In the next video from the Alternatives to Methodological Naturalism conference, Jonathan Bartlett describes the philosophical underpinnings of methodological naturalism and why they fall short.
For more information about the Alternatives to Methodological Naturalism (AM-Nat) conference series, see the website. We have two more conferences coming in the next year!
A majority of modern philosophers and a majority of scientists do not believe that science is limited by methodological naturalism.
We believe that the methods of science can easily be used to investigate supernatural claims. For example, some people believe that gods created a world-wide deluge that killed almost everything on Earth.
Science has investigated that claim and shown it to be false.
Side note – this is my own video – posting in the third person to match all the others.
Larry –
I’m glad you agree with the video! However, I think you are mischaracterizing the majority viewpoint. Methodological naturalism is still front-and-center in a lot of institutions, such as the National Academy of Sciences, the National Science Teachers Association, many aspects of law, and many individual scientists and philosophers of science.
I hope that you continue to let people know that methodological naturalism is not an appropriate requirement for science!
Larry,
Why use an example that has nothing whatsoever to do with ID? Perhaps you’ve used the “ID creationism” line one time too many, and misplaced the simple fact that they are not the same thing?
Larry, How about you show one, just ONE scientific mainstream paper, that elaborates ID predictions based on something observed in nature, and tries to falsify it ? Why is it , that almost ALL papers that deal with origins, begin with evolution as if it would be a granted fact, and end with evolution, no matter how small the evidence is, that points to that direction ?
If intelligent design theorists do manage to publish in a peer-reviewed science journal, Darwinists will make sure the editor suffers grievously for it.
http://reasonandscience.heaven.....esign#4498
Although, as was pointed out, this has nothing to do with detecting Intelligent Design in biology or in cosmology, etc.., as to Moran’s claim that there is no evidence of catastrophic worldwide flood(s), I would like to set the record straight. That claim is simply a statement of ignorance of the science we now have in hand.
Scientific evidence for catastrophic megafloods, across the globe, approx. 13 to 14 thousand years before the present has now become compelling:
Moreover, Charles Darwin himself was shown to be wrong about a geological formation that he predicted to have been formed gradually. Yet, it is now known to have been formed by a catastrophic megaflood,,,
A few more notes:
etc.., etc..
Thus, whether you believe the Bible account of a worldwide flood that covered the whole earth or not, the scientific evidence itself shows us that worldwide catastrophic Megafloods were indeed happening approx 13,000 years before the present.
Moreover, the dating of the first ‘advanced’ human civilization is approx. 12,000 years before the present:
Interestingly, southeastern Turkey is close to where Noah’s Ark is said to have come to rest on a mountaintop:
Supplemental notes:
Verse:
It looks like Larry Moran changed his tactic. Instead of his usual bs called “most knowledgeable scientists” which poor Larry means PZ. Myers, Coyne if he is at his best, Joe F if the issue can be squeezed into population genetics and his unnamed bloggers including and Nick M and Jeff Shellit.
Larry is confused, at best.
Larry Moran @ 1
That would turn on what you understand by “natural”, “supernatural” and “methodological naturalism”. Would you care to elaborate?
johnnyb says,
I hope that you continue to let people know that methodological naturalism is not an appropriate requirement for science!
I’m doing my best. After talking to many philosophers, I sand by my statement that most reject methodological naturalism as a limitation of science.
It’s true that several prominent American organizations adopt this false notion but we understand their motives. It’s because it allows them to accommodate religion and that’s a political advantage in America.
Jerry Coyne on Lewontin and methodological naturalism
Can Science Test Supernatural Worldviews?
John Wilkins Revisits Methodological Naturalism
Note that I have changed my mind on this issue. Back in 2007 I believed that science was, in fact, restricted by methodological naturalism.
Larry
Per Coyne:
We have not seen higgs bosons either nor gravity but we have seen evidence of both. Do you really want to pull science into this debate?
Here is philosopher you apparently didn’t talk to, Bill Vallicella:
Mung quotes Mung:
Larry just doesn’t seem to care though.
Sad, really.