Skeptical

How is this the fault of science? Are we simply to mark off certain topics as "out of bounds"? If we did this we still think that the earth was flat and demons caused disease. The problem is that religions make truth claims that are capable of empirical disproof and then deny the evidence.

Vander, by your own admission you knew nothing about the DNA evidence prior to this thread and yet you were convinced there was no evidence for evolution. I would call that an a priori assumption. Now, you appear to concede that by all appearances common descent may be true, your just arguing about the mechanism. Your only argument seems to be one from "personal incredulity", you just don't see how the mechanisms of RM and NS could lead to life as we see it on its own. we see RM and NS at work, we multiply it by hundreds of millions of years and it doesn't seem so far-fetched.

I'll ask again: What methods _other_ than MN can we use? I believe I have demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt that non-empirical data and non-empirically verifiable explanations are effectively worthless when trying to explain empirical data. I have not seen anything to counter this.

The problem is that even if we _wanted_ to allow this as an explanation, we have no way _even in theory_ to know if its correct or not. You say God did it, I say Satan did it. Someone else says the demiurge did it. How do we choose? What discriminatory methods do we use? We simply don't have any. Saying "goddidit" is not an explanation. If we accepted this we'd never make any progress at all.

Vander, if you think it matters a whit what Darwin's motivations may or may not have been, you clearly do not understand science at all. Darwin could have been a cross-dressing, devil worshipping psychotic and it would make no difference as far as the _evidence_ is concerned. The evidence is either there or it isn't, arguments from authority carry no weight. This has been said repeatedly yet you continue to ignore it. For someone who claims to be a follower of philosophy you seem remarkably close minded.

Vander, how, pray tell, do you think someone would conclude that they had "found the bones"? We have no way even in theory to conclusively prove that "we have the bones". Surely you can see this is a bogus argument.

This thread isn't about the OT or NT, if you want to argue specifics please start a thread in BC&A.


I'm not sure what exactly it is that you are arguing for. Science doesn't deal with these topics, religion and philosophy do. I argue they should be separate and you argue that they should be separate. It seems we agree, but you think we disagree?


Here's a list of what was "known" before the enlightenment:

1) The earth is flat
2) The earth is the center of the universe
3) The earth is 10K years old
4) Disease is caused by demons
5) Man made flight is impossible

Need I go on? Empiricism is how we know these things aren't true, no amount of non-empirical knowledge would tell you the truth about these empirical matters.

That's because MN _is_ the only thing we can _verify_. I don't know how much more I can say to prove this to you. Give me an example of something which can be "known" about the empirical world through non-empirical means. You have as yet provided nothing of substance to back up your claims.

I have given you repeated examples that show clearly why non-empirical data is essentially meaningless and while you agree it is "problematic" you can't quite bring yourself to admit what is staring you in the face: any and all non-empirical explanations are equally valid and therefore equally invalid. Give me a NEV explanation and I will give you another contradictory explanation that is equally as unprovable and useless.

wade-w

Vanderzyden:

I suggest you peruse <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=58&t=001336" target="_blank">this thread</a>. Your objections are thoroughly discussed here.

Vanderzyden

EXPLANATIONS are non-empirical. LOGIC is non-empirical. MATHEMATICS is non-empirical. You cannot say to me, look there is the number 2. We cannot see it, feel it, or touch it. We cannot empirically point to the concepts of validity, or truth, or morals, and yet we live by them daily.

The explanation IS NOT THE EVIDENCE. It doesn't matter whether I agree with your explanation or not. The explanation is non-empirical. But yet, there is no evidence without an explanation. Furthermore, there is more than one explanation for almost any phenomena. What is necessary to accept an explanation? One word: FORCE. If the explanation has no power behind it--if it isn't convincing--then it will not persuade the recipient. Look at the words I am using: explanatory force, convincing, persuasion. Surely, you accept these concepts as you examine and consider the evidence. (More non-empirical concepts!) The word evidence itself is meaningless without these auxillary concepts. But notice, all these concepts, including evidence, are non-empirical!

Let me come back to an earlier question:

WHY IS THERE SOMETHING RATHER THAN NOTHING?

This indeed a scientific question. Just because a philosopher popularized it makes it no less so.
Why may I not apply scientific rigor in answering this question? I may hypothesize, investigate, test, and refine my hypothesis. There are several types of evidence to examine: some of it is empirical, some is not. No doubt, your answer will include the objection that the ultimate focus of the investigation is "unscientific" because it is non-natural. To this I will answer that you maintain a narrow definition of science.

I have also given you examples, but it seems that you aren't thinking through them carefully. Indeed, it appears that you reject them out-of-hand. You are bent on convincing me that non-empirical data is "meaningless". Apparently, you ignore my insistence that you cannot live even one more minute in a manner that is CONSISTENT with this view. As I have shown, non-empirical concepts are immensely useful. You have come close to admitting this, but refuse to commit for fear that you may have to reconsider some of what you written. Considering only yourself, can you live consistently with the views you are espousing here (i.e. NE concepts are meaningless)? Please answer this question directly.

Note: You and some of the others here don't realize that you are reaffirming my assertions by the manner in which you reply. It is a very, very narrow view that you take of the world around you. You cheat yourself by doing so. Take a minute to re-read your own posts to see how someone might draw similar conclusions.

More importantly, let me ask: Why do you people have to get upset? Why can't we just enjoy thinking about these problems?

Vanderzyden

Doubting Didymus

I am leaning towards thinking vanderzyden is right in a few spots here. I think the question 'why is there something rather than nothing' is, in fact, a scientific question. I think it is entirely possible for physics to hypothesise an answer about it, and test the htypothesis. I also think that that is exactly what physics is currently doing.

I think vanderzyden is right that god may be a scientific hypothesis. Why not? If you make the hypothesis: 'The universe was created by the christian god' then you can test that hypothesis. All you need is to find repeatable evidence that confirms that. I also think that there are a full horde of christian scientists who would jump at the chance to bring the evidence to light. So far: nothing.

I really don't think that scientific hypotheses and theories are limited to the empirical, only scientific evidence.

I can easily imagine a non-natural hypothesis becoming a confirmed fact. If a magician passed a scientific investigation, then the hypothesis: 'magic exists' would be confirmed, no?

To illustrate this point, I will point to scientific paranormal investigation. When a scientist performs a test on someone claiming to have magical spirit powers, the hypothesis involved is "this subject has magical spirit powers", which is then subjected to empirical tests. I think that any definition worth its salt will render this hypothesis non-natural, yet it is permissible.

What can not be non-empirical is the actual evidence. we cannot test the hypothesis by philosophising about it, or waiting for spirtual revelations about it, we must test it. Testing is what science is really all about, not hypothesising, so if you want god and other non-natural hypotheses included in science your job is simple: propose a reliable test.

The best definition of scientifically empirical is 'reliably testable'. I think what Skeptical, scigirl, and others are really saying here is: We will believe it if we can test it. If we cannot test it reliably, then it is on the same ground as imaginary leprechauns.

To conclude: I firmly believe that non natural explanations are permissable under science. Reliable non-empirical tests, however, do not exist.

Nat

"WHY IS THERE SOMETHING RATHER THAN NOTHING?"

As I have said before, quantum physicists have been dealing with this question for quite some time - but you, in your philosophical simplicity, simply ignore the work.

First, one must ask what is "SOMETHING" and what is NOTHING" before one can even begin to answer this question. Amazingly enough, both these terms are a lot harder to define in real terms than you might think. "NOTHING" used to be defined as an absolute vacuum at zero K, but in reality in such a hypothetical environment is boiling over at the quantum level with potentials. Should any of these potentials get seperated (someone elses anaology that I liked) suddenly you have the appearance of "SOMETHING." But does that mean that SOMETHING came from NOTHING?

There is actual very good evidence that exactly zero energy/mass actually exists - all observable positive energy is exactly cancelled out by negative energy stored in gravity wells and exotic matter. This may seem inconceivable to you, but if you can get off your ass unlike so many other arm-chair philosophers and actually learn about the topic, you might learn something sometime. Then again, I doubt it - you seem too convinced of your own intelligence to ever actually learn something.

Also, you made the following point:

"Furthermore, there is more than one explanation for almost any phenomena."

This is definitely true - especially if you allow supernatural explanations in which case there are an infinite number of equally untestable and equally unfalsifiable explanations for every phenomenon. Please understand this is exactly why science is limited to methodological naturalism.

Vanderzyden

Clearly, Darwin is the recognized father of evolutionary theory. I use the term Darwinist in nearly the same fashion as "Newtonian". If anything, it is a term of convenience. Here is my comparison: Darwinist = evolutionist ( = naturalist/materialist, inclusively, which often means = atheist).

If you review my post you will see that I implied that the typical Darwinist holds atheistic/materialist views, and is often found in opposition to the theistic realist. Those who claim to be theistic evolutionists hold their views uncritically, since to read Darwin and his modern proponents is to discover philosophies which repudiate any notions of directed creation. Incidentally, scigirl, I notice that you declare yourself to be an atheist.

Who says I fault science for investigating natural phenomena? My point is that purely naturalistic science limits itself. It is not only a matter of fascination. In addition, by refusing to admit the possibility of interrelated design, it is very likely that progress in many fields is less than it could be. This has been mentioned by many ID proponents.

More importantly, let's remember what the main point of contention is: SPECIAL CREATION. It doesn't matter if we consider the origin of the cosmos or the human mind. You reject any notion that it happened by means of a supernatural cause. From what I can tell from previous engagements, you don't even find it possible. This is where we are in opposition. We are not in disagreement over the utility of cancer research. So please remember this when you wonder if I think science if useful.

Oh, one other related disagreement is in the utility of evolution. I insist that it has been of no benefit so far. We can discuss that in the other thread when you indicate that you have sufficient time to sustain the dialogue (you had said that you were beginning a time of intense study).

Hah! LOL! This is immensely funny. Step back for a moment and see the humor in this excerpt, scigirl. Perhaps you could help me understand why you have this impression of me that I think that Darwinists are cold, calculating, unfeeling, mechanical people. Have I ever written such things in these forums?

Vanderzyden

Doubting Didymus

I think interrelated design is an acceptable hypothesis. There is lots of evidence that might exist that would confirm this hypothesis. Thus: interrelated design is an empirical hypothesis. Now produce the evidence.

Doubting Didymus

Scigirl has a thread open about ways that evolution is enhancing modern medicine. There is no indication there from here that she has suspended discussion. You have not contributed.

Albion

Methodological naturalism is not a worldview. By definition. The term "methodological" limits it to the specific parameters of a method. It sometimes seems to me that the whole of the ID movement rests on trying to say that methodological naturalism and philosophical naturalism are the same thing. Well, they aren't.

Methodological naturalism is the philosophical basis of science because the scientific method can't address the supernatural. So if you're saying that science shouldn't use methodological naturalism, you're saying that you want to replace science with something else, because as soon as it loses methodological naturalism, it stops being science.

Why is this so impossible for IDists to accept?

Albion

No, as a matter of fact it was his daughter who died. At least show the man enough respect to get that right.