Doubting Didymus

Good question. I would like to see this answered as well, since he surely can't be referring to naturalism. That would apply to all science.

Vanderzyden

Methodological naturalism, but it isn't uniquely Darwinian. My apologies if I've misled you to believe this is my position. Not all scientists employ it exclusively in their work, especially many of those in, say, theoretical physics, psychologists, cognitive scientists, etc.

Vanderzyden

Vanderzyden

DD,

You're right, and I don't expect you to simply to take my claim at face value. If you look closely at my participation here so far, it should be clear that I have sufficient acumen to discuss a variety of technical issues. Furthermore, I have dropped clues in several of my posts. Want another hint? I live in Silicon Valley, with multiple qualifications that are suitable for the top jobs here.

Please be patient. Over time, you will see a satisfying demonstration. It's not a matter of secrecy, but of prudence. As you can see, I am already fighting stereotypes.

Besides, won't it be fun to guess?

Vanderzyden

Nat

Umm, what theories in theoretical physics do not rely upon methodological naturalism?

Now, I will admit there are many theoretical physicists that do not hold to philosophical naturalism, but then again there are many evolutionary biologists that do not hold to philosophical naturalism. I will challenge you, however, to point to any mainstream theoretical physicist or any other scientist for that matter that doesn't employ methodological naturalism.

Actually, I would be interested in any substantial work in psychology or cognitive sciences that doesn't employ methodological naturalism either. I didn't mention it at first because it is outside my field, but I doubt they do their experiments any differently, nor do I suspect do they deviate much from the standard Popperian philosophy of science.

[ September 12, 2002: Message edited by: Nat ]</p>

Nat

Please name these academic institutions.

Or at least admit that you are making claims that you cannot support.

[ September 12, 2002: Message edited by: Nat ]</p>

Doubting Didymus

No, it wont be fun to guess. It will be very very frustrating to guess. Why can't you just tell us what your scientific training is?

Has it occured to you that the reason that you are fighting stereotypes is directly because you refuse to tell us about yourself? How can we accurately portray you if you don't let slip who you are, and what you think?

As for the philosophy of naturalism, what have you to say about my comments on the matter? Namely: that non-natural hypothesis are, in priciple, empirical? In this case, all you need is empirical data to support your non-natural hypothesis. (scigirl and starboy disagree with me, which is healthy, but what do you think?).

Assuming for a moment that we allow for supernatural explanations, do you agree that you would need empirical evidence to confirm one? ID, for example, should not be allowed as a hypothesis unless there is some confirmable evidence. If you disagree, then what kind of evidence are you proposing, that is not empirical?

Oolon Colluphid

That could well be a deliberate tactic. Since Mr V refuses to reply to those who have been anything less than saintly to him, all he need do is piss off everyone, then he won't have to reply to anything.

Vander, I've previously promised to be all sweetness and light, if only you'll respond to my questions. Since you haven't, I guess any dialogue between us is at an end. Therefore, I submit to everyone that vander is just a better class of troll than usual. But troll, albeit a prolix one, nevertheless.

TTFN, Oolon

Coragyps

VZ wrote: I think that you are damned by your own keyboard, Van. On several of these threads.

Stephen T-B

The masterful Vanderzyden - we must simply guess at his exalted station because he does not wish, should we know it, to take advantage of us while we concentrate on touching our forelocks - comes across as less competent in matters of biology than he presents himself to be.
He is actually saying something extremely simple: Atheistic scientists are determined to rule out the possibility of creation by the Judeo-Christian god and for that reason adhere to their non-scientific Darwinist dogma.
We have seen that he will not be dislodged from this entrenched position, but will repeat it, in varying guises, ad infintum.
He won’t answer Scigirl’s question as to what tool scientists should replace methodological naturalism with, and he now maintains that those who work in fields where his god once ruled supreme and is now being edged off the field aren’t even proper scientists. (We are all waiting breathlessly for his list of the many academic institutions which he says do not recognise the “evolutionary hypothesis” as a proper science.)
Elsewhere he has asked what good Darwinism has done, implying that no line of inquiry is worth pursuing unless it affirms our belief in his god, which, we are to infer, bestows bountiful benefits. (But not on me it didn’t.)
I invited Vanderzyden - not for my sake but in order to enlighten all those who read these posts - to tell us how he envisages a future in which Evolutionary Theory has been abandoned and his religious doctrine embraced by all.
I know realise it would not prompt a response because any day now we will witness Armageddon, the Second Coming and the reign of Jesus and the Righteous.

Starboy

My guess Vander is that you have a BSME.