking, it takes over. The point is, leaving the underlying worldview commitments, logic and epistemology un-examined does not remove their impact. And, we see further that science has become little more than applied atheism: the best evolutionary materialistic account of the world from hydrogen to humans. Such an all-encompassing cultural agenda can seem as irresistible as the proverbial juggernaut. Especially when the alleged centuries long track record of success of such science, the squeezing out of god from gaps, the follies of pseudoscience and the over-running of domains once thought beyond science are trotted out. But the whole turns on question-begging tendentious redefinitions, half truths on scientific methods and progress [multiplied by outright falsities] and on failure to adequately assess the challenge of the gap between a GIGO-limited mechanical and/or stochastic computational substrate and insightful, meaning based contemplation and responsible, rational, free mind.
The effect of all this is that the reason methodological naturalism, so called, has been imposed in science and science education is because of the dominance of evolutionary materialism, which directly leads to evolutionary materialistic scientism. The imposition documented is tantamount to transforming science into government-compelled tax funded applied atheism. This then leads to turning education -- on the radical redefinitions imposed through NSTA -- into compulsory indoctrination in atheism. And sooner or later, for cause that is going to trigger a huge backlash by angry citizens. I can say, for one, that for cause I would never subject my children to such indoctrination under false colours of education. KFkairosfocus_{July 9, 2018
July
07
Jul
9
09
2018
05:43 PM
5
05
43
PM
PST}

jdk:
I am pointing out that many people, after due consideration of the situation, disagree with you:
And many more agree
they see the deficiencies of the merits of your position and the strengths of the merits of their own position.
And what are the strengths and merits of MN? What are the deficiencies of Newton's four rules?ET_{July 9, 2018
July
07
Jul
9
09
2018
04:23 PM
4
04
23
PM
PST}

No, kf, I am not merely counting heads. I am pointing out that many people, after due consideration of the situation, disagree with you: they see the deficiencies of the merits of your position and the strengths of the merits of their own position. Also, JAD posted the same quote from Barbara at 77 above. I hope to have time to respond to that later.jdk_{July 9, 2018
July
07
Jul
9
09
2018
03:30 PM
3
03
30
PM
PST}

JDK, Just as a note, let's see what Ms Barbara Forrest -- yes the same -- thinks, as re-published at infidels dot org (and in the same timeframe):
https://infidels.org/library/modern/barbara_forrest/naturalism.html Methodological Naturalism and Philosophical Naturalism: Clarifying the Connection (2000) Barbara Forrest This article was originally published in Philo, Vol. 3, No. 2 (Fall-Winter 2000), pp. 7-29. Abstract: In response to the charge that methodological naturalism in science logically requires the a priori adoption of a naturalistic metaphysics, I examine the question whether methodological naturalism entails philosophical (ontological or metaphysical) naturalism. I conclude that the relationship between methodological and philosophical naturalism, while not one of logical entailment, is the only reasonable metaphysical conclusion given (1) the demonstrated success of methodological naturalism, combined with (2) the massive amount of knowledge gained by it, (3) the lack of a method or epistemology for knowing the supernatural, and (4) the subsequent lack of evidence for the supernatural. The above factors together provide solid grounding for philosophical naturalism, while supernaturalism remains little more than a logical possibility.
In short, she all but acknowledges my point. I again refer you just above, where there are substantial points as to why the two cannot be separated. Of course, the claimed success of imposing evolutionary materialism on science is largely after the fact of success of science in addressing mechanical and statistical aspects of nature before such an imposition became dominant. It also extends a promissory note by way of a priori ruling out intelligent cause on certain key findings such as the FSCO/I in the world of life and the fine tuning of the cosmos. I hardly need to more than note the strawman caricature that follows, of ruling out the design inference as scientific on grounds of ideological question begging definition. Likewise, there is a strawman fallacy involved in studiously avoiding discussion of the natural vs the ART-ificial, while putting up gross caricatures of the supernatural. So, again, we are back to oh I can count heads on my side, while failing to cogently address the merits. Which is precisely the point on missing the point. KFkairosfocus_{July 9, 2018
July
07
Jul
9
09
2018
03:19 PM
3
03
19
PM
PST}

kf writes, "JDK, pardon but you missed the main point again." No, I did not miss the main point. I disagree with your main point: that is different. Millions of people do not believe that, to put it succinctly, MN entails PN. I think they are right, and you are wrong. That is not "missing the point."jdk_{July 9, 2018
July
07
Jul
9
09
2018
01:22 PM
1
01
22
PM
PST}

JDK, pardon but you missed the main point again. It has been shown that naturalism [= evolutionary materialism] is organically and inextricably intertwined with scientism, with obvious consequences. Maybe SEP as I marked up above, will help bring the point home, as a handy summary:
The self-proclaimed “naturalists” [of early-mid C20] . . . urged that reality is exhausted by nature [= the physical], containing nothing “supernatural”, and that the scientific method should be used to investigate all areas of reality [–> i.e. if all that is is ultimately physical, the point of knowledge is to understand how that matrix gave rise to all things we see], including the “human spirit” (Krikorian 1944; Kim 2003) [–> this of course runs into the challenge of reducing mindedness to a GIGO-limited computational substrate, thus becomes self-refuting as I and many others note. This is the historical context of Haldane’s sawing off the branch remark] . . . . The great majority of contemporary philosophers would happily accept naturalism as just characterized—that is, they would both reject “supernatural” entities, and allow that science is a possible route (if not necessarily the only one) to important truths about the “human spirit” [–> so, naturalism, i.e. evolutionary materialistic scientism, has ruled the roost for the past century or so, and has of course had consequences] . . .
Now of course, if for argument "nature" is broadened to imply reality in toto, whatever it may contain [say, including God], then "nature" loses meaning, and "the supernatural" would then by definition be a term for non-being. So, we can safely hold that the term natural in praxis implies physical and quasi-physical as the substratum of reality. All else that is, comes from ultimately blind interactions of said substratum. And, as it is the sciences which give knowledge of that substratum and how it may act (through blind mechanical necessity and/or chance/stochastic processes) then indeed we see where science becomes the framework of reliable and grounded knowledge. Once one swallows the frame, in whatever vague form, the above consequences become self-reinforcing. One may speak of even religious naturalism or of "merely" methodological naturalism as a reliable and successful way to learn about the world, even stipulating that there are other ways to acquire knowledge but the end result is the same. So soon as "science" so redefined comes knocking, it takes over. The point is, leaving the underlying worldview commitments, logic and epistemology un-examined does not remove their impact. And, we see further that science has become little more than applied atheism: the best evolutionary materialistic account of the world from hydrogen to humans. Such an all-encompassing cultural agenda can seem as irresistible as the proverbial juggernaut. Especially when the alleged centuries long track record of success of such science, the squeezing out of god from gaps, the follies of pseudoscience and the over-running of domains once thought beyond science are trotted out. But the whole turns on question-begging tendentious redefinitions, half truths on scientific methods and progress [multiplied by outright falsities] and on failure to adequately assess the challenge of the gap between a GIGO-limited mechanical and/or stochastic computational substrate and insightful, meaning based contemplation and responsible, rational, free mind. But, that is where we have come to as a civilisation. And just as with Marxism, the juggernaut will have to crash and break irreparably of its own weight for its apparent grand progress and triumph to be exposed for the myth they are. And it is in that context that we can readily see why many will imagine that the myth is fundamentally true and will seek to work with or find accommodations with it. That is a secondary phenomenon, one of social psychology and/or cultural agendas. Secondary, not primary. What is primary is that the project of naturalism is flawed from the root, foundering on self-referential incoherence in accounting for the minds we must use. And if the term nature is instead broadened into a synonym for reality (i.e. an attempt is made to not be implicitly physicalist by reduction to presumed substratum) the term becomes meaningless. In that context, it is implicit ideological imposition and indoctrination to impose that in science education, concepts and explanations must only be "natural" -- the "-ISTIC" being in the subtext. But obviously, the juggernaut has not undeniably, irretrievably smashed into hard reality and fallen to obviously broken pieces yet. Yet. KFkairosfocus_{July 9, 2018
July
07
Jul
9
09
2018
12:18 PM
12
12
18
PM
PST}

Thanks, kf. I figured it was a bug of some sort.jdk_{July 9, 2018
July
07
Jul
9
09
2018
12:02 PM
12
12
02
PM
PST}

JDK, WP for UD is problematic. Sometimes, kill the main page, close browser, start again will unstick. Sometimes. KFkairosfocus_{July 9, 2018
July
07
Jul
9
09
2018
11:40 AM
11
11
40
AM
PST}

The following is a dissenting view that was posted last year on the Evolution News website
Philosopher Barbara Forrest… a critic of intelligent design… [argued] in her article “Methodological Naturalism and Philosophical Naturalism: Clarifying the Connection” (2000), [that she] doesn’t see methodological naturalism as disallowing the logical possibility of supernatural causes. She sees any assertion otherwise as nothing more than epistemological arrogance, since no human can have exhaustive knowledge of all there is. She goes on to argue, however, that methodological naturalism does not allow enough of a logical possibility to provide sufficient warrant for acknowledgement of the supernatural. Forrest, unlike Dembski, does not believe that methodological naturalism necessarily entails philosophical naturalism. She reasons, however, that based on the success of methodological naturalism, and the great knowledge it has contributed to the world, along with the simple dearth of evidence for the supernatural, that the “only reasonable metaphysical conclusion” from an empirical and logical perspective is philosophical naturalism… She sees methodological naturalism as procedural and epistemological, as opposed to philosophical naturalism which is a metaphysical position. The heart of Forrest’s argument is as follows: ”Adopted in the sciences because of its explanatory and predictive success, methodological naturalism is the intellectual parent of modern philosophical naturalism as it now exists, meaning that philosophical naturalism as a world view is a generalization of the cumulative results of scientific inquiry… It is neither the a priori premise nor the logically necessary conclusion of methodological naturalism, but the well grounded a posteriori result.”
https://evolutionnews.org/2017/05/are-methodological-naturalism-and-philosophical-naturalism-the-same-a-dissent/ Notice the disingenuous not so sleight-of-hand rhetorical move which Forrest makes in her paper:
My conclusion is that the relationship between methodological naturalism and philosophical naturalism, although not that of logical entailment, is not such that philosophical naturalism is a mere logical possibility, whereas, given the proven reliability of methodological naturalism in yielding knowledge of the natural world and the unavailability of any method at all for knowing the supernatural, supernaturalism is little more than a logical possibility. Philosophical naturalism is emphatically not an arbitrary philosophical preference, but rather the only reasonable metaphysical conclusion--if by reasonable one means both empirically grounded and logically coherent.
https://infidels.org/library/modern/barbara_forrest/naturalism.html In other words, in Forrest’s view methodological naturalism employed in science has virtually proven philosophical naturalism. There is virtually no difference. So she can have her cake and eat it too! I along with other ID’ists see a lot of evidence for design in the world that has been uncovered by modern science. (You have to be either blind or bigoted not to see what we see.) There are a lot of things which cannot be explained naturalistically and no evidence that they will ever be explained naturalistically. The problem is that naturalists (materialists) are so dogmatically wedded to their worldview that they want to shut down the discussion of any other possible explanations. If they are so certain why are they so afraid?john_a_designer_{July 9, 2018
July
07
Jul
9
09
2018
10:40 AM
10
10
40
AM
PST}

Off-topic question: does anyone know why some comments show up in Recent Comments on the main page and some don't? Is this a known flaw that theoretically someone could try to solve, or an unsolvable problem, or the product of some known and accepted feature, or what? Any thoughts?jdk_{July 9, 2018
July
07
Jul
9
09
2018
10:26 AM
10
10
26
AM
PST}

jdk does not understand science nor how science operates.ET_{July 9, 2018
July
07
Jul
9
09
2018
07:19 AM
7
07
19
AM
PST}

kf writes, "JDK, it is not generally advisable to put words into someone’s mouth." I will repeat what you wrote,
So, the point is not whether people have tried in recent years to get along, or even that many fail to understand the interconnexions I just pointed to, …
I paraphrased this as
1) they are just trying to accommodate their beliefs to as to not rock the boat, so to speak, and/or 2) they fail to understand that MN is really an insidious endorsement of PN.
Other than my editorial comment of "insidious", how does my paraphrase misrepresent what you said?jdk_{July 9, 2018
July
07
Jul
9
09
2018
06:22 AM
6
06
22
AM
PST}

PS: It has been demonstrated that naturalism as a worldview and ideology is tantamount to evolutionary materialistic scientism and it is further evident from the NSTA, NAS and events in and around Kansas, that precisely such evolutionary materialistic scientism as Lewontin let the cat out of the bag on, has been imposed by institutional domination on science education. Your denial, has no probative force in the teeth of what has been shown.kairosfocus_{July 9, 2018
July
07
Jul
9
09
2018
06:01 AM
6
06
01
AM
PST}

JDK, it is not generally advisable to put words into someone's mouth. Especially, when you are obviously locking out and dismissing what has been demonstrated and repeatedly pointed out. Perhaps, too you overlooked my historical points, regarding two highly relevant cases: G K Chesterton (in living memory) and the eponymous Athanasius of the telling phrase Athanasius contra mundum. I can add, the era when marxist-socialist economics, policies and politics seemed to be right to a great many despite accessible and decisive correctives. In short, when the substance has been decisively answered, appealing to a multitude in disagreement has no probative force; though the why of their disagreement may have a lot to teach us on how a culture (especially its decision making and influencing elites) can go disastrously wrong -- my remarks on the Overton Window and its two BATNAs may be of some help . . . there is a zone of plausibility and power balance that may have little to do with truth. So, again, it is to the merits we must go. Later, KFkairosfocus_{July 9, 2018
July
07
Jul
9
09
2018
05:57 AM
5
05
57
AM
PST}

jdk:
I think this does a disservice to the integrity and intellectual understanding of a lot of people.
Nice projection, Jack. MN does a disservice to the integrity and intellectual understanding of science. I stand by my claim that no one uses MN and instead people use Newton's four rules. And it is very telling that Jack is too afraid to answer my questions. It's as if MN turns people into intellectual cowards.ET_{July 9, 2018
July
07
Jul
9
09
2018
05:48 AM
5
05
48
AM
PST}

re 67: kf writes, in the midst of reiterating his common points: So, the point is not whether people have tried in recent years to get along, or even that many fail to understand the interconnexions I just pointed to, ... So your answer to my question about the many religious people who accept MN as a principle of how science operates is 1) they are just trying to accommodate their beliefs to as to not rock the boat, so to speak, and/or 2) they fail to understand that MN is really an insidious endorsement of PN. That is, you think they are wrong to do so. I think this does a disservice to the integrity and intellectual understanding of a lot of people. But people have different opinions. I think yours is in the minority, for what that's worth. So, to summarize, I stand with my claim that the NSTA statement does not endorse materialism, and with the more general claim that MN does not imply PN. I understand your concern that the underlying cultural manifestation of PN (evolutionary materialistic scientism) is rampant and undermining civilization. Those concerns are, in my opinion, extreme, hyperbolic, a bit paranoid, and not part of the mainstream viewpoint of many thoughtful, well-educated people, religious and otherwise. There's probably not much new to be said on this subject in this thread, I think.jdk_{July 9, 2018
July
07
Jul
9
09
2018
05:43 AM
5
05
43
AM
PST}

PPS: A Bible text from C8 BC Israel is appropriate:
Amos 5:12 For I know your transgressions are many and your sins are great (shocking, innumerable), You who distress the righteous and take bribes, And turn away from the poor in the [court of the city] gate [depriving them of justice]. 13 Therefore, he who is prudent and has insight will keep silent at such a [corrupt and evil] time, for it is an evil time [when people will not listen to truth and will disregard those of good character]. 14 Seek (long for, require) good and not evil, that you may live; And so may the Lord God of hosts be with you, Just as you have said! 15 Hate evil and love good, And establish justice in the [court of the city] gate. Perhaps the Lord God of hosts Will be gracious to the remnant of Joseph [that is, those who remain after God’s judgment]. [AMP]
kairosfocus_{July 9, 2018
July
07
Jul
9
09
2018
05:16 AM
5
05
16
AM
PST}

PS: ET is correct to highlight the significance of Newton's four rules of reasoning for Natural Philosophy. Let me clip my comments in the IOSE:
to understand the kind of scientific reasoning involved and its history, it is also worth pausing to excerpt Newton's Rules of [[Inductive] Reasoning in [[Natural] Philosophy which he used to introduce the Universal Law of Gravitation. In turn, this -- then controversial (action at a distance? why? . . . ) -- law was in effect generalised from the falling of apples on Earth and the deduced rule that also explained the orbital force of the Moon, and thence Kepler's mathematically stated empirical laws of planetary motion. So, Newton needed to render plausible how he projected universality:
Rule I [[--> adequacy and simplicity] We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true [[--> it is probably best to take this liberally as meaning "potentially and plausibly true"] and sufficient to explain their appearances. To this purpose the philosophers say that Nature does nothing in vain, and more is in vain when less will serve; for Nature is pleased with simplicity, and affects not the pomp of superfluous causes. Rule II [[--> uniformity of causes: "like forces cause like effects"] Therefore to the same natural effects we must, as far as possible, assign the same causes. As to respiration in a man and in a beast; the descent of stones in Europe and in America; the light of our culinary fire and of the sun; the reflection of light in the earth, and in the planets. Rule III [[--> confident universality] The qualities of bodies, which admit neither intensification nor remission of degrees, and which are found to belong to all bodies within the reach of our experiments, are to be esteemed the universal qualities of all bodies whatsoever. For since the qualities of bodies are only known to us by experiments, we are to hold for universal all such as universally agree with experiments; and such as are not liable to diminution can never be quite taken away. We are certainly not to relinquish the evidence of experiments for the sake of dreams and vain fictions of our own devising; nor are we to recede from the analogy of Nature, which is wont to be simple, and always consonant to [398/399] itself . . . . Rule IV [[--> provisionality and primacy of induction] In experimental philosophy we are to look upon propositions inferred by general induction from phenomena as accurately or very nearly true, notwithstanding any contrary hypotheses that may be imagined, till such time as other phenomena occur, by which they may either be made more accurate, or liable to exceptions. This rule we must follow, that the arguments of induction may not be evaded by [[speculative] hypotheses.
In effect Newton advocated for provisional, empirically tested, reliable and adequate inductive principles resting on "simple" summaries or explanatory constructs. These were to be as accurate to reality as we experience it, as we can get it, i.e. a scientific theory seeks to be true to our world, provisional though it must be. They rest on induction from patterns of observed phenomena and through Rule II -- on "like causes like" -- were to be confidently projected to cases where we do not observe directly, subject to correction on further observations, not impositions of speculative metaphysical notions. Also, this requires that we show from observation that a proposed cause can actually produce the relevant effects. (Thus, Sir Charles Lyell proposed to explain geological phenomena in the deep past "by reference to causes NOW IN OPERATION.") This leads to the way that -- through a form of induction known as abductive inference to best explanation (cf. here for basics, and here for more complex details and issues) -- (a) certain explanatory hypotheses, models and theories [[E/M/T] can be identified as "best" current explanations of bodies of observed facts F1, F2, . . . Fn, and (b) such E/M/T's can then be onwards correlated with bodies of accepted theories in science [[BOATs], leading to the onward development of science.
The practical effect of methodological naturalism is to suppress the criterion of actually observed effective cause, for example to explain the FSCO/I in the living cell, starting with coded algorithmic complex information in D/RNA.kairosfocus_{July 9, 2018
July
07
Jul
9
09
2018
05:09 AM
5
05
09
AM
PST}

JDK, you are pulling the discussion off on a fairly predictable tangent, but I will pause to point out a few things. Right from the beginning I pointed to the one-sidedness of concerns -- oh those Creationists. Meanwhile, through things like the NSTA July 2000 statement and other interventions, we have evolutionary materialist censorship of education backed by overbearing institutional power. Things are so bad that a historically, epistemologically and scientifically well founded correction to the radical 2001 injection of evolutionary materialistic scientism into the school level definition was pounced on and subjected to the threat of holding the children of Kansas hostage over rejecting the accreditation of their high school science education. This was being done by the US NAS and NSTA, with enormous enabling by the dominant and domineering media. That is the hostile, destructive climate we are dealing with [one with obvious career-busting implications for those imprudent enough not to toe the partyline . . . ], and the responsibility lies in exactly the circles Richard Lewontin highlighted in his NYRB article. In that context, I also highlighted from the SEP article raised by Seversky how methodological naturalism, scientism and core naturalism are inextricably mutually intertwined and mutually supportive. So, the point is not whether people have tried in recent years to get along, or even that many fail to understand the interconnexions I just pointed to, it is that injection of a priori evolutionary materialist assumptions as a controlling, censoring a priori on science education is just that: censorship setting up indoctrination, no matter that it is usually done by implications on seemingly plausible methodical constraints. Yes, science often deals with mechanical necessity and/or blind chance as driving forces, but as Plato's alternative highlights. there are and can be significant cases where we need to study the alternative, natural vs ART-ificial. And in that context, to impose censorship is to undermine the ability of scientific work to seek the observationally anchored TRUTH about our world. Where, at its core, knowledge is about well warranted credibly true belief. That is why indoctrination and loading of key controlling premises and definitions with evolutionary materialistic scientism -- regardless of how subtly done -- is so destructive. It is time to face that and correct the harm that has been done. KFkairosfocus_{July 9, 2018
July
07
Jul
9
09
2018
04:50 AM
4
04
50
AM
PST}

jdk- I see that you are too afraid to answer questions pertaining to your question-begging methodological naturalism.
So, again, what do you think of the millions of the religious people all over the world who accept MN as the proper way to do science, and don’t think that conflicts with their religion.
That is just more question-begging. Your question-begging and special pleading may work in Kansas but it doesn't cut it here, Jack.ET_{July 8, 2018
July
07
Jul
8
08
2018
08:10 PM
8
08
10
PM
PST}

kf writes, "JDK, actually, I anticipated the questions; ..." Kf, I see nothing in what you write that answers these questions:
So, again, what do you think of the millions of the religious people all over the world who accept MN as the proper way to do science, and don’t think that conflicts with their religion. Are they all wrong?
jdk_{July 8, 2018
July
07
Jul
8
08
2018
06:00 PM
6
06
00
PM
PST}

jdk:
They were also religious people who believed that God had created this world and all of the natural phenomena that they were investigating.
Basically they were conducting science under an Intelligent Design framework. They were figuring out how the design works. You do that so you can understand it and use it to your advantage.
They saw no conflict between their religious beliefs and the methodological naturalism that they were using (even though they didn’t know that term.)
They were following Newton's rules and not MN.ET_{July 8, 2018
July
07
Jul
8
08
2018
05:16 PM
5
05
16
PM
PST}

JDK, actually, I anticipated the questions; which are little more than further personalising of an issue that needs to be resolved through addressing the substance on the merits. It is clear that we are dealing with evolutionary materialistic scientism, and that methodological naturalism is then a seemingly reasonable way to get rid of the possibility of god of gaps errors. The problem with that is that it comes with a subtext as shown above. Notice, as the SEP discusses, reality is a priori imposed upon to be physical only . . . that cannot be an induction from experience, nor from the logic of a world. Too often, what we have is little more than anti-supernaturalist prejudice, sneering and rhetoric; where the definition of what "natural" means is very problematic when physicalism becomes a hidden premise. But in that context, the only "real" things to be known are physical. Ultimately, of course this means knowledge can only be about the physical and how it gives rise to a world by blind chance and/or mechanical necessity. As one direct consequence, our own individual sense of identity and consciousness dissolves into Crick's delusions; however loathe many may be to accept that. So, evolutionary materialism and its fellow travellers are in the end in big trouble. For this thread, what is relevant is the clear fact of imposed censorship on science education. And that should be a wake-up call. But then, we must recall that in living memory it was a matter of deeply isolated, controversial opinion for G K Chesterton to challenge the seeming consensus on that former great champion of science, eugenics. And one could well imagine the Athanasius contra mundum objection being used to dismiss his concerns. He turned out to be right, as Athanasius was right before him, too. For, truth and warrant are not decided by majority vote but by substance. KFkairosfocus_{July 8, 2018
July
07
Jul
8
08
2018
05:13 PM
5
05
13
PM
PST}

jdk @ 56 What you're describing is probably the correct use of empirical science. I know very little about Faraday and Maxwell. However, if their work has any value at all then they must have established their conclusions as true independent of any operating assumptions that guided them in search.hnorman5_{July 8, 2018
July
07
Jul
8
08
2018
03:50 PM
3
03
50
PM
PST}

Science does not start with a conclusion, ie, "only naturalistic processes". However dogma does start with such a conclusion. Scientists follow Isaac Newton's four rules of scientific reasoning. That avoids the starting with the conclusion problem and allows for the real question of "natural or artificial" as opposed to the false dictum of "natural or supernatural"ET_{July 8, 2018
July
07
Jul
8
08
2018
02:48 PM
2
02
48
PM
PST}

JAD:
Of course, I don’t think that ID is anywhere close to establishing itself as a science, nor do I have any idea if it ever will.
It makes testable claims. What else does it need to become science?ET_{July 8, 2018
July
07
Jul
8
08
2018
11:13 AM
11
11
13
AM
PST}

jdk:
They were working to explain natural phenomena in terms of natural causes and forces.
How are you defining "natural"? Did natural causes and forces produce cars?ET_{July 8, 2018
July
07
Jul
8
08
2018
11:12 AM
11
11
12
AM
PST}

Good post, JAD, and I agree. Many questions are outside the scope of science, and in the realm of philosophy. One type of question is not inferior to the other, but they serve different purposes and are answered through different means. This is the distinction that I am trying to establish in this thread: that the NSTA statement endorsing MN as a feature of science is not in conflict with the religious and philosophical beliefs of the many people who do not believe that physical nature is all there is.jdk_{July 8, 2018
July
07
Jul
8
08
2018
10:52 AM
10
10
52
AM
PST}

Here is something I posted on UD back in 2009.
Though I am sympathetic with ID, I disagree with the ID’ists who insist that methodological naturalism is necessarily a bad thing. As long methodological naturalism is honestly kept distinct from philosophical (or metaphysical) naturalism I don’t see that it represents that much of a problem. On the other hand, there are ID critics like Barbara Forrest and Eugenie Scott who don’t make much distinction between the two. In fact, I suspect there is an intention to deliberately blur the distinction. Of course, I don’t think that ID is anywhere close to establishing itself as a science, nor do I have any idea if it ever will. But I also think that natural science is very limited about in what it can tell us about the real world. And while, science can tell us some things about origins it cannot give us the full story. I would argue that ID rather than naturalism is the picture that emerges when we interpret the evidence as a whole. This is a top down vs. a bottom up approach. In his book, There is a God: How the Worlds Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind, Anthony Flew makes this observation: “You might ask how I, a philosopher, could speak to issues treated by scientists. The best way to answer this is with another question. Are we engaging in science or philosophy here? When you study the interaction of two physical bodies, for instance, two sub atomic particles, you are engaged in science. When you ask how it is that those subatomic particles– or anything physical– could exist or why, you are engaged in philosophy. When you draw philosophical conclusions from scientific data, then you are thinking as a philosopher.” P89 Did Flew arrive at the conviction that the universe has evidence of design because it has been proven scientifically? I think the answer obviously is no, rather it is that design is the best interpretation of the evidence as we presently have it. That interpretation is a top down interpretation, a philosophical interpretation of the scientific evidence.
https://uncommondescent.com/philosophy/quote-of-the-day-barbara-forrest-on-methodological-naturalism/#comment-316566 I haven’t changed my position at all. Neither have those who want to have it both ways when it comes to MN. The main critics of ID do indeed conflate MN with PN. It’s at least disingenuous if not dishonest to claim they don’t.john_a_designer_{July 8, 2018
July
07
Jul
8
08
2018
10:17 AM
10
10
17
AM
PST}

Prev 1 2 3 4 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply