Defining Methodological Naturalism

_{April 27, 2012

Intelligent Design}

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

It’s been a while since we had a good discussion about Methodological Naturalism. This time around, I want to start out simple: I’m asking everyone, particularly those who believe methodological naturalism is essential to science (Matzke, I’m looking at you) to define it. More below.

I want to be clear here: my aim in this thread isn’t to argue against methodological naturalism, and certainly not for it. I do have an idea for a future post on the subject, of course. What I’m hoping for here are definitions – again, particularly definitions that its defenders accept. I’m likely going to ask any contributor here, particularly MN advocates, to further define some aspects of the definition. So if you tell me that methodological naturalism means limiting oneself to natural phenomena, I’m going to ask what makes a given phenomena natural.

Anyway, here’s hoping some MN advocates step up and provide what I’m asking for.

Comments

Hi, KF. I haven't yet read through all the material you link to, but if the first links are any indicator, I already substantially agree with you. Meanwhile I do have a question for you: Do you think science (in the modern or empirical sense) is the only way to acquire legitimate knowledge? If there was one phrase I could change about my prior post, it would be where I referred to the bogeyman guarding the gates of *scientific* respectability. I should have said *intellectual* or *academic* respectability since I do think the field of knowledge is much wider than science. But I'm curious if you agree.merv_{May 2, 2012
May
05
May
2
02
2012
01:09 PM
1
01
09
PM
PDT}

Hi merv: I hear your irenic spirit. That is good. Unfortunately, the problem is that methodological Naturalism is deeply and inextricably intertwined with both scientism and metaphysical naturalism, and even a priori materialism. It has been falsely presented by its champions as a centuries long settled methodological principle and premise of science [severely distorting the actual record of history on the roots, principles and limitations of modern science and its methods . . . cf. here the problem of the inductive turkey], and is being pushed as the basis for public policy to the point where those who question it or its cognates are branded (in progressive degree of branding) as not- or un- or anti-scientific. In short, methodological naturalism is a stalking horse for highly questionable philosophical and worldview agendas and ideologies, and has been used to take institutional science, science-related policy and in particular educational policy and practice captive. As just one illustrative case in point, here (read the US NAS first hen read on) is the not sufficiently well known July 2000 declaration of the US National Science Teachers Association [NSTA] Board:
The principal product of science is knowledge in the form of natural-ISTIC concepts and the laws and theories related to those concepts . . . . [[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 methods, explanations, generalizations and products [--> Notice, our naturalistic ideology, good, anything that contradicts or questions or challenges, bad, and to be excluded, thus science EDUCATION becomes INDOCTRINATION IN NATURALISM, a PHILOSOPHY] . . . . 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 [--> but of course, since anything that questions naturalism is a priori censored out, the contest is between naturalistic ideas, i.e. the serious questions of the limitations of the logic of induction and the related issues that on origins science deals with an unobserved, unobservable deep past reconstructed in light of inference to best explanation is censored at the outset, and prejudicial, stereotyping, scapegoating labels are used to brand any who beg to differ] that are, at least in principle, testable against the natural world. Other shared elements include observations, rational argument, inference, skepticism [--> contrary to popular opinion in today's world, skepticism is not an intellectual virtue. We should insist on adequate warrant for conclusions, but especially on empirical matters we must be open to the possibility of error and correction, thus recognise the unstated but obvious: inductive knowledge is a faith venture not unquestionable truth] , peer review and replicability of work . . . . Science, by definition, is limited to naturalistic methods and explanations and, as such, is precluded from using supernatural elements [[--> loaded and strawmannish term: in fact the issue in design inference since Plato in The Laws Bk X, has been nature [= chance +/or necessity] vs ART, i.e. the ARTificial or intelligent, which can be studied in light of replicable, empirical signs, which show that inference to design per such sign is inductively well warranted] in the production of scientific knowledge. [[NSTA, Board of Directors, July 2000. Emphases added.]
Begin to see the magnitude of the problem, and the damage that has been done by those who know or should have known better? KFkairosfocus_{May 2, 2012
May
05
May
2
02
2012
05:36 AM
5
05
36
AM
PDT}

What about the "demarcation problem?" It would appear that the boundaries between what constitutes science and non-science, physics and metaphysics are not as clearly defined as many would have us believe.Alastair F. Paisley_{May 1, 2012
May
05
May
1
01
2012
03:43 PM
3
03
43
PM
PDT}

Do we have a definition for what constitutes a “naturalistic” cause or event? I tried to get that, and Matzke didn't take kindly to it. I'll keep trying.nullasalus_{May 1, 2012
May
05
May
1
01
2012
02:20 PM
2
02
20
PM
PDT}

Do we have a definition for what constitutes a "naturalistic" cause or event?Alastair F. Paisley_{May 1, 2012
May
05
May
1
01
2012
01:53 PM
1
01
53
PM
PDT}

Response to Jon first, then Gregory. I see your points, Jon. You wrote: "So the whole idea that admitting supernatural causes confounds science is an justification after the event, and seems to have involved scientists, philosophers and theologians in creating a bogeyman they lived happily with before." Without my having qualified (and I should have) --perhaps my points would apply better to what how been called modern science? We've learned (and probably need to unlearn) to think of the science of the last few centuries as being different in kind than any sort of natural philosophy of preceding ages. The current age in which we still bask in the glow of discovering things like the universality of gravity now has us delighting in the discovery of commonality. If that has now become a bogeyman to guard the gates of "scientific respectability" then you are probably right and I don't have a good answer. Which leads into what Greg wrote. Greg --you are correct I am steeped thoroughly in western (American) thought on this; and so I guess my biases show through pretty heavily especially to those who aren't. But beyond that I already have pretty healthy sympathy --no, agreement, actually with those who think science is being too narrow, too exclusively reductionistic, too elitist (in terms of so-called 'harder science' vs. so-called 'softer sciences'.) If that is where you're at, then I think I'm already there except that I still make the distinction between various disciplines by the difficulty of what they study. Mathematicians and physicists followed by chemists have the 'easiest' job (I say that tongue-in-cheek because I know how truly mind-boggling their challenges are; far above my comprehension level as a mere high-school math & science teacher) But I mean 'easiest' in the sense that while their objects of study may be inscrutable (dizzying arrays of sub-atomic particles) they are nevertheless simpler. Once you master a mathematical theorem or capture and study a particle, it isn't going to change properties or morph or move in the way a biological organism (let alone a human being) is going to. Their are myriads more variables involved in what psychologists, sociologists, and biologists all study --so they have what seems to me the impossibly more difficult job (and that's saying a lot!) It probably says something about all our (only western?) biases that all the various sciences are trying to mimic the simpler sciences of physics or chemistry by attempting to subject organism behavior into cleanly controlled experimental study. We think that jets and computers are the fruits mainly of these physical sciences whereas its more difficult for a biologist or sociologist to point to a tangible 'thing' that blossomed as undisputed success from their studies. (Please correct my ignorance on this --I'm ready to view all such things that could be pointed at.) Knowledge of our past (especially when it is disputed) doesn't invoke the same level of admiration that conquering technologies command. Not saying this is all as it should be --just that here in the west, right or wrong, physics & co. are held in high esteem among the sciences. I am happy to learn from others what other useful tools a scientist has or ought to have to help apprehend a wider reality. My own definitions (MN style) on what science does isn't meant to be a discredit to other disciplines so much as an acknowledged limit (in the humility) sense of what physical sciences are useful for. Our academic scope is severely crippled if MN style science were seen to be the only legitimate approach to gaining knowledge. Does that come closer to your own view?merv_{May 1, 2012
May
05
May
1
01
2012
01:10 PM
1
01
10
PM
PDT}

Hi Merv, First, thanks for clarifying re: pronouns. Don't worry, my problem with MN is not mainly semantic. And I won't grade you on it ; ) You wrote: "I think the label still makes a useful handle for us to grab and use." Unfortunately, I don't think MN made sense in the first place, once one understands that de Vries was speaking about *only* natural sciences, and not about 'science' per se. From a philosophy of science (PoS) perspective, de Vries coinage was a primitive and backwards move. It astonishes me how many people, on *all* sides of this conversation, in the USA and other Anglo-American discourses, have latched onto it and see it as 'progressive'! Very few people in the Russian-German tradition (in which I'm schooled), would accept MN as having been a legitimate distinction in the first place. Only if one conflates 'science' with 'natural science' could it even be thought to be acceptable. As it is, that may be one of the biggest gaps in Anglo-American (analytic-style) PoS - it holds a disturbingly narrow view of 'science.' (This may also partly explain the resistance demonstrated in this thread as to why none would answer that an IDer can be a 'naturalist' too!) Please excuse that on-line we all make assumptions, merv, I'm assuming that you're raised and educated in the Anglo-American tradition wrt your views of PoS, are you not? "even if you make an unwanted label go away, it doesn’t make the thing so labeled disappear...Another phrase would take its place." This is a common confusion that has been denuded by 'science studies' (naukovedeniye), founded in Russia and developed in Poland, long before it came to the UK and USA. Even reading Feyerabend nowadays helps to get the point across; there are multiple methods of 'doing science;' a single method (naturalistic) is nothing more than a convenient myth. Thus, to conclude "the way science has worked" based on a single methodology is simply wrong. Do I recall correctly, merv, that you are (or were) a natural scientist? If so, did you really restrict yourself to a 'single methodological' framework? "Methodological Naturalism: The physical world, for purposes of scientific inquiry, may be assumed to operate by unbroken natural law." - William Dembski (at BioLogos) Dembski seems to follow the same program regarding 'how many sciences' count as 'scientific.' This is why he and I have a serious disagreement about 'which science' is the rightful home for 'intelligent design.' Who will end up with the more convincing story after history takes its toll?Gregory_{May 1, 2012
May
05
May
1
01
2012
11:05 AM
11
11
05
AM
PDT}

merv @106 My example was a poor one in the sense that clearly no scientific law would be likely to conclude that "the norm is that there is no norm." But it would still be the norm, notwithstanding, so science would not be able to describe what predominated in the natural world. "species just are" would be the extent of the discussion. You remind me that if everything in the world were an anomaly, science would be impossible - which one could extend to say that normal life would be impossible: not only science depends on reproducability. But that's a trivial truth. In fact, before Darwin, my scenario was believed almost universally to be true - as you know, Darwin directs his fire almost entirely against "special creation", because that was the prevailing belief and theory. There is, we now find, a good deal of evidence (with apologies to Creationists here) that the situation is more complex than that, and involves natural law to whatever degree. Even YECs posit variation within kinds, which is a post-Darwin development. But my point is that neither the science community then, nor the theology or philosophy communities, had ever seen a problem with universal special creation in the sense of its destabilising the Universe and making rational enquiry impossible. No theologians in 2 millennia had said, "Genesis must be allegorical and God must have used some unknown secondary means to create the species, or miracles would be multiplied unduly." Likewise philosophy conceived no problem with the prevailing assumption. Scientists toyed with spontaneous generation, but only because they were by then looking for "natural" mechanisms, not because life would become chaotic without them. So the whole idea that admitting supernatural causes confounds science is an justification after the event, and seems to have involved scientists, philosophers and theologians in creating a bogeyman they lived happily with before. I suggest that the reasons for that are sociological, rather than arising inevitably from the science.Jon Garvey_{May 1, 2012
May
05
May
1
01
2012
12:02 AM
12
12
02
AM
PDT}

---Gregory: "Are there *any* IDers, amongst the leaders of the IDM, who are ‘naturalists’?" Well, let's probe that persistent, penetrating question of yours. Definition: nat·u·ral·ist (nchr--lst, nchr-) n. 1. One versed in natural history, especially in zoology or botany. 2. One who believes in and follows the tenets of naturalism. Now it should be evident that the orientation of most ID scientists could be reconciled with the first definition and could not be reconciled with the second definition. So, unless you tell us which meaning you have in mind, or unless you share with us the meaning hidden away in your imagination, we cannot answer that question with a simple Yes or No. So asking it over and over again does not help. See how that works?StephenB_{April 30, 2012
April
04
Apr
30
30
2012
06:08 PM
6
06
08
PM
PDT}

Tragic M, "Nebraska can be a fairly windy place, being mostly plains, but I have never, EVER heard anything about any wind, even a tornado which we get often enough, stopping the entire river and exposing the bottom of it all the way across. In fact I’ve never seen nor heard of any wind even making a dent." Haha!! Yup. I didn't say it was reasonable, just an explanation. ;-)CannuckianYankee_{April 30, 2012
April
04
Apr
30
30
2012
05:21 PM
5
05
21
PM
PDT}

---Gregory: "O.k. but can you read texts? Paul de Vries’ paper, had you read it before Nick cited it or not? Have you read it yet?" As I recall, I received my information about de Vries definition of methodological naturalism in quote form from from Ronald Numbers as part of my research when I wrote my piece on Methodological Naturalism two years ago. If I misspelled his name recently, it was because I was going from memory. Even so, I didn't forget the main arguments, as should be evident. Where do you think I picked up the association between naturalism and "contingent realities" or "contingent realities acting on contingent realities" as expressed in my comments @71. I gleaned it from de Vries direct quotes as passed on by Numbers. After reading Nick's introductory comments on this thread, I followed up so I could get the information straight from the horse's mouth. That you missed my earlier allusions to de Vries abbreviated definition of MN makes me wonder if you have read his article yourself. Do you understand what he is (was) talking about? If so, then you can speak to my point about its incoherence. Of course, if you haven't read it, or if you don't understand it, or if you cannot grasp my objections, then I suppose there is little that you can comment on. Now, I have a couple of follow up questions for you. Have you read our FAQ yet on the subject of methodological naturalism? Did you read my article entitled Methodological Naturalism, Revisionist History, and Morphing Definitions? Have you read our FAQ on the difference between creation science and ID? No one had to prompt me to follow up on Nick's gracious offering. How many times do you have to be prompted to acquaint yourself with the subject matter of ID that is right under your nose? ---"If ‘naturalism’ is deemed a ‘side story’ for a thread about ‘methodological naturalism’ then it’s no wonder lack of understanding lurks everywhere." Your side story of asking which, and whether, ID scientists can be identified as naturalists does not, in any way, address the question about the definition of a natural cause or a supernatural cause, which is at the heart of our criticism of methodological naturalism. If only you would respond to challenges with the same enthusiasm that you issue them.StephenB_{April 30, 2012
April
04
Apr
30
30
2012
03:24 PM
3
03
24
PM
PDT}

"I cannot read minds" O.k. but can you read texts? Paul de Vries' paper, had you read it before Nick cited it or not? Have you read it yet? You've misspelled his name enough times to indicate you haven't a clue what the man's position or the term's original meaning is. This is one of the reasons why it is so difficult to speak with some lay IDers; they are often unwilling to admit what they do not know or have not read. It just must be true; no reasoning or consideration of evidence needed. If 'naturalism' is deemed a 'side story' for a thread about 'methodological naturalism' then it's no wonder lack of understanding lurks everywhere.Gregory_{April 30, 2012
April
04
Apr
30
30
2012
01:51 PM
1
01
51
PM
PDT}

--Gregory: "‘Intelligent design’ wasn’t even invented then. de Vries obviously didn’t aim to oppose something that didn’t exist!" I cannot speak to de Vries' motives since I cannot read minds, but I can speak to the fact that "methodological naturalism," as he conceived it, was later institutionalized to rule out the science of intelligent design. No such "rule" for scientists existed prior to that time. Begin with Roger Pennock and Eugenie Scott then work your way forward. I can prove the point in other ways by pointing to state-sponsored attempts to make methodological naturalism the rule for science and the dishonest attempt to link it with "creationism." This is a fact whether you like it or not. Get with the program. Also, as I have demonstrated, the concept is incoherent and no one should presume to enforce it in the name of science. If you are capable of providing a defense for it, this would be a good time to step forward. Of course, I know you will not because you cannot. You like to blow a lot of smoke, but you obviously cannot deliver the goods when called upon to do so. In keeping with that point, you would do well to dispense with your irrelevant side stories about ID and "naturalism." I realize that you have a fetish for obsessing over peripheral issues while ignoring the main topic, but those kinds of distractions do not work here.StephenB_{April 30, 2012
April
04
Apr
30
30
2012
01:34 PM
1
01
34
PM
PDT}

Hi, Greg -- my wrong use of pronouns was an artifact of fast typing and forgoing any proofreading so I could join my family for lunch. Of course 'science' isn't a person. You asked if I think MN should be relegated to the 'dustbin of history'. My short answer is 'no'. Don't get me wrong, though; I can understand how many think this particular well has been too poisoned (by atheists or anti-design reactionaries, etc.) to be considered safe. But I think the label still makes a useful handle for us to grab and use. I might get myself into trouble with you (as a former language arts teacher) for saying this. But even if you make an unwanted label go away, it doesn't make the thing so labeled disappear. Since I see MN as being more properly descriptive than prescriptive, the object of its description (the way science has worked) would still be there. Another phrase would take its place. --Mervmerv_{April 30, 2012
April
04
Apr
30
30
2012
12:15 PM
12
12
15
PM
PDT}

Hello again Merv, Glad to see you here in the case of BioLogos folks coming to visit or contribute at UD. Before we spoke at BioLogos. Please excuse the following comment, perhaps attributable to the fact that I was once an English language teacher. You wrote: "How is science (or anyone else) to be expected..." 'Science' is not a personal pronoun, it is a thing, a social construction, a process, a subject, a discipline or a field. There is no such thing as 'Science chooses' just like there is no such thing as 'Society chooses.' Look up sociological 'reification' and Emile Durkheim if you doubt this. It is curious to me why you chose this expression. I notice you support Nick Matzke's contention that primary and secondary causes are the basis for MN discourse, which Jon has also supported linguistically. I'm curious then; as a BioLogos-TE/EC supporter, do you promote the language of 'methodological naturalism' or would you rather abolish it completely (i.e. into a linguistic 'dustbin of history')?Gregory_{April 30, 2012
April
04
Apr
30
30
2012
11:54 AM
11
11
54
AM
PDT}

StevenB: Well said. KF PS: Re Gregory, it should be obvious by now that philosophical naturalism is by and large antithetical to design thought, and that its adherents will frequently use an imposed flawed rule to try to a priori assign an inference to design on signs to inference to the supernatural -- horrors! shudder! -- and dismiss. What can be pointed out is that there are serious thinkers who are agnostic or possibly even atheist, who see that there is a serious point to the design inference in light of basic principles of experimental science and reasoning by logic of induction. If they address cosmological design in particular that tends strongly to move them to Deism or even full orbed theism (though not necessarily towards a specific religious tradition that is monotheistic).kairosfocus_{April 30, 2012
April
04
Apr
30
30
2012
11:41 AM
11
11
41
AM
PDT}

Jon (@ 95), thanks for noticing my earlier (first) post. You wrote: "Here’s a thought experiment. Supposing special creation were true, and that each organism was found to be genetically and morphologically quite different and without any plausible mechanism for its descent from others, other than at the level of trivial variation.." ...and then you speculated that this might lead to a different prediction/law that no species are found to have significant commonalities; and would it fall within MN or explain anything. Let me respond with another thought experiment that may run parallel to yours with the additional advantage of possibly --probably-- being true. We've heard it said that "no two snow flakes are alike." If we put aside difficulties like "how close would they have to be before being considered 'identical'" that end up rendering it a meaningless assertion -- aside from that, could it be properly formulated as a scientific law to say "Every snow flake is unique"? It seems that science is more about commonalities (i.e. gravity works *every* day, all snow flakes have crystals of six-sided structure, all known living organisms are carbon-based, etc.) than about dis-commonalities (or 'anomalies' paradoxically as norm.) If the world consisted of nothing but one miracle or anomaly after another then there would be no science. Can we all agree to that? Since we observe so many orderly things that do conform to apparent laws we can formulate, we have science. Science sees anomaly as challenge, as it always has. How is science (or anyone else) to be expected to predict which of those still persistent anomalies are permanently (inherently) part of that category vs. which are going to prove part of a future discovered pattern? We may argue that the Bible declares to us which past events are miracles. But even there we end up begging the same question as we can argue about whether it was God as a primary mover or mediating through secondary causes (i.e. wind blowing over sea of reeds and drying it up.) If theologians can't even put this in scientifically demarcated categories using special revelation, how could anybody else be expected to authoritatively define all this? MN can't either. So it just plows ahead and says: "we as scientists see this large body of apparent anomaly --maybe it contains miracles -- maybe it doesn't; but all we can do is ... dive in with the tools we have!" That is what I see as the classic MN attitude. --Mervmerv_{April 30, 2012
April
04
Apr
30
30
2012
11:39 AM
11
11
39
AM
PDT}

StephenB - As of 30 April, 2012, have you read the entire article by Paul de Vries (note the proper spelling of his Name): "Naturalism in the Natural Sciences: A CHRISTIAN PERSPECTIVE"? Yes or No? "methodological naturalism was strategically calculated to rule out ID in principle" - StephenB 'Intelligent design' wasn't even invented then. de Vries obviously didn't aim to oppose something that didn't exist! If you've got proof that de Vries was reacting to Thaxton, Bradley & Olson, then please reveal it. Otherwise, you're just faking it and can't be taken seriously. KF - Are there *any* IDers, amongst the leaders of the IDM, who are ‘naturalists’? One might wonder why there is no use of the word 'naturalist' in #103, when that is the non-tangential term of contention. Then again, one just might wonder what KF means by 'straight talk'.Gregory_{April 30, 2012
April
04
Apr
30
30
2012
11:13 AM
11
11
13
AM
PDT}

---Gregory to Nullasalus: "Nick gave you definitions by Paul de Vries, who coined the term, provided links and quotes from several others including R. Numbers, gave names of people who’ve written on MN (presumably so you could learn something!)." As I pointed out at 29, 71, and 83, the arbitrarily established and incoherently conceived rule of methodological naturalism was strategically calculated to rule out ID in principle and, because it has not been sufficiently thought out, cannot suffice to answer even the simplest questions about archeology, forensic science, and other brances of science. By Devries definition, for example, an ancient hunter who crafts a spear is the same kind of cause as the wind, air, and erosion that forms rocks; the citizens of Pompei who designed artifacts were the same kind of cause as the volcano that buried them; a burglar who ransacks a house is the same kind of cause as a tornado that destroys it. Let's zero in on just one element. Was the volcano that buried the artifacts at Pompei really the same kind of cause as the human agents that created them? Were they, as Devries and his followers would have it, both natural causes? If so, then how does the archeologist differentiate between them in order to make a design inference? If more than one cause was involved, what kind of cause was it? If the persons that created the artifacts were not natural causes, were they "supernatural" causes? Or is there another category of cause that has not yet been articulated? None of the anti-ID parisans will answer these questions for the simple reason that they cannot provide an intellectual defense for their position. Those who would try to enforce a rule that they cannot defend are intellectually dishonest and need to be called out.StephenB_{April 30, 2012
April
04
Apr
30
30
2012
10:56 AM
10
10
56
AM
PDT}

Gregory: Pardon some straight talk. I find it now quite annoying that when I have to provide a bit of context, or balance you are very condescending or subtly dismissive. Please stop it. For all of this, we have gone out on tangents and the context is looking suspiciously like red herrings led out to strawmen laced with subtle ad hominems and set off with little rhetorical sparks. The end effect of polarisation and clouding of issues with distraction, has the same effect as the more blatant incendiary firebrand rhetoric that is more commonly used. And is seems that every point raised will become another excuse for yet another tangent. So, kindly stop. I have said enough for those who wish to deal with serious matters and will refrain myself from your further label and dismiss games. I have pointed out that Berlinski (evidently an agnostic) critiques the pivotal claimed mechanism that allegedly accounts for the appearance of design in body plans and shows its inadequacy, as a senior fellow of the DI Sci-Culture centre. Hoyle, a Nobel-equivalent prize holding astrophysicist, as I pointed out, came to argue for the monkeying with the physics of the cosmos by the turn of the 80's. And Flew -- after a lifetime of being the leading philosphical atheist of the anglophone world -- became a deist because of the strength of the design inference on evidence we have in hand. These are all facts, easily ascertained. Face them, and their implications. The main issue for this thread has been the issue that methodological naturalism does the work of being a shibboleth, and the onward pattern of behaviour has amply confirmed it. Plainly, no clear and clean definition of the key terms can be used, and the reason for that is that obviously they are all toxic partyline talk, used to manipulate the unwary into accepting assumptions or at least yielding default and power to the materialist ideologues in the holy lab coat and their fellow travellers, assumptions and assertions that cannot bear the plain cold light of day. As we can now plainly see with what happened when Dr Nick Matzke laid out in 66 how MN implies that the laws of nature forbid the miraculous as a possibility. That is nonsense, on the known limitations of inductive reasoning, much less the definition of a miracle, which last requires that there be a usual order to the cosmos, which is amenable to reasonable scientific inquiry. And, as Newton long ago pointed out, inductive investigations and generalisations cannot say anything the BLOCK the possibility of qualification based on rare events. We are back to the Lord Russell story of the inductive turkey who showed up every morning 9 am like clockwork for a good solid feed. Then, one day, it was Christmas Eve. What happens 364 days of the year cannot rule out what might happen for good reason come Christmas Eve. And that is before we actually address the deeper point. Because design theory is not about the dichotomy natural vs supernatural, but nature vs art and empirically reliable tested signs of art. Which was put on the table by Plato in The Laws Bk X 2350 years ago. In short, there is yet another level of distractive, ad hominem laced strawman exercise here all along. So, let us face plain facts and issues plainly. Good day GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{April 30, 2012
April
04
Apr
30
30
2012
10:16 AM
10
10
16
AM
PDT}

Copy/paste: It seems you equate ‘naturalist’ with ‘agnostic’, having brought in Hoyle and now Flew, in response to questions about ‘naturalism’. Have you ever thought possibly there could be 'gnostic' or even Abrahamic theists (Berlinski being not one of them/us) who are (legitimate) 'naturalists?'Gregory_{April 30, 2012
April
04
Apr
30
30
2012
08:18 AM
8
08
18
AM
PDT}

KF, for the record, I don't consider this to be a conversation. You keep going on in tangents, unable or unwilling to address simple, clear, direct questions. Yours is a ('design theory') monologue, not an attempt at dialogue. It seems you equate 'naturalist' with 'agnostic', having brought in Hoyle and now Flew, in response to questions about 'naturalism'. For the umpteenth time: Are there *any* IDers, amongst the leaders of the IDM, who are ‘naturalists’? Yes or No and Names would suffice. Don't let it spook you. Just answer calmly and without pretense or diversion. Can no one at UD clearly and directly answer this question?Gregory_{April 30, 2012
April
04
Apr
30
30
2012
08:15 AM
8
08
15
AM
PDT}

Gregory: Last I checked, Berlinski was a senior fellow of the Discovery Institute Center for Science and Culture [the ID side of DI, not the libertarian and Cascadia policy side] and is plainly one of the go to folks on design theory issues. You are still not addressing the import of what he has said on the record, and what it implies concerning design thought and design friendly thought. For that matter, Hoyle in his later years -- though an agnostic [trending Deist?] -- was making some pretty impressive design points [think: monkeying with the physics of the cosmos], including being one of the first modern users of the term intelligent design or its near cognates, with particular reference to cosmological design. the fundamental point is that one does not need to be a theist or a pantheist or a panentheist to support design theory, and that there are and have been eminent cases in point. I do not cite here Flew as he was an explicit Deist in the end. KFkairosfocus_{April 30, 2012
April
04
Apr
30
30
2012
07:43 AM
7
07
43
AM
PDT}

CY:
So I have a tendency to refrain from trying to explain the miraculous purely in terms of what occurs, or what can occur naturally. It’s their miraculousness that makes them miraculous.
I am not one to argue as your friend at Swindoll's church did. I was merely making an observation. Even if the feeding of the five thousand did not break the laws of conservation I'm sure it would still require supernatural power to perform, and thus it's still a miracle.
For example, the parting of the Red Sea could be explained by the fact that the “Sea of Reeds” was rather shallow, combined with the fact that there are many natural sand bars along its depths. All it would take to “part” it would be a swift wind from the East; which of course Moses would have known about.
I'm from Nebraska. We have a river there called the Platte River. "Platte" is a Native American word for "flat water." In most places the river is 100-200 meters wide. Also in most places, one can walk across the entire river without getting their knees wet. Nebraska can be a fairly windy place, being mostly plains, but I have never, EVER heard anything about any wind, even a tornado which we get often enough, stopping the entire river and exposing the bottom of it all the way across. In fact I've never seen nor heard of any wind even making a dent.tragic mishap_{April 30, 2012
April
04
Apr
30
30
2012
06:05 AM
6
06
05
AM
PDT}

Iow, KF, re: Berlinski, you don't know or aren't sure if he considers himself as a 'naturalist' or not. That's fine, and a fair answer in my books. There is no 'rhetorical entrapment' involved. He's a slippery fellow as far as I see it (in writing & video, since I haven't met him). Agnostic, yet apparently believing in some kind of 'ambiguous design' without a Creator. He likely won't give a positive statement about 'design,' precisely because of his agnosticism. Understood. We're on the same page. Now a shift - Personally, I don't think one can accept 'Design' (Big D, in my meaning, which in this rare case is consonant with TE/EC meanings), without being an Abrahamic theist. Berlinski is not a religious Jew, but rather a cultural anti-Darwinist. Not a big deal, o.k., so to me, that means he's not an IDer. Wrt the second straightforward and simple question, do you offer an answer or none, KF? Are there *any* IDers, amongst the leaders of the IDM, who are ‘naturalists’?Gregory_{April 30, 2012
April
04
Apr
30
30
2012
05:39 AM
5
05
39
AM
PDT}

Gregory: Pardon, but your demands are looking more and more like rhetorical entrapment attempts and a pretence that what I have had to say already is irrelevant, even though the matter is not a simplistic yes/no, and sorry but usually when someone in a debate-tinged context insists on such a simplisic answer the reasons are not good. I cannot truthfully say more than I know, which is as described. The question may not be answerable on the record as yes/no, and it certainly is the case that Berlinski has been described as agnostic or the like, with pointed questions on the Darwinian mechanism; that is he rejects the principal naturalistic method held to account for the origin of major body plans, with specific cases and issues in point, on public record. What is certainly credible is that one needs not be a theist or a creationist to be a design thinker or even general supporter [perhaps with reservations on the worldview claims of those who are theistic advocates of design thought], and Berlinski is an example of why that is so. KFkairosfocus_{April 30, 2012
April
04
Apr
30
30
2012
05:23 AM
5
05
23
AM
PDT}

It is indeed pitiful to see people who position themselves as naturalists proper, trying to extrapolate their limited knowledge onto this-is-impossible kind of statements. Impossible? Says who? It is not even undergraduate logic: now I know that 2 + 2 makes 4, don't tell me about miracles. It is simply myopic. The smartest thinkers in the entire history of humanity recognised they knew nothing really. And yet our naturalists are 100% sure they know what's possible and what's not. I am not suggesting that miracles are subject to scientific scrutiny. I am just saying that: 1. miracles are possible as there is in fact nothing whatsoever that can disallow them in principle; 2. it is therefore ungrounded logically to rule out miracles as impossible; consequently, the acceptance of the possibility of miracles does not go against science. The new naturalists, without noticing it, are painting themselves into a corner by argueing that something is impossible. To prove impossibility is extremely hard at least, if not impossible. It is characteristic that as soon as the discussion is about something written in the Bible, they vehemently deny it. However, their hyperskepticism does not stop them from proposing nonsensical hypothesis a la abiogenesis, that something out of the blue started assembling itself without an external impetus and that purpose appeared for no purpose. Where is their naturalistic logic? Chesterton was right in saying that people believe in anything if it is not written in the Bible.Eugene S_{April 30, 2012
April
04
Apr
30
30
2012
04:57 AM
4
04
57
AM
PDT}

Partly a reply to Merv @32 whose first post got held up in moderation. Here's a thought experiment. Supposing special creation were true, and that each organism was found to be genetically and morphologically quite different and without any plausible mechanism for its descent from others, other than at the level of trivial variation.. That would mean one could formulate some law to the effect that no organism above, say, species level will be found to share characteristics that are not purely coincidental. Assuming God's ongoing miraculous activity, that would be an entirely reliable predictive principle from observation. Would it then be compliant to the principle of methodological naturalism, and if so would it explain anything at all?Jon Garvey_{April 30, 2012
April
04
Apr
30
30
2012
04:57 AM
4
04
57
AM
PDT}

KF, Is there something wrong with my English language? You wrote: "It sure looks to me that what is happening is that an a priori evolutionary materialism a la Lewontin..." All I asked was: "Are you suggesting that David Berlinski considers himself a ‘naturalist’?" Please, just keep it simple and answer the question without adding diversions to Sternburg, cows, whales, seals, Newton, etc. This is not as difficult as you are making it. Does David Berlinski in your view, KF, consider himself a 'naturalist' or not? It seems this a question that 'spooks' you, as nullasalus has said of Nick Matzke. Are there *any* IDers, amongst the leaders of the IDM, who are ‘naturalists’? Again, this is a very simple, clear and direct question.Gregory_{April 30, 2012
April
04
Apr
30
30
2012
04:32 AM
4
04
32
AM
PDT}

Gregory: Pardon, but the reports I have seen, without contradiction, are that Berlinski is an agnostic or the like, who of course is of Jewish rather than Christian etc background. He challenges the theses of Darwinism (I particularly liked his debate on TV with Ms Scott of NCSE) and raises the issue that design is a viable explanation, in context of say what it takes to transform a cow or the like into a whale; as in his 50,000+ changes count. Notice also Sternberg's pointing to the same example, all int eh context where this has been trumpeted since the 1990's as a major example of macroevolution on presumed Darwinian mechanisms of chance variation and differential reproductive success. I note the recent headline that there is a claimed whale fossil that is 4 MY past the usually asserted beginning of the sequence, raising the question of adequacy of time, but actually I think the scope and span of the observed universe are obviously not enough for that mechanism to do a whale from a cow, given the many deeply isolated configurational changes involved and the penalty for failure for many of them. It would help to contrast whales, seals etc and otters; all of which latter are plainly viable marine or aquatic organisms. It sure looks to me that what is happening is that an a priori evolutionary materialism a la Lewontin is implicitly imposed and is forcing the acceptance of the implausible on grounds that the only known, observed source of FSCO/I is not acceptable. It is time that we took a long hard look at our reasoning in light of Newton's rules for reasoning in experimental philosophy, in Principia. KFkairosfocus_{April 30, 2012
April
04
Apr
30
30
2012
04:17 AM
4
04
17
AM
PDT}

1 2 3 … 5 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply