Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Athanasius · 08-01-2002, 09:38 AM

Looking for naturalistic explanations has led to much progress. Diseases once thought to be caused by a curse of the gods, for instance, can now be prevented or cured. But should we constrain our definition of scientific explanations to the bounds of methodological naturalism? Does this not limit the questions that science can ask? Perhaps this is a "heretical" point to bring up on a site devoted to promoting metaphysical naturalism, but if life WAS actually designed by an intelligence independent of this natural realm, would this not close our minds to ever scientifically admitting the possibility of it? We might scientifically and methodologically observe and measure the work of that Intelligence, but could not ever "scientifically" theorize that life owed it's genesis to it. This would be akin to a forensic scientist investigating a death and never opening himself to the possibility that it might have occurred by design - a murder. He might come up with a brilliant and very plausible sounding explanation of how the death might have happened accidentally. But how could he ever be certain that he had discovered the truth unless he opened his mind to both possibilities?

tgamble · 08-01-2002, 10:24 AM

[quote]Originally posted by AthanasiusContraMundum:
Looking for naturalistic explanations has led to much progress. Diseases once thought to be caused by a curse of the gods, for instance, can now be prevented or cured. But should we constrain our definition of scientific explanations to the bounds of methodological naturalism? Does this not limit the questions that science can ask? [/QUOTE[

Yes. But it works.

Quote:

This would be akin to a forensic scientist investigating a death and never opening himself to the possibility that it might have occurred by design - a murder. He might come up with a brilliant and very plausible sounding explanation of how the death might have happened accidentally. But how could he ever be certain that he had discovered the truth unless he opened his mind to both possibilities?

The difference is that the designer is a human, not a deity or magical fairy. The difference is also that there is actual evidence for design. It can be tested, make predictions and, in short, is still science.

Autonemesis · 08-01-2002, 10:34 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by AthanasiusContraMundum:
But should we constrain our definition of scientific explanations to the bounds of methodological naturalism? Does this not limit the questions that science can ask?

"Methodological naturalism" and "scientific explanations" are synonymous. So you are asking whether science should stay within the bounds of science. I believe the answer to that question is fairly obvious. How can science do otherwise, and still be science? It can't.

Quote:

...if life WAS actually designed by an intelligence independent of this natural realm, would this not close our minds to ever scientifically admitting the possibility of it? We might scientifically and methodologically observe and measure the work of that Intelligence, but could not ever "scientifically" theorize that life owed it's genesis to it

If it is possible to scientifically investigate the designer and his work, then the boundaries of science have not been exceeded by investigating such things. That it can be investigated - even peripherally - means at least some aspect of it is not supernatural, but naturalistic.

Whether life "owes" anything to this designer is not a matter for science. How do you design an experiment to test whether life owes anything to its creator? Asking a question of this kind takes one outside the realm of science and into philosophy and ethics.

Athanasius · 08-01-2002, 10:58 AM

Quote:

The difference is that the designer is a human, not a deity or magical fairy. The difference is also that there is actual evidence for design. It can be tested, make predictions and, in short, is still science.

Must we class theism together with belief in
magical fairies? Surely monotheism, at least, is a more dignified and respectable concept than that.

Fairies aside, what makes intelligent design any less testable or observable in the case of murder than in the case of the origin of life? Both involve naturalistic observations and weighing the evidence to discover the most reasonable explanation.

scigirl · 08-01-2002, 11:06 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by AthanasiusContraMundum:
But should we constrain our definition of scientific explanations to the bounds of methodological naturalism?

Ok, go ahead and un-limit yourself.

My question is - HOW?

scigirl

pz · 08-01-2002, 11:08 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by AthanasiusContraMundum:


Must we class theism together with belief in
magical fairies? Surely monotheism, at least, is a more dignified and respectable concept than that.

Nope, it's not. I see no reason why you should single out monotheism as any better than polytheism, for that matter: they're both groundless superstitions, but at least polytheists tend to be rather more tolerant.

As for your original question, no, you can't allow the supernatural into science. Science is a process for determining the best answer to a problem by working within the real world, and if you're going to invoke invisible magical forces that are inaccessible to observation, you've disposed of any ability to use the tools of science.

Dr.GH · 08-01-2002, 11:12 AM

AthanasiusContraMundum,

The basic error comparing ID arguments to forensics or archaeology is that humans are not unnatural in the sense that gods, and ghosties are unnatural. Humans do not effect alteration of the environment via non-material means.

Further, a forensic scientist, or criminalist does not determine if a murder has occurred.

When I do that type of work, my effort is restricted to identifying ways that bone has been
modified. Knives, screwdrivers, clubs, bullets, hammers, and teeth are just some of the ways that I have observed bone to be modified. Then is the question of when, and in what sequence did the modifications happen.

ID or other creationist scenarios would have me examining remains wondering if maybe it were zombies, or voodoo, that was the causal agent. Satan did it. Who knows????

[ August 01, 2002: Message edited by: Dr.GH ]

Daggah · 08-01-2002, 11:17 AM

Anything not supported by naturalistic evidence is equal...whether it is belief in UFOs, belief in invisible pink unicorns (

), or belief in a god or gods.

And yes, science should be limited to methodological naturalism...because that is what has been proven to work.

08-01-2002, 11:23 AM

The forensic pathologist would know already that some human deaths are caused by other human beings. There is no such knowledge about the design of universes. But there are a great many different creation myths. Should we open our minds to them all?

If you think that intelligent design is provable or disprovable, perhaps you could outline a scientific experiment that would help us towards a conclusion.

The following story is told of the great mathematician and theoretical physicist Laplace:

Quote:

Quand Laplace eut publi� sa M�canique c�leste, l'empereur le fit venir. L'empereur �tait furieux. " ? Comment, s'�cria-t-il en apercevant Laplace, vous fait tout le syst�me du monde, vous donnez les lois de toute la cr�ation et dans tout votre livre vous ne parlez pas une seule fois de l'existence de Dieu ! Sire, r�pondit Laplace, je n'avais pas besoin de cette hypoth�se."�

(The emperor Napoleon complained that Laplace's book on Celestial Mechanics made no mention of God. Laplace replied: "Sire, I had no need of that hypothesis.")

The fact is that science since the time of Laplace has made enormous progress without that hypothesis.

Dr.GH · 08-01-2002, 12:14 PM

I should point out that even if the criminalist determines that the cause of death was human agency, this is not a determination that there was murder. If the investigator thinks it was murder (which is a legal issue, not medical or scientific) and even if a prosecutor agrees, and there is a trial, they do not determine if murder ocurred. Only a jury makes that determination.

DMB made a very good point, and that is that we can clearly document literaly millions of cases which have known outcomes.

[ August 01, 2002: Message edited by: Dr.GH ]

08-01-2002, 09:38 AM	#1
Athanasius Junior Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Lilburn, GA Posts: 18	Should we completely limit scientific explanations by methodological naturalism? Looking for naturalistic explanations has led to much progress. Diseases once thought to be caused by a curse of the gods, for instance, can now be prevented or cured. But should we constrain our definition of scientific explanations to the bounds of methodological naturalism? Does this not limit the questions that science can ask? Perhaps this is a "heretical" point to bring up on a site devoted to promoting metaphysical naturalism, but if life WAS actually designed by an intelligence independent of this natural realm, would this not close our minds to ever scientifically admitting the possibility of it? We might scientifically and methodologically observe and measure the work of that Intelligence, but could not ever "scientifically" theorize that life owed it's genesis to it. This would be akin to a forensic scientist investigating a death and never opening himself to the possibility that it might have occurred by design - a murder. He might come up with a brilliant and very plausible sounding explanation of how the death might have happened accidentally. But how could he ever be certain that he had discovered the truth unless he opened his mind to both possibilities?

08-01-2002, 11:12 AM	#7
Dr.GH Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Dana Point, Ca, USA Posts: 2,115	AthanasiusContraMundum, The basic error comparing ID arguments to forensics or archaeology is that humans are not unnatural in the sense that gods, and ghosties are unnatural. Humans do not effect alteration of the environment via non-material means. Further, a forensic scientist, or criminalist does not determine if a murder has occurred. When I do that type of work, my effort is restricted to identifying ways that bone has been modified. Knives, screwdrivers, clubs, bullets, hammers, and teeth are just some of the ways that I have observed bone to be modified. Then is the question of when, and in what sequence did the modifications happen. ID or other creationist scenarios would have me examining remains wondering if maybe it were zombies, or voodoo, that was the causal agent. Satan did it. Who knows???? [ August 01, 2002: Message edited by: Dr.GH ]</p>

08-01-2002, 12:14 PM	#10
Dr.GH Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Dana Point, Ca, USA Posts: 2,115	I should point out that even if the criminalist determines that the cause of death was human agency, this is not a determination that there was murder. If the investigator thinks it was murder (which is a legal issue, not medical or scientific) and even if a prosecutor agrees, and there is a trial, they do not determine if murder ocurred. Only a jury makes that determination. DMB made a very good point, and that is that we can clearly document literaly millions of cases which have known outcomes. [ August 01, 2002: Message edited by: Dr.GH ]</p>

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

08-01-2002, 11:17 AM	#8
Daggah Banned Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: Deployed to Kosovo Posts: 4,314	Anything not supported by naturalistic evidence is equal...whether it is belief in UFOs, belief in invisible pink unicorns ( ), or belief in a god or gods. And yes, science should be limited to methodological naturalism...because that is what has been proven to work.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.