Starboy

Vanderzyden,

All areas of human endeavor limit themselves. Writers limit themselves to words. Painters are limited to painting and so forth. Scientists limit themselves to the natural. People who try to comprehend existence and do not limit themselves to the natural are called philosophers and theologians. My understanding is that society has got that covered. Vanderzyden, is there a shortage of philosophers and theologians to the point that it is necessary to press scientists into service? If so, it sounds like a terrible idea, I don’t think they would make good philosophers or theologians.

Examining a claim that something is created can be scientific. However when there is little or no evidence to support it what is the point. It is then speculation and not science. If you wish to speculate that life had a creator, go right ahead, but if you want to be taken seriously by scientists you better have some good evidence. I do agree you have a point that scientists have a knee jerk reaction that rejects creationism. It does show a certain amount of close mindedness, however in defense of science, there are many fantastic claims with little or no evidence made all the time. There is barely enough time to examine legitimate scientific claims let alone all the claims constantly being made at the fringe. If there is anything at all to the ID claim, then it will have to be IDers that do the work and come up with the extraordinary proof. Only then will it be noticed by the scientific community. Vanderzyden the ball is in your court, not the court of science. Put up or shut up.

Starboy

Skeptical

This is simply incorrect. I have already gone to great lengths to explain the difference between empirically verifiable explanations and non-empirically verifiable explanations. I'm not going to repeat my arguments.

Logic is perfectly empirical, you must agree objectively on the rules of logic. The number 2 can be seen perfectly well. You just wrote it, I see it. This has all been covered earlier in this thread.

I would, and have, argued that morals classify as non-empirically verifiable claims. Validity and truth are measured against the empirical world or they are not measured at all.

I never said the explanation was the evidence. I have said and shown repeatedly that there is a very real difference between empirically verifiable explanations and NEV explanations.

None of this is relevant to whether an explanation is empirically verifiable or not. If an explanation is NEV, there is no way even in principal to verify its truth. I have given you repeated examples showing why this is true.

All of these concepts are meaningless without an appeal to something that is empirically verifiable.

Quantum mechanics notwitstanding, I submit that this is not a scientific question becauses one can always continue to ask "why". For example, I say "why is there something", someone says "goddidit", I say "why?", someone says "because", I say "why?", etc etc. Why do atoms behave the way they do? Why does light behave the way it does? At some level of granularity one can always continue to ask "why" and the only conceivable answer is "that's just the way it is".

Give me a single example of how one would examine empirical data using non-empirical methods that doesn't in turn rely on empirical data.

I have examined your examples and I have answered them. I won't repeat my arguments. You have not even attempted to answer my assertion that any NEV explanation is just as good as any other and therefore they are all meaningless.

I have not ignored you, I have answered every point you have raised. You have continued to claim that logic and mathematics are non-empirical when I have argued they are not. I agreed that morality was non-empirical, and clearly stated that this is an area where empiricism does not apply. I don't know what you've posted that I have not replied to.

Yes, I live that way. My personal feelings are my own. They may be relevant to me, but they are directly unknowable by others and therefore irrelevant from an empirical perspective. I don't think that any NEV explanations are worth considering to explain empirical data. Whether "goddidit", "satandidit" or "aliensdidit" are all equally unprovable and worthless to explain empirical data.

I'm not upset, I just cannot understand how anyone can deny that NEV explanations are worthless when considering empirical data.

Here is yet another example in the form of a question:

I assert that aliens from gilgamesh created the earth and everything on it. They're technology is very advanced and we cannot know them through sensory means. I only know it because they speak to me telepathically, and only I can know about them.

Question: Can you prove I'm wrong?

[ September 10, 2002: Message edited by: Skeptical ]

[ September 10, 2002: Message edited by: Skeptical ]</p>

Skeptical

Ok, perhaps I'm wrong. Vander, you wrote:

<strong>My problem is that methodological naturalism (MN)is the worldview of so many scientists, and they claim that it is science itself. I have indicated this repeatedly. MN systematically excludes any supernatural explanation as a cause for natural objects or phenomena.</strong>

I want to take your objection seriously, so let's take some empirical data and you show me how I would consider supernatural claims and how I would differentiate between them.

Data: A picture falls off the wall, seemingly on its own
Non-natural explanation: ?

Please fill in the question mark and tell me how you arrive at your conclusion and, most importantly, how do you distinguish one non-natural claim from another.

Vanderzyden

Ah....so, you substitute "that's just the way it is" for "it is designed". In fact, you say it is the only "conceivable" answer. Well, I can conceive of different answers. Perhaps (as I have suggested above) you are choosing what you are willing accept as valid forms of inquiry. In effect you are insisting that if it can't be measured quantitatively, then it can't be known. By this, you define what is knowledge and refuse to consider all of the possibilities. This is most surely the main contention in our discussion. OK, well, admit that and we can move on to other fine topics.

My argument is not that "God did it" or "it is designed" are wholly satisfying answers for the HOW questions, but it is for many WHY questions. WHY? and HOW? are equally valid scientific questions. Examples:

-- Why do sub-cellular components work so well together? Why do the work at all?
-- Why are there immense differences between humans and apes?
-- Why is there a weak and strong nuclear force? Why are they important phenomena?
-- Why might allowance for design inference change the entire approach to scientific investigation?

You cheat yourself by not seeing these as scientific questions.

How is it that, after five pages of posts, that you don't understand that I don't have a problem with this scenario? My answer:

There is only a natural explanation for the falling picture.

Let me reiterate:

Many things have natural explanations.

However:

Many things do not.

I understand your distinction between NEV and EV explanations. What you are not grasping is that the explanations themselves are non-empirical. Despite your insistence, logic and math are non-empirical. (To use your technique: I defy you to empirically demonstrate the number 2). You have done nothing to demonstrate the contrary, but have only insisted that we can "agree" on "objective". Apparently, you say this in ignorance of extensive historical philosophical inquiry concerning empiricism. The "objective" does not exist: it is non-empirical. The evidence means nothing without an explanation. Whatever explanation you provide, it will not be empirical itself. It will explain empirical phenomena. It must be persuasive, and convincing--these are, again, non-empirical.

My observations:

-- You won't you admit that we heavily rely on non-empirical constructs to conduct scientific investigation.

-- You fail to refute or address my insistence that a philosophy underlies Darwinism. It is the philosophy that is problematic.

-- You narrowly restrict science to what is tangible.


Vanderzyden

[ September 10, 2002: Message edited by: Vanderzyden ]</p>

Doubting Didymus

I submit that these are definitely scientific questions. Now make your hypotheses, and we can consult the evidence.

I think we need to make a distinction between non-natural explanations and non-empirical explanations. Holy design is a non natural, yet empirical, explanation. We can accept it as a hypothesis, and see which theory the evidence best suits: evolution or design.

This is actually done. I assume you think IDists get their papers rejected because of a natural bias? They do not, an ID paper would be accepted as soon as ID produces any evidence for design.

I submit that science considers non-natural questions all the time. The hypothesis: 'subject A uses supernatural powers to read the minds of other persons' is a non natural hypothesis. If it were confirmed it would become a non-natural theory, no less. But what science can never do is consider non-empirical EVIDENCE. Vander, so far you have (arguably) demonstrated what a non-empirical hypothesis looks like. Now show us what non-empirical evidence looks like.

Starboy

Vanderzyden, can you refute that?

Starboy

[ September 10, 2002: Message edited by: Starboy ]</p>

Albion

You can put "why" in front of a question and it can still be a "how" question. The first three of your questions can be taken as "how" questions qutie easily because they could be interpreted as asking about mechanism rather than intent. The first question could be answered by an essay about the workings of biochemical processes and their interactions, or it could be answered philosophically in terms of the deeper meaning behind systems that work well with each other.

Your fourth question is different but invalid. It won't change the approach to scientific investigation, it'll destroy science. Well, I suppose destruction is an extreme form of change, but that's what'll happen. When you include the possibility of supernatural forces, you aren't doing science any more.

Starboy

Vanderzyden,

Are you saying that “narrowly restricting science to what is tangible” is the philosophy underlying Darwinism? How is that a philosophy? If that were not the philosophy, then would you mind explaining what is the philosophy and why it is flawed?

Starboy

Doubting Didymus

I completely disagree. Science does allow for a design inference. The hypothesis: 'the christian god as described in the bible designed and created all life' is a scientific hypothesis. You can easily examine the evidence and see if it fits the hypothesis. As it happens it does not, so the hypothesis is rejected. Science does not take a blow to its foundations evey time the Amazing Randi conducts a test using the hypothesis: 'subject X has supernatural powers'.

Science accepts supernatural hypotheses, but can not work with non-empirical evidence. Science can test to see if demons cause disease, or if bacteria do it. It does this by examining empirical evidence. What do you think would happen to science if we took some cancerous tissue under a microscope and found the cells covered in occult symbols and surrounded by little creatures who say 'hello i'm a demon', then dissapear? The hypothesis: 'demons cause cancer' would become the scientific theory: 'demons cause cancer'. A non natural explanation, derived from empirical evidence. Science would have a new field: demonology, but science would be the same old beast it always was, formulating hypotheses and finding evidence for or against them.

The same is true of the theories of special creation and intelligent design. These are hypotheses that could be confirmed by empirical evidence, if only the evidence existed.

The real question here should be about non-empirical evidence, which I don't think exists. What does 'evidence we cannot sense' mean, anyway?

Starboy

DD, at that point demons would become natural. There is an implicit assumption in science: anything that can be measured or inferred from measurement IS natural. Only something that could not be detected in any way could be non-natural. There are really only two types of phenomena in science, natural phenomena we know about and natural phenomena we don't know about. It is all natural.

Starboy

[ September 10, 2002: Message edited by: Starboy ]</p>