Science&Logic-Flawed?

[Jayhawker Soule]

As sure as there are no Fluffy Pink Unicorns.

The error to this question is your asking science to prove/disprove something that has clearly be "made up".

Or simply made. In either event, it's Naturalism 1 / NetDoc 0​

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Whatever Deut ...you keep on saying that while ignoring some deep biases you have.

The presence or absence of my biases has nothing whatsoever to do with the fact the methodological naturalism in no way presupposes that people have no biases. You have certainly given no evidence of such a presupposition, rendering your comment little more than an ad hominem against science.

 

[Scuba Pete]

Scientists don't repudiate God.

Only every chance they get. But not all scientists. Some realize that even science has it's limits. Some have faith that science will prove everything, They deny that this is faith, but it ain't nuthin' but.

So they decry faith in the spiritual and espouse faith in the physical and fail to see the hypocrisy in that stance.

But science has failed to answer some basic questions. Considering it's track record, I don't expect it to answer them in my life time... or ever.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Only every chance they get. But not all scientists.

Wonderful clarity. Your ad hominems are losing focus.

 

[Quiddity]

The presence or absence of my biases has nothing whatsoever to do with the fact the methodological naturalism in no way presupposes that people have no biases. You have certainly given no evidence of such a presupposition, rendering your comment little more than an ad hominem against science.

I'm sorry did I miss something? I thought the methodological naturalism was supposed to be neutral?

~Victor

 

[Uncertaindrummer]

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, and not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science."

Funny how you claim that while you are the arrogant confident one who is sure that he is correct...

 

[Scuba Pete]

Amen, UD... Amen!

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I'm sorry did I miss something?

I don't know. Let me offer Forrest's comment ...

... methodological naturalism is an epistemology as well as a procedural protocol, while philosophical naturalism is a metaphysical position. Although there is variation in the views of modern naturalists, Kurtz's definition captures these two important aspects of modern naturalism: (1) the reliance on scientific method, grounded in empiricism, as the only reliable method of acquiring knowledge about the natural world, and (2) the inadmissibility of the supernatural or transcendent into its metphysical scheme. [ibid]​

Far from "presupposes that people have no bias", methodological naturalism seeks to implement a protocol which, to the extent possible, minimizes their import. This is the exact opposite of a typical Christian stance that one must have faith in God to know Him.

 

[Scuba Pete]

Like I said, they disavow God most every chance they get. What a crock. The siritual will always be there, whether you believe in it or not.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Like I said, they disavow God most every chance they get. What a crock. ...

Those dirty stinkin' scientists! Thank God they accomplished so much with what little time they had left over after all that disavowing.

 

[Quiddity]

I don't know. Let me offer Forrest's comment ...

... methodological naturalism is an epistemology as well as a procedural protocol, while philosophical naturalism is a metaphysical position. Although there is variation in the views of modern naturalists, Kurtz's definition captures these two important aspects of modern naturalism: (1) the reliance on scientific method, grounded in empiricism, as the only reliable method of acquiring knowledge about the natural world, and (2) the inadmissibility of the supernatural or transcendent into its metphysical scheme. [ibid]​

Far from "presupposes that people have no bias", methodological naturalism seeks to implement a protocol which, to the extent possible, minimizes their import. This is the exact opposite of a typical Christian stance that one must have faith in God to know Him.

You start your post with "I don't know" to "Far from". You go from being unsure to showing a mountain of confidence. Nice one Deut....:bounce

Epistemology and procedural protocol assume a robot is doing the testing and observing. Nice try Deut. but that isn't the case. You are a human being with emotions and biases. Stop lying to yourself.

~Victor

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Epistemology and procedural protocol assume a robot is doing the testing and observing.

No, it does not.

You are a human being with emotions and biases.

I honestly cannot tell whether you are intentionally distorting the argument or simply confused. The fact that I am a human being with emotions and biases has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not methodological naturalism presupposes the absense of biases as you falsely claim.

Stop lying to yourself.

And where have I done so? Stop the ad hominems.

 

[Rex]

Like I said, they disavow God most every chance they get. What a crock. The siritual will always be there, whether you believe in it or not.

Define what is spirtual?

 

[Quiddity]

No, it does not.


I honestly cannot tell whether you are intentionally distorting the argument or simply confused. The fact that I am a human being with emotions and biases has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not methodological naturalism presupposes the absense of biases as you falsely claim.


And where have I done so? Stop the ad hominems.

Ad hominem is a finger pointing match. Get's us no where. If you want to sit there and say that I have bias and you don't, go ahead. You can say that until Mars comes back again, makes no difference.

~Victor

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Ad hominem is a finger pointing match. Get's us no where. If you want to sit there and say that I have bias and you don't, go ahead.

Victor, let's try it again: where have I claimed to have no bias, and what does this have to to with your false characterization of methodological naturalism?

 

[Quiddity]

Victor, let's try it again: where have I claimed to have no bias, and what does this have to to with your false characterization of methodological naturalism?

Lots, let me give you an example.

Written by Alvin Plantiga, Notre Dame:

First, then, some examples that suggest that science is not religiously neutral.3 I begin with Herbert Simon's article, "A Mechanism for Social Selection and Successful Altruism."4 This article is concerned with the problem of altruism: Why, asks Simon, do people like Mother Teresa do the things that they do? Why do they devote their time and energy and indeed their entire lives to the welfare of other people? Of course it isn't only the great saints of the world that display this impulse; most of us do so to one degree or another.

How, says Simon, can we account for this kind of behavior? The rational way to behave, he says, is to act or try to act in such a way as to increase one's personal fitness; i.e., to act so as to increase the probability that one's genes will be widely disseminated in the next and subsequent generation, thus doing well in the evolutionary derby.5 A paradigm of rational behavior, so conceived, was reported in the South Bend Tribune of December 21, l991 (dateline Alexandria (Va.)). "Cecil B. Jacobson, an infertility specialist, was accused of using his own sperm to impregnate his patients; he may have fathered as many as 75 children, a prosecutor said Friday." Unlike Jacobson, however, such people as Mother Teresa and Thomas Aquinas cheerfully ignore the short- or long-term fate of their genes. What is the explanation of this behavior?

The answer, says Simon, is two mechanisms: "docility" and "bounded rationality":

Docile persons tend to learn and believe what they perceive others in the society want them to learn and believe. Thus the content of what is learned will not be fully screened for its contribution to personal fitness (p. 1666).

Because of bounded rationality, the docile individual will often be unable to distinguish socially prescribed behavior that contributes to fitness from altruistic behavior [i. e., socially prescribed behavior that does not contribute to fitness--AP]. In fact, docility will reduce the inclination to evaluate independently the contributions of behavior to fitness. .... By virtue of bounded rationality, the docile person cannot acquire the personally advantageous learning that provides the increment, d, of fitness without acquiring also the altruistic behaviors that cost the decrement, c. (p. 1667).

The idea is that a Mother Teresa or a Thomas Aquinas displays bounded rationality; they are unable to distinguish socially prescribed behavior that contributes to fitness from altruistic behavior (socially prescribed behavior which does not). As a result, they fail to acquire the personally advantageous learning that provides that increment d of fitness without, sadly enough, suffering that decrement c exacted by altruistic behavior. They acquiesce unthinkingly in what society tells them is the right way to behave; and they aren't quite up to making their own independent evaluation of the likely bearing of such behavior on the fate of their genes. If they did make such an independent evaluation (and were rational enough to avoid silly mistakes) they would presumably see that this sort of behavior does not contribute to personal fitness, drop it like a hot potato, and get right to work on their expected number of progeny.

No Christian could accept this account as even a beginning of a viable explanation of the altruistic behavior of the Mother Teresas of this world.

Please tell me how this WOULD NOT affect your cold and impassionate conclusions?

Sigh....sigh and sigh.

~Victor

 

[Scuba Pete]

From Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary
spir·i·tu·al
Pronunciation: 'spir-i-ch&-w&l, -i-ch&l, -ich-w&l
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French & Late Latin; Middle French spirituel, from Late Latin spiritualis, from Latin, of breathing, of wind, from spiritus
1 : of, relating to, consisting of, or affecting the spirit : [size=-1]INCORPOREAL[/size] <man's spiritual needs>
2 a : of or relating to sacred matters <spiritual songs> b : ecclesiastical rather than lay or temporal <spiritual authority> <lords spiritual>
3 : concerned with religious values
4 : related or joined in spirit <our spiritual home> <his spiritual heir>
5 a : of or relating to supernatural beings or phenomena b : of, relating to, or involving spiritualism
6 : anything Deut can not see or understand.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Lots, let me give you an example.

Again: where have I claimed to have no bias, and what does this have to to with your false characterization of methodological naturalism?

 

[Quiddity]

Again: where have I claimed to have no bias, and what does this have to to with your false characterization of methodological naturalism?

No response to my example? Ok..

Again, to apply methodological naturalism you must be UNBIAS yourself. What is so hard to understand about this? The system is setup that you SHOULD NOT be. But no person can be. Get the picture?

~Victor

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Again, to apply [/color]methodological naturalism you must be UNBIAS yourself. What is so hard to understand about this? The system is setup that you SHOULD NOT be. But no person can be. Get the picture?

Learn to distinguish between tiresomely repeating a claim and substantiating it.