joedad

I did not find it difficult to follow either madmax's or Andrew's positions and arguments, and honestly thought both presented themselves quite well.

Andrew uses religion to examine science, and concludes that supernaturalism is a possibility that cannot be discounted. Okay. But Velikovskian, right?

Madmax uses science to examine religion, and observes that there is no evidence for the supernatural, targeting instead, hypothetical possibilities. What else is possible?

In the thread which spawned this debate I questioned how Andrew was ever going to demonstrate the existence of the supernatural. As Madmax notes repeatedly, Andrew he has yet to convincingly present evidence for such natural "supersizing." It seems to me that hypothesis and theory are Andrew's only "evidence." Does Andrew even understand the use and value of empirical data?

Using superstition and religion to "examine" science has been the historical norm, and only recently is science being used to examine claims made by religion. But these two appear to me to be two mutually exclusive paradigms, and I think such debates are helpful in demonstrating this reality.

joe

[ March 15, 2002: Message edited by: joedad ]</p>

lpetrich

That was not very apparent. Andrew quoted Richard Lewontin, and him alone, as if he was the Pope of Naturalism, rather than trying to make a survey of such opinion. This sort of selective quotation may be a favorite way of interpreting one's favorite sacred books, but that's now how one does serious scholarship.

So what?

This "incorporation of naturalism" is a way of saying that the Universe was created to look much like a metaphysical-naturalist Universe. And Andrew's claim that miracles are very rare is IMO a way of conceding that the occurrence of miracles is a poor hypothesis.

But one might want positive evidence, as opposed to negative evidence (insufficiency of other possibilities).

I don't see any great holes in MadMax's arguments, though he may not have had much space to illustrate them; one good illustration would be the history of views on the nature of lightning.

Such as evolution being driven by genetic engineering performed by extraterrestrial visitors, understood as fellow inhabitants of the physical context of this Universe. I have a suspicion that Andrew does not have that designer in mind.

Only one: Richard Lewontin. And he's far from being the Pope of Naturalism.

However, the work on the photoelectric effect was certainly Prize-worthy. It showed how a bizarre, ad hoc hypothesis invented to explain one odd phenomenon would successfully explain another very different odd phenomenon. Modifying this hypothesis enabled Bohr to predict the energy levels of hydrogenlike atoms in 1913, an additional very different phenomenon.

And as to relativity work, special relativity would be much more worthy of a Nobel Prize than general relativity, IMO. SR successfully resolved a serious misfit between Newtonian mechanics and Maxwellian electrodynamics, by successfully modifying Newtonian mechanics to fit Maxwellianism.

General relativity, however, was more speculative. It was theoretically elegant, yet it was difficult to observe distinctive GR effects. Compare the situation with SR, when it was possible to make laboratory measurements of an electron's increase in inertia as its speed approached that of light in a vacuum -- measurements that agreed with SR.

Mike Montgomery

No, that is not at all what I mean. When I say intelligent design, I mean exactly that, regardless of the source of intelligence, whether it is aliens, supernatural, or any other source of intelligence. In fact, intelligent design does not even try to figure out the source of the intelligence, but simply determines based on specified complexity and other measures whether something has a high probability of intelligent design, or whether undirected processes were more likely responsible. This is also what is meant by the mainstream view of intelligent design.

Intelligent design contrasts directly with undirected (perhaps random) design. Design by aliens and undirected designed both fit madmax's view of naturalism. Therefore both would be potentially valid theories for origin of life to be tested against the evidence from this view of naturalism.

This is not the mainstream view of naturalism. The mainstream view of naturalism is that intelligent design does not even deserve a hearing. This is not the fault of madmax; as he said, he is only obliged to defend his view of naturalism, not other views. I view this as more of a selection issue, that the lesson for the future would be to try to select people who seem to represent the mainstream view. However, this is why many of the arguments by Andrew and madmax seemed to miss the mark, because Andrew was arguing based on the mainstream view of naturalism.


joedad wrote: "In the thread which spawned this debate I questioned how Andrew was ever going to demonstrate the existence of the supernatural"

Andrew does not have an obligation to present a rationally compelling argument for supernatural. (We know beforehand that such an argument does not yet exist, else any rational person would already accept the supernatural as a fact.) He need only present a plausible argument that naturalism is incomplete, which directly infers that something beyond naturalism is needed to complete the system, which is in essence the definition of the supernatural.

madmax wrote: "While there are obviously phenomena that has so far evaded naturalistic explanation, this does not in any way constitute evidence that actually supports the supernatural." When madmax concedes that "there are obviously phenomena that has so far evaded naturalistic explanation", this leads to two possibilities: (1) there is an unknown natural process that despite our best efforts so far, we have not been able to understand, or (2) there is not a natural process to explain the phenomena.

Between these two explanations, we are given no solid reason to preference (1) over (2). One must at least concede the possibility of this "obvious phenomena" as supporting conclusion (2). Therefore, the statement that "Madmax ... observes that there is no evidence for the supernatural" is incorrect. Phenomena that has no known naturalistic explanation must be considered as potential evidence for the supernatural if one is to be truly open minded in our investigation, and not bound by naturalistic presupposition.

Again, this evidence is not rationally compelling, but it does make the supernatural plausible. And it does provide evidence that naturalism is an incomplete explanation, as Andrew argues.

Evidence for the supernatural does not prove theism either. There are many other potential supernatural possibilities. But theism becomes plausible in view of evidence that has no known naturalistic explanation.

Mike Montgomery

Did you actually read the debate? Andrew quotes no less than 17 sources, and I probably missed some. He quotes at least 6 different sources directly on naturalism. So I think your characterization is absurd.

In response to fact that madmax rarely references any sources, lpetrich responds "so what?". Do you consider that how one does serious scholarship? Not bothering with sources, and just stating your own opinion authoritatively? Which scholarly works are you aware of that don't bother with sources?

Further on the "so what", formal debates that I have seen are usually won or lost based on whether the arguments are well supported by references.

For example, if madmax did not like the poll that was cited by Andrew based on US data, he was free to cite data from other countries to make his point. Claiming that Andrew had the obligation to provide this other data and that without this other data the argument fails is invalid. That requires the debate judge to presume what that other data would show without the opponent actually demonstrating what it would show. Regardless of his own personal opinion, a good debate judge would dismiss this counterargument and give the point to Andrew, the only one who provided any evidence to support his point.

A good debate judge would similarly judge other points. So a lack of references would likely be a decisive factor in most debates.

madmax2976

While I've already agreed that I should have included more citations at least for looks, I don't agree that this is anywhere near as an important an issue as you make it out to be.

Andrews' citations didn't help his case any. They may be good for show, but the manner in which he was attempting to use them was ill-conceived. And remember, he's not citing any evidence or data in most of his quotes, just the opinion of particular naturalists or theists.

<strong>[quote
In response to fact that madmax rarely references any sources, lpetrich responds "so what?". Do you consider that how one does serious scholarship? Not bothering with sources, and just stating your own opinion authoritatively? Which scholarly works are you aware of that don't bother with sources?
</strong>[/quote]

Naturalism and theism, in and of themselves, are not fields of study, even though they there are legitimate fields which they inevitably touch on. They are worldviews, and as such no ones opinion is above anyone elses. Now if actual data is presented in regards to either worldview (not just opinion), then this can be supported by authority.

<strong> Again I disagree. Lets assume I was an instructor in a university and I assigned a research project to a student. The student came to me and presented his data and his conclusion based on that data. His conclusion was not supported by any chain of argument from the data he presented. (As Andrew's was not. It was a complete non-sequitur.) It is perfectly valid to point out to my student the possible errors in his accumulation of data which would then skew his results. I wish I had made more of a point of it, but it is also valid to point out that the conclusion is a non-sequitur if the person has not shown an actual argument that derives the conclusion they have made.

All Andrew appeared to have done is taken a wild guess based on his own prejudices.

<strong> Even if you were correct, a good debate judge will notice the non-sequitur fallacy in Andrews conclusion and consider it a draw at best.

Vorkosigan

Originally posted by Mike Montgomery:

No, that is not at all what I mean. When I say intelligent design, I mean exactly that, regardless of the source of intelligence, whether it is aliens, supernatural, or any other source of intelligence. In fact, intelligent design does not even try to figure out the source of the intelligence, but simply determines based on specified complexity and other measures whether something has a high probability of intelligent design, or whether undirected processes were more likely responsible. This is also what is meant by the mainstream view of intelligent design.

No, complexity is never used, because complexity is not a sign of intelligence. What is used is the empirical experience that humans have with their own designs. There is no way to determine from complexity whether something is designed. An ecosystem is a highly complex affair, but it is not designed. Conversely, a boomerang is not very complex, but it is designed.

I suggest you hunt up the Calico Early Man site on the net and look at pictures of the stone tools there. There is a huge controversy over whether there are really stone tools there. Complexity is not an issue in the discussion. Instead, statistical tools based on empirical experience were utilized to reject Leakey's claims, which in turn were based on his empirical experience with stone tools elsewhere. Nobody has a set of principles, and inferring the mind of an unspecified Designer is impossible.

Intelligent design contrasts directly with undirected (perhaps random) design. Design by aliens and undirected designed both fit madmax's view of naturalism.

Intelligent design by aliens, assuming that they had some intent, would not necessarily be undirected, just as theistic design would not necessarily be directed. I do not know what you mean by "random" in this context. Can you explain?

Therefore both would be potentially valid theories for origin of life to be tested against the evidence from this view of naturalism.

What is a theory of "undirected" design?

This is not the mainstream view of naturalism. The mainstream view of naturalism is that intelligent design does not even deserve a hearing.

It deserved a hearing. And it is explored, and dismissed as the nonsense it is. Evolution shows that intelligent design is nonsense when applied to life on Earth, while there are other grounds for rejecting Fine Tuning.

not other views. I view this as more of a selection issue, that the lesson for the future would be to try to select people who seem to represent the mainstream view. However, this is why many of the arguments by Andrew and madmax seemed to miss the mark, because Andrew was arguing based on the mainstream view of naturalism.

Andrew was arguing based on his own strawman version of naturalism. What does he say?

The same polls claim that among scientists only .014 % blieve in some divine intervention. Why this disconnect? The answer is that even though people respect scientists highly they are not as dogmatic about materialism as many scientists are. If materialism is true some form of evolution has to be true on the basis of deduction alone apart from any evidence.

Error after error. Scientists are not dogmatic about materialism -- they'd abandon it in a flash if anybody had a non-naturalistic model that produced better results. And Andrew's claim about materialism and evolution is absurd. One does not imply the other.

He then quotes Johnson, who is not an authority on the history, philosophy of sociology of science:

For scientific materialists the materialism comes first; the science comes thereafter. We might more accurately term them "materialists employing science."

Actually, this is completely incorrect. All of the early scientists were theists. The men who developed western science in the 16-18th centuries were all Christians, except for the odd Jew, and rarer atheist. It was the theists who tossed out god as an explanatory mechanism.

This idea that everyone got out of bed about 1860 and decided to toss gods out of the equation that Johnson and others have is totally wrong.

The philosophy of naturalism as employed in
methodological naturalism is establishing the answer first not based on scientific evidence but dogma.

This is an error. It is not based on dogma. Andrew's argument is that a bunch of theists got together and developed a dogma called materialism in which they tossed god out of the world. This is a strawman version of the history and philosophy of science, and MadMax was right to reject it as nonsense.

Scientists adopted methodological naturalism because of its success in providing reliable and useful knowledge about reality. They would abandon it in a flash if you gave them a better posture. But all I hear from theists is whining. So far no theist has offered a useful and reliable theistic standpoint that is superior to science.

Finally, Andrew ends with an absurdity:
As a result I will argue that theism is a more complete worldview.

But as he himself notes, there really is no such thing as 'theism.' 'Theism' is a word that describes a characteristic common to a number of religions, all of which are different from one another. There is no "theism" as such, there are only various beliefs in gods. Andrew's argument amounts to saying that anything -- hinduism, greek, christianity, norse, kikuyu -- is better than methodological naturalism, and will give us a more complete, useful and reliable knowledge about the world.

Do you think that is a valid claim?

He need only present a plausible argument that naturalism is incomplete, which directly infers that something beyond naturalism is needed to complete the system, which is in essence the definition of the supernatural.

Yes, but even if we grant that Andrew did any such thing, at most he shows that current views of naturalism are incomplete. This does not imply supernaturalism. It simply means that naturalism is incomplete -- remember, there could be non-supernatural psychic powers, or some other as-yet unknown explanation. Andrew needs positive evidence for the supernatural. Of which there is none.

supernatural." When madmax concedes that "there are obviously phenomena that has so far evaded naturalistic explanation", this leads to two possibilities: (1) there is an unknown natural process that despite our best efforts so far, we have not been able to understand, or (2) there is not a natural process to explain the phenomena.

Or, there is some alternative yet unknown. However, experience suggests the best answer is (1).

Between these two explanations, we are given no solid reason to preference (1) over (2). One must at least concede the possibility of this "obvious phenomena" as supporting conclusion (2). Therefore, the statement that "Madmax ... observes that there is no evidence for the supernatural" is incorrect. Phenomena that has no known naturalistic explanation must be considered as potential evidence for the supernatural if one is to be truly open minded in our investigation, and not bound by naturalistic presupposition.

As I said, there may well be other alternatives. You have erected a false dichotomy, as I have noted.

Again, this evidence is not rationally compelling, but it does make the supernatural plausible.

Not in the slightest. The supernatural is ridiculous considered on its own. That is why it is not usable as an explanation. Which is why serious thinkers about the nature of reality do not use it in constructing useful and reliable explanations of reality, although they may use it for other purposes.

And it does provide evidence that naturalism is an incomplete explanation, as Andrew argues.

Even if it did, it does not justify a turn to obvious error.

Evidence for the supernatural does not prove theism either. There are many other potential supernatural possibilities. But theism becomes plausible in view of evidence that has no known naturalistic explanation.

Well, it is better to say, "at the current level of knowledge, some things are not yet explainable."

Theism remains absurd regardless of the current level of knowledge. Note that it was rejected by many philosophical stances around the world long before the scientific revolution.

Michael

agapeo

I have read with great interest both the debate and the comments posted in this companion thread. There being not much more I could add to the
critique of the actual debate I nevertheless have this question regarding the actual planning of it in light of two contradictory comments by the
debaters.

In Andrew_theist's opening remarks he made this comment: "It may be helpful to know that Max and I had a preliminary dialog about how we define our
respective views in advance to this debate."

In contrast to the above Max in this thread of discussion makes the following statement in response to M. Montgomery: "I offered Andrew the
opportunity to flesh out the details of our respective positions prior to the debate but he declined."

My question therefore is: In addition to Max calling Andrew "ill-equipped" and "far too limited" in his "understanding" to debate is he now calling him a liar to boot?

I can only conclude that Max is making a false implication when compared to his own words in his opening remarks: "Drew and I exchanged some basic
definitions prior to the debate."

There is a fundamental difference between EXCHANGING "basic definitions" and DEBATING those definitions prior to a debate. To make inference to an opponent's unwillingness to debate the definitions prior to an actual
debate is indicative of his own self being "ill-equipped" to debate.

Vorkosigan

[QUOTE]Originally posted by agapeo:


My question therefore is: In addition to Max calling Andrew "ill-equipped" and "far too limited" in his "understanding" to debate is he now calling him a liar to boot?

I can only conclude that Max is making a false implication when compared to his own words in his opening remarks: "Drew and I exchanged some basic
definitions prior to the debate."

There is a fundamental difference between EXCHANGING "basic definitions" and DEBATING those definitions prior to a debate. To make inference to an opponent's unwillingness to debate the definitions prior to an actual
debate is indicative of his own self being "ill-equipped" to debate.

Well, Andrew refers to preliminary dialogue. This sounds like a dialogue that did not get very far. And Max describes it as an "opportunity to flesh out the details" which also sounds like a dialogue that did not go to far. Max says they "exchanged basic definitions." Andrew's statement refers to definitions of "respective views." What contradiction is here?

I fail to see that anyone has lied or contradicted themselves. They both agree that they had a foundational dialogue. Max says Andrew did not wish to flesh out basic definitions prior to debate. There is nothing ethically wrong with one party making a request and the other declining. This does not indicate anything about either party, ethically or intellectually. Neither Andrew, who practices an exceptional and tolerant ethos, or Max, has displayed any ethical breach here in my view. It seems to me that any judgement you've made displays your prejudices rather than Andrew's or Max's. Can you come at it from another angle and give a clearer explanation?

Michael

[ March 16, 2002: Message edited by: turtonm ]</p>

madmax2976

Calling whom a liar? I only pointed out that Andrew's view of naturalism was a rather narrow view and he was evidently not acquainted with the various positions naturalists hold. He set up straw man positions regarding my naturalist views and then argued against them.

<strong> Rather than conclude anything why not ask for further clarification instead? I would have beeen happy to have done so. To the point: Andrew and I exchanged "basic" definitions. However, I thought it might be prudent for each of us to have a more detail than just those basic definitions. Andrew declined stating that he thought the debate would "take on a life of its own". I couldn't really disagree and left it at that.

<strong> Who said anything about a debate prior to the debate? Did you just make this up or do you not understand that phrase "flesh out the details" in the context of discussing definitions?

Since I used the term "declined" rather than "refused", I didn't think I was casting any aspersion's upon Andrew or his decision.

Perhaps next time you could just ask what I meant if you are unsure as to my meaning.

[ March 16, 2002: Message edited by: madmax2976 ]</p>

agapeo

[Well, Andrew refers to preliminary dialogue. This sounds like a dialogue that did not get very far.]

I was not privy to how "far" the dialogue went. To my thinking it was only intended to define their respective views in order to facilitate a more coherent debate. Meaning that they would basically be on the same page. I would see no reason to prolong the discussion to "flesh out" the definitions. Would that not be discovered in the actual debate itself?

[Max says they "exchanged basic definitions." Andrew's statement refers to definitions of "respective views." What contradiction is here?]

None.

[They both agree that they had a foundational dialogue.]

And so they do in the actual contents of the debate itself. I was referring to the statement made in the context of this companion thread to the debate. Anyone who has taken the time to read both arguments presented would I assume know of the preliminary discussions that took place between Madmax and Andrew_theist. Within this thread however the statement that Madmax makes seems to imply that he graciously offered his opponent the "opportunity" to discuss and he declined making an impression that he was not receptive to any suggestions. This indicating someone with an unreasonableness.

This is just my opinion, nothing more. If all I did was come upon this thread and didn't take the time to read the actual debate Madmax's statement would leave me with the impression that he was more cooperative during preliminary discussions than Andrew_theist.

[Max says Andrew did not wish to flesh out basic definitions prior to debate. There is nothing ethically wrong with one party making a request and the other declining.]

I see nothing ethically wrong with it either.