Nuclear chemist Dr. Jay Wile recently wrote a review of the book Naturalism and Its Alternatives in Scientific Methodologies.
Read More ›

Or correct. Or incorrect. Nothing is. Physicists are simply beginning to act as though they realize that and it’s okay. We are animals and animals are never wrong. We just win or lose power struggles. Yesterday, we noted that Peter “Not Even Wrong” Woit thinks that 2016 was the worst year ever for fake physics. He noted an item by Marcus Woo, at ScienceFriday, “Why the Multiverse Isn’t Just Madness” The multiverse—the idea that infinite universes stretch beyond our own—has gained traction among physicists. But others think it’s just a multi-mess. Alternate realities, parallel dimensions, and multiple universes. Whatever you call it, the notion of other versions of existence is one of the most popular tropes in science fiction. In Read More ›

From Steve Petersen of Niagara University a paper (2014) arguing for a “normative yet coherent naturalism”: Naturalism is normally taken to be an ideology, censuring non-naturalistic alternatives. But as many critics have pointed out, this ideological stance looks internally incoherent, since it is not obviously endorsed by naturalistic methods. Naturalists who have addressed this problem universally forswear the normative component of naturalism by, in effect, giving up science’s exclusive claim to legitimacy. This option makes naturalism into an empty expression of personal preference that can carry no weight in the philosophical or political spheres. In response to this dilemma, I argue that on a popular (but largely unarticulated) construal of naturalism as a commitment to inference to the best explanation, Read More ›

While these statistics get recompiled continually, I was pleased to wake up this morning and find that our new book, Naturalism and Its Alternatives in Scientific Methodologies is currently the #1 Hot New Release in the Scientific Research category, the #2 Hot New Release in epistemology, and the #1 Hot New Release in Psychology research.
Read More ›

From Blyth Institute: Many volumes have addressed the question of whether or not naturalism is a required part of scientific methodology. However, few, if any, go any further into the many concerns that arise from a rejection of naturalism. If methodological naturalism is rejected, what replaces it? If science is not naturalistic, what defines science? If naturalism is rejected, what is gained and what is lost? How does the practice of science change? What new avenues would be available, and how would they be investigated? This volume is divided into three parts. The first part considers the question of methodological naturalism and its role in the demarcation problem – deciding what is science and what isn’t. The second part discusses Read More ›

Relevant to that point, what proportion of the total are they? From a survey at philpapers: on where philosophers stand on stuff like God, free will, etc: Free will: compatibilism, libertarianism, or no free will? Accept or lean toward: compatibilism 550 / 931 (59.1%) Other 139 / 931 (14.9%) Accept or lean toward: libertarianism 128 / 931 (13.7%) Accept or lean toward: no free will 114 / 931 (12.2%) God: theism or atheism? Accept or lean toward: atheism 678 / 931 (72.8%) Accept or lean toward: theism 136 / 931 (14.6%) Other 117 / 931 (12.6%) A friend notes that out of 931 target faculty 49.8% accepting or lean toward naturalism, and 25.8% accepting or leaning toward non-naturalism. Another friend Read More ›

We are excited to report that we have received a steady stream of submissions to AM-Nat Biology over the last few weeks. If you haven’t submitted your abstract, please do so soon.
Read More ›

From Joshua Howgego at New Scientist: Evolution has built bias into our brains – here are the best ways to overrule your instincts and make better decisions about everything (paywall) More. What? To the folk at New Scientist, we are merely products of evolution who probably cannot grasp reality (it is unclear that there is a reality to grasp). And therefore, even if we thought we were outsmarting anything, it would be an illusion, though whose or what’s illusion is unclear. If Darwinism, the creation story of naturalism, is taken seriously, there is no I in I. Questions of truth are irrelevant but, of course, power is forever. Don’t pay for this. Let’s spend our Christmas money on coffee and Read More ›

From Johnny Bartlett at the Blyth Institute: Description of the organization and its target audience We do research and education in biology, engineering, and computer science focusing on new avenues of research. This is for a book investigating alternative approaches to scientific and academic discovery and analysis. Content details Description We need a cover for the book “Naturalism and Its Alternatives in Scientific Methodologies”. The book is the result of a conference we held earlier this year. There is a template for the cover attached. US$499. A previous book that we published is this one – https://www.amazon.com/Engineering-…283863/ref There is no need to match anything about this cover, but I thought you should see what won the last competition. I usually Read More ›

No, you don’t need any more evidence, but where O’Leary for News lives, this is the time of year one cleans out stuff and takes stock. From David Klinghoffer, quoting a biology grad at Evolution News & Views: I’m just finishing up my master’s degree in evolutionary biology and likely starting a PhD in evolutionary genetics next fall. I was at an evolutionary genetics lab for a few weeks earlier this year and the world-renowned geneticist there was mocking other views. Even in the absence of answers to big questions like how life started and how new enzymes arise, evolutionary biologists are closed to answers that don’t come from Darwinism. The scorn towards Darwinian skepticism is quite strong in my Read More ›

Here: Perhaps the most striking trend in American religion in recent years has been the growing percentage of adults who do not identify with a religious group. And the vast majority of these religious “nones” (78%) say they were raised as a member of a particular religion before shedding their religious identity in adulthood. … About half of current religious “nones” who were raised in a religion (49%) indicate that a lack of belief led them to move away from religion. This includes many respondents who mention “science” as the reason they do not believe in religious teachings, including one who said “I’m a scientist now, and I don’t believe in miracles.” Others reference “common sense,” “logic” or a “lack Read More ›

Dr. Joshua Swamidass, a computational biologist from Wash U, recently posted some questions to critics of methodological naturalism like myself, and also explicitly named the AM-Nat (Alternatives to Methodological Naturalism) conferences as an example of those searching for an alternative to methodological naturalism.  After some discussions with Dr. Swamidass, I thought I would take some time to write a response to his questions.  I apologize for the length, but these issues take some time to suss out.  Therefore, this response will be broken into two parts.

Read More ›

Earlier I posted some questions for critics of methodological by Dr. Joshua Swamidass. I plan on writing a response to Dr. Swamidass’s criticisms and questions, but for the moment I will offer my own questions to the proponents of Methodological Naturalism (update – my answers to these questions are here and here).
Read More ›

The question of whether methodological naturalism is an idea worth holding onto in science has been one that the ID camp, as a whole, is not unified on. Some think that methodological naturalism is a perfectly valid way to define science, and that ID fits nicely within that scope. Others think that methodological naturalism is just philosophical baggage hitching a free ride and should be discarded.
Read More ›

In the next video from the Alternatives to Methodological Naturalism (AM-Nat) conference, Arminius Mignea points out that when we force science to adhere to naturalism, it requires scientists to simply ascribe supernatural powers to ordinary matter. Remember, the AM-Nat biology conference is coming up in November. We already have several abstracts submitted and you should get registered now during our early bird special! More information is available at http://www.am-nat.org/