Jesse

theyeti:
Yes, but even that's a double standard. Creationists rant endlessly about the evils of relativism.

But they're not endorsing relativism itself, they're just endorsing the relativistic view that your interpretation of the evidence is totally determined by your preexisting philosophical worldview. They still think their own worldview is objectively true, though. Do you remember Jim Mitchell and his presuppositionalism? Maybe not all creationists go quite that far, but they do lean in that direction.

Albion

I would love to know how ID creationists think science will work in their post-materialistic world when all biases are a thing of the past and non-naturalistic explanations are as valid as any others.

The scientific method attempts to explain the universe in terms of the laws of nature (hence the full name, natural science). Even the descriptive sciences have a large body of theory behind them which is expressed mathematically on the basis of the fundamental way the universe is known to work. I don't see how non-naturalistic explanations are going to be able to fit in there. What's the equation for God? I mean, as soon as you say that something can't be explained by natural processes, then the scientific method as presently set up becomes worthless. Anything goes, because in the last analysis the laws of nature don't constrain your explanation. I don't see how theoretical biology will be possible.

The real reason that ID creationists are going straight to the public is because the ID movement is fundamentally a poplitical rather than a scientific one and they're much more interested in manipulating public opinion than in gaining acceptance by the mainstream scientific community. They want a post-materialist, nonsecular society in general; science is a very small part of what they're fighting about. It's just that "we have no choice, we're being discriminated against" sounds so much better than "but the public is our real target anyway." It isn't true, of course, but it sounds better.

theyeti

I'm afraid I don't see the distinction. Perhaps you can explain.

As I see it, once the evidence depends completely on one's preexisting worldview, it logically follows that one cannot adjudicate between worldviews based on evidence, which is the very definition of relativism according to my (limited) understanding. Of course the creationists think their worldview is superior, but they can't also claim that the evidence supports them if they use such arguments. And when they rant about how evil relativism is, it's basically because people will often say "well, that's only wrong from your particular point of view," usually in reaction to some sort of moral proscription (though they apply it to more than just morality). But then they say that it's okay to have different points of view when judging scientific evidence. I just don't see how to reconcile the two. On the one hand, they're saying that the evidence favors their worldview, which only makes sense if you assume that the evidence can be objectively analyzed. On the other hand, they're saying that the evidence is fully subject to one's worldview, and thus cannot be objectively analyzed (hence, evolutionists aren't necessarily correct). But if this is the case then the evidence shouldn't really matter. They could then just decalre it all irrelevant and save themselves having to make up a lot of nonsense.

Perhaps my problem is the inconsistent nature of their argumentation. Realtivist or post-modernist arguments are all well and good, but I don't see how they can live side by side with logical positivist or pre-modernist arguments. People like Philip Johnson simply switch to a contradictory philosophy whenever it helps their case. So we end up with evolution being subjected to post-modernist deconstruction, but ID is merely assumed to fall under a logical positivist framework. Regardless of which philosophy one intends to utilize, I think one should be consistent and apply it across the board.

No I don't remember him. Did he post here or is he a formerly well known creationist? I would be interested in hearing what it was he advocated.

theyeti

gcameron

Jim Mitchell used to be a regular here and was one of the forum's pre-eminent presuppositionalists. He used to tangle with Singledad among others. I never was able to deconstruct his arguments; his sheer long-windedness always intimidated me.

I am neither a scientist nor a philosopher of science, but it seems to me there are biases built into science. A reliance on empiricism is one; a belief that the universe tends to behave in orderly and repeatable ways is another (though maybe not so firmly asserted in a post-quantum world). I (perhaps mistakenly) consider these to be a priori assumptions that can never be absolutely, philosophically justified. However, the reason people keep doing science is because it seems to have proven useful. A scientific modeling of weather has given us a better capacity to predict whether it will rain tomorrow, than did a magical modeling of weather. A scientific modeling of physics and chemistry has helped us to (among other things) put men on the moon, whereas a magical approach has met with no such spectacular results. If your child is sick, it seems more effective to give him antibiotics than to pray for him (though some still dispute that).

I don't think there is any way to ultimately, absolutely justify the biases underlying the scientific way of thinking. We just keep doing it because it keeps being useful. It has paid off well.

So when people ask, "Does science have a naturalistic bias?" I would reply: Of course it does. That is why it is science, and not some other method of accumulating knowledge about the world.

Godot

One of the major benefits to peer-reviewed journals is that the review process aims to minimise sources of bias. Once a paper is submitted, it is gone over in meticulous detail to ensure that the methodology is tight (and appropriate), that the statistical analysis is correct, that the provided interpretation of experimental data can be arrived at in a logical manner, that the results are reproduceable, and that the inherent sources of bias are controlled for.
If IDers were required to undergo such rigorous scrutiny every time they wished to publish, they wouldn't aim to be published in peer-reviewed journals (or they would create their own doppelganger of a journal), but would go directly to the media...... right. Never mind then.:banghead: