Albion

How, though? How can you use methodological naturalism to consider supernatural causes? Naturalism by definition rules out considering supernatural causes. You have to be able to devise experiments to test the possibility of the cause you're looking for, and if that cause is supernatural, how would you do that? If the scientific method really can't come up with a natural cause of something and can somehow show there isn't one, then the only option is "we don't know." The notion of whether you have a god of some sort at work is something for theology to figure out, and good luck to it.

Because there isn't any choice. It's certainly possible that evidence of some sort of designer might be found; I'm not sure how or what, but it's possible. Science ought to be able to tell that. What I don't think science can do is to tell whether that designer was supernatural or natural (such as an extraterrestrial or even some sort of hoax).

Vorkosigan

Let's examine your claims for a moment:


We can hypothesize that a complex, highly ordered system has been designed and created by an intelligence; we can then look for observable evidence of this.

Definitions in science are really important. Therefore:

1. Define complex
2. Define highly ordered
3. Define intelligence

4. A scientific hypothesis must be based on some prior understanding of things. There is no evidence that would suggest intelligence at work in creating the universe.

5. Why would we hypothesize this, when, in selection processes operating under natural law, we already have the answer to the question?

We can even "test" the idea by calculating the probabilites of structures within the system arising by chance,

1. Why would we do this, when structures in the system do not arise by chance, but by non-random processes, laws and effects?

2. Suppose we knew the probability of such a thing occurring. How would that tell us whether it actually happened? For example, suppose you found a badly-mauled body in the road, and you knew the probability of predetrians getting hit by a car in the area, how would that determine whether indeed the victim had been hit by a car? Probabilities may help you prioritize your search, but by themselves they explain nothing.

.... or observing them occurring (or not occurring) in nature.

Intelligent creation of universes has never been observed outside of SF books. And in many of them, intelligent beings create quite insane universes. And vice versa.

Such an intelligence need not be supernatural. If someone hypothesizes that it is supernatural, however, then he is more likely to be accused of being non-scientific.

Well, since he is being unscientific, that probably accounts for the accusations

The other issue you raised, that the supernatural does not annihilate methodological naturalism, is also false.

Consider the following problem:

Adam in Seattle and Zoe in NY do the famous ESP test. Adam flips 25 cards and Zoe nails all 25. Now, what are the possibilities?

1. Zoe looked into the future. (She's a precog)

2. Zoe looked into Adam's mind. (telepath)

3. Zoe rearranged the cards in Adam's hand and then read off the order. (telekinetic)

4. Nothing happened. Zoe reached into the minds of the witnesses, and altered their perceptions of the event.

5. Zoe went back into the past and fed herself the answers (time traveling telepath)

6. Adam did any combo of 1-4 above.

7. Someone present did any combo of 1-4 above.

8. Someone not present did any combo of 1-4 above.

9. The world exists only in the mind of Zoe (or Adam, or someone else). Remember, the actual perpetrator does not even have to be conscious of their own intervention.

Of course, eventually you reach 9, because no control exists that can rule out 1-8. That is why all serious thinkers on the issue sooner or later fall back on:

10. There has been fraud or error.

No controlled experiment can take place in any world where any consciousness can act directly on matter outside its own body. Science is impossible if the supernatural exists.

Vorkosigan

Howay the Toon

If you want to somehow include the "Supernatural" within the bounds of scientific enquiry, then you are going to have to be very specific about what you man by supernatural. I rather suspect it to be an incoherent concept anyway.

Presumably, you mean some entity that actually exists and interacts with the "natural" (even if this interaction was merely pulling a start lever) but is nevertheless outside of the "natural".

In which case, how are you defining the "natural".

Is it

-Everything that exists
-Everything inside this universe
-Everything subject to scientific enquiry

or what?

I can't come up with a definition of the "natural" which allows for its antithesis - the "supernatural" to exist or for us to know it exists. Can anyone?

Keep in mind that "methodological naturalism" isn't some preconceived axiom within science. Science is at root a set of rules as to what can reasonably count as knowledge (testability, falsifiability ect). Methodological naturalism comes in because supernatural concepts fail those rules, principally falsifiability.

If you could come up with a hypothesis which includes a supernatural entity or concept which is testable and falsifiable, then it would be part of science. The supernatural is not just arbitrarily ruled out a priori.

If you want instead alter the rules, then you are going to have to show how a hypothesis which did not follow those rules could reasonably have any explanatory power and hence be called knowledge. Good luck on that one

Athanasius

You are right in stressing the importance of definitions here. As I mentioned earlier, I am uncomfortable with using the word "supernatural," because our inclination is to think of that which is natural as that which is real and exists. This would imply that the supernatural does not exist and is not real, and that is not what I meant by the word "supernatural" when I used it above at all. Because of these connotations, and our equation of the word supernatural with the imagination of man and nonsensical myths, I would prefer to use a different word to describe that which may be scientifically hypothesized as REAL, but exists outside of, or independent of, the material universe. Using the Greek word exo, which means "outside of", how about the term "exo-universe"?

Likewise, I would define natural as the material, physical universe which the sciences explore. Science herself recognizes that there may be existence and reality outside of that which can be observed or explored. She was sometimes uncomfortable contemplating this until observations forced her to accept the fact that the universe is expanding and had a beginning in time. Now she doesn't have much choice but to hypothesize about vacuum fluctuations, multiple dimensions, and multiple universes. Some of these things, if they exist or have existed, may influence, or may have influenced, our universe in ways that can be observed and measured. But science hesitates to use the word "supernatural" to describe these hypothetically real things outside of the material universe. Perhaps one of you is aware of a better term that someone has already coined to describe that which is hypothetically real but outside of the observable universe. If so, why don't we use that term rather that the word "supernatural".

Until then, please pardon me for presumptuously using this coined term. If we can scientifically hypothesize multiple dimensions and universes, and even parallel or antimatter universes within the exo-universe, then when evidence and observation lead us to conclude that an intelligence may have been at work, I see nothing to prevent us from hypothesizing an exo-universal intelligence. For instance, the order of the elementary particles in the universe makes it highly improbable this reality would have occurred if there has been only one universe. So we hypothesize about an oscillating universe (the last I read, this is now thought of as unlikely because of observational evidence) and multiple universes, and come up with ideas like the anthropic principle. When we talk about the origin of life, ID can work without evoking an exo-universal intelligence, but when we speak of the origin of the universe, it cannot. And it is at this point that I think it is wrong to say that such a hypothesis should not be considered scientific. The very same objections raised against such a hypothesis - "This supposed Intelligence cannot be measured or observed" - can also be used against the idea of other dimensions or universes besides our own. To allow one hypothesis but not the other, to me, smacks of prejudice motivated by metaphysical naturalism. Come on, let’s all just be honest and admit that is what it often is! This limits science just as much as constraining her by metaphysical supernaturalism would. In light of observational evidence, she must be free to consider scientific hypotheses which just happen to coincide with both.

Edited for UBB Code punctuation

[ August 02, 2002: Message edited by: AthanasiusContraMundum ]</p>

Principia

ACM,

The hypotheses that you speak of are well grounded in the mathematical formalisms behind theoretical physics. They are indeed deduced, rigorously, from mathematical and physical axioms -- and these axioms are essential in guiding our understanding of the physical world. There is absolutely nothing wrong with first deducing a phenomena from such formalisms before searching for evidence to support them later. However, the last step is crucial. Experimental evidence is the only way to choose between competing hypotheses of the same phenomenon. At the very least, the hypotheses must be consistent with all previously acquired evidence.

So, let's ask. On what formalism is the hypothesis of a designer based? Mathematics? A gut feeling? Religion? How exactly do you deduce an intelligent designer in theory before searching for the evidence to support the deduction experimentally? The clear absence of an answer to this question is what separates ID from, say, theoretical quantum physics. It is also the likely reason that the majority of the scientific community ignores ID, if not downright reject it. It is definitely the reason why the IDi[s]ts resort to political activism in order to gain visibility despite so little to show.

However, you may be right that excluding teleology from science as an epistemology is arbitrarily limiting. Nevertheless, it is up to you to demonstrate how teleology can be formulated as a valid research paradigm. Armchair philosophizing just won't cut it. Science has gone through plenty of revolutions, so there is every reason to suspect that another one is in the works. But, to expect a fledgling concept as ID to receive much attention from the scientific establishment without any serious theoretical or scientific work is unrealistic.

[ August 02, 2002: Message edited by: Scientiae ]</p>

Athanasius

Those are great questions, and although I leave the specifics to those who would actually do the work, I can at least imagine how something like that might work.

We have intelligent designers that we can observe. We have the handiwork of those designers to study as well. What distinguishes an object of intelligent design from one that is not?

I anticipate that the hypothesis of an intelligent designer will draw from multiple formalisms. When an archeologist identifies what looks like stones to many of us as crudely designed tools, he looks for patterns, markings, and forms that are not likely to have been formed by other natural processes. Similar, but more complex, principles are involved for those who specialize in determining whether or not radio signals contain static or encrypted code. We also use similar principles when examining radio emissions in our search for intelligent extraterrestrial life. Since research in other fields of scientific study already could contribute much to ID research, those who embark on this field of scientific inquiry would certainly not be starting from scratch.

Vorkosigan

Speaking as a moderator: ACM, can you put some spaces between your name so that the forum lines up properly?

Vorkosigan

ps418

Perhaps someone could describe some examples of scientific papers using observation and/or experiment to falsify a hypothesis of supernatural causation, or to decide between competing supernatural hypotheses? I'm curious what scientific research-- sans the (arbitrary?) assumption of natural causation --would look like, how it would work, how it would shape subsequent research. Maybe some (hypothetical) examples would help me understand?


Patrick

[ August 02, 2002: Message edited by: ps418 ]</p>

Athanasius

I changed the name to simply Athanasius. It was a mouthful.

Starboy

Athanasius,

Go for it, there is nothing stopping you. It may not be science but that hasn’t stopped others, why should it stop you.

Yes. What is your point? Perhaps you may not be aware that there are many human endeavors that are not science, such as poetry and politics that ask questions that are not scientific. Do you think that all questions asked by man are scientific? You must because you don’t seem to understand that the ID question is one that is not scientific.

Why do you say it is “heretical”, are you religious? If you are going to say that the designer is independent of the natural world then you are saying that what happened was not natural and thus not science. This doesn't close ones mind, it just means that it is not science. Saying it is not science is like saying it is not poetry, what is the big deal? Why are you so keen on trying to classify it as science? Do you suffer from science envy? In any case, you do not have to close your mind to it, if you like, you can consider it a religious question.

I was not aware that is was the job of a forensic scientist to determine if a crime had been committed. I always thought that they were supposed to gather evidence scientifically. In any case this is just a restatement of your earlier question. There are questions that man can ask that are not scientific questions. But cheer up, an idea like ID could be useful for starting a religion.

Starboy

[ August 02, 2002: Message edited by: Starboy ]</p>