This is brilliant satire where satire is due, now that the "scientific orthodoxy" has clarified its religious commitment to the unfalsifiable precepts of naturalism.
The inevitable move away from enforced naturalism will be a revolutionary moment in the history of science.
@JCrownwell There is no "religious commitment" in science, only an obligation to follow the facts where they lead. Religion demands blind faith based on no evidence at all; that's completely at odds with the scientific method. Methodological naturalism is obligatory in science because there is no evidence whatsoever for the supernatural and no need to invoke it when trying to explain the natural world. Doing so leads to "god of the gaps" hypotheses.
"However, methodological naturalism makes no claims about the supernatural, for or against."
Well that's part of the problem. Methodological naturalism operates upon the fallacious premise that naturalism can be maintained as an empirical methodology. It can't, simply due to the nature of human perception and the nature of foundational beliefs. Entire fields of epistemology ridicule the precepts held by naturalists, methodological or metaphysical.
@JCrownwell Methodological naturalism operates upon the valid premise that natural phenomena can be explained by natural means and everything that science has so far explained supports that. Human perception can and is accounted for and beliefs are pretty much irrelevant, as can be seen by the numbers of scientists of all religions, and none, who explain natural phenomena via natural means every day.
I don't care about "entire fields of epistemology..."; science works.
That's a poor definition of methodological naturalism, and of my allusion to the nature of perception.
Naturalism is the unfalsifiable, non-empirical assumption in the exclusivity of the physical universe, a faith-based creed akin to any other religious belief. Such a belief cannot be verified scientifically, nor can it be functionally be maintained as an empirically neutral position due to our inherent neurobiological tendencies.
The end of your comment is just clear willful ignorance.
@JCrownwell You're confusing methodological naturalism with philosophical naturalism. As I have stated before, the former makes no claim about the supernatural. It's a tool, the best that we've ever discovered to explain our universe. It works - spectacularly so - and there's no faith involved.
However, I'm open to new ideas; do you have an alternative methodology for investigating the world around us?
"You're confusing methodological naturalism with philosophical naturalism"
This is a distinction made only by the philosophically incompetent. Seeing as you're still not appreciating the arguments here, let me take the language down another notch and see if it gels, accusations of ad hominem attacks aside.
"Your continued use of ad hominems is disappointing"
I'm sorry if the "ad hominems" bother you, but your lack of philosophical insight -is- a pertinent problem here. Perhaps you'd care to take it less personally if I were to claim that I was in the same state of philosophical confusion as you through most of my professional career.
I recommend you go back and read my explanation of foundational beliefs more carefully, because it's clear you haven't taken these ideas on board.
The basic tenet of empiricism is to maintain an absence of belief until there is evidence otherwise. There is no problem with this, permitted that one understands its restrictions. The restrictions inherent within empiricism are such that they can not apply to foundational beliefs, only to beliefs that are derivative and are falsifiable.
To illustrate this idea further without going into neurobiology, let me try and explain what foundational beliefs are.
The human mind requires a system of foundational beliefs, which serve as an essential "framework", or a system of fundamental rules, for critical thinking. We cannot prove these foundational beliefs to be true using evidence derived from observations of the real world. This is because the process by which we formalise evidence from observation of phenomena is itself validated by these foundational beliefs.
We are compelled by neurobiology to maintain foundational assumptions in logic, mathematics and geometry. Moreover, perception compels us into some system of foundational belief regarding the possibility of agencies and influences beyond our senses (direct/indirect realism, representationalism) or beyond all observation/measurement by physical means (naturalism, theism, atheism, uniformitarianiam; ie. the metaphysical doctrines).
Naturalism is the unfalsifiable, metaphysical belief in the exclusiveness of the physical universe, that all phenomena are attributable solely to natural laws and processes. All beliefs which allude to the nature of the metaphysical/physical dichotomy (including a uniform absence of belief in metaphysical causes) are foundational by definition, because they differentially influence the mechanics by which we perceive, interpret and derive evidentiary feedback from phenomenal observations.
@JCrownwell That seems a reasonable definition of *philosophical* naturalism, the belief the natural is all that exists. It's wide of the mark when it comes to *methodological* naturalism, however; the *required* assumption (required because how else do scientists avoid the capriciousness of magic that can disregard natural laws on a whim?) that natural processes can be explained by natural means. No claims of truth, only a methodological assumption.
A philosophically inept naturalist will claim that an absence of belief regarding the metaphysical is a neutral basis from which to formulate an empirical argument for the existence of the metaphysical. An arbitrary understanding of epistemology clearly shows this to be impossible. As soon as an observer commits to a position in naturalism, his perception is immediately framed to exclude metaphysical considerations at every turn.
Naturalism cannot be maintained as an empirically neutral method.
You can then be open to the idea that naturalism is an unfalsifiable world view philosophy, or even a religious system (certainly its adherents be as ignorant and indoctrinated as the most crazed cult fundamentalists).
You've fallen prey to one of my past failings - the critical misunderstanding that scientific methodology is only valid under a naturalistic premise.
@JCrownwell As there is no evidence for anything other than the natural, and scientists of all religions and none produce valid results, there is no reason to consider the supernatural. How would one go about accounting for "magic" anyway? How does one frame and investigate a hypothesis when the rules may change at any time?
"Religion demands blind faith based on no evidence at all; that's completely at odds with the scientific method."
So naturalism is at odds with the scientific method. As are the axioms of logic, mathematics and geometry, and the philosophical doctrine of indirect realism.
Faith-based assumptions are pervasive within the very framework of empiricism, if you'd care to notice. I'd like to see you provide empirical arguments to support the logical axioms, for example.
I've explained how one's framework of evidentiary assessment is subject to metaphysical beliefs, naturalistic or theistic. This is a recognised limitation of empiricism.
The only component of your argument that remains is the directly realistic assertion that metaphysical considerations are invalid because they are insensible.
Why don't we apply directly realistic restrictions upon the rest of science and see how far it goes.
"there is no reason to consider the supernatural."
This is the one poignant and interesting point you've raised.
Why consider the metaphysical at all? Because it is the neurobiologically default position, and most open and broad-minded to consider the influence of agencies and causes beyond that which is detectible.
How far would science have progressed had we not considered the possibility of insensible agencies and mechanisms when we lacked the tools to detect them?
@JCrownwell Which agencies and which mechanisms? Direct observation is not always necessary to make an inference about the existence of a particular phenomenon or material thing. However, there has to be *some* evidence, some starting point, if one is to come to a logical conclusion. There is no evidence for anything supernatural. How then does one proceed?
"there has to be *some* evidence, some starting point, if one is to come to a logical conclusion."
I've gone over this in a previous point. Empirical feedback cannot apply to foundational ideas, such as naturalism, because foundational ideas dictate the very critical thinking mechanics which underlie empirical validation. Evidence can only lie within rational justifications - congruity/incongruity versus other foundational beliefs, such as the axioms of logic and mathematics.
There's more to this issue, of course, and why I'm so hopeful of a break away from enforced naturalism.
My belief is that we're starting to reach the boundaries of where naturalistically-restricted science can take us. This is evident, for example, in bizarre phenomena such as quantum non-determinism and quantum logic that defy the very precepts of causality and locality science has held dear.
We are at the stage where naturalism is starting to hold science back.
You're now repeating refuted arguments in an ostensible coping pattern.
Refer to my prior points regarding the restrictions of empiricism, direct and indirect realism. An empirically neutral "absence of belief" cannot apply to any position that pertains to the physical/metaphysical dichotomy, due to the nature of human perception. Your inability to understand this relatively simple epistemological idea is the source of your trouble here.
@JCrownwell The argument has most definitely not been refuted. "An empirically neutral "absence of belief" cannot apply to any position that pertains to the physical/metaphysical dichotomy" of course it can - no evidence for the supernatural? No reason to consider it.
"The argument has most definitely not been refuted."
Formal logic and epistemology argues otherwise. Atheist scholars appreciate that the precepts of naturalism are unfalsifiable. You are still not able to understand that empiricism has limitations when it comes to "basic beliefs" (foundational beliefs) that influence the very framework of critical thinking itself.
@JCrownwell You keep making reference to "foundational beliefs" as if they're a settled fact, as if there is no criticism within different schools of philosophy. It's very obvious that your world view is inextricably linked to this unprovable, faith-based assertion and the comments that you have posted and then removed show very, very clearly that you are some kind of anti-science religious fundamentalist.
@BobsOldSocks 'You keep making reference to "foundational beliefs" as if they're a settled fact, as if there is no criticism within different schools of philosophy.'
look up and read up on "munchausen's trilemma." this will explain why youre wrong, and why science is impossible without foundational ideas. in science you call it "first principles". I hope that clears up any confusion on your part.
@BobsOldSocks 'Look up and read Hume's "Problem of induction". This will explain why you're wrong'
this message was caught under the spam filter, so I seemed to have missed it.
foundational epistemology doesn't rule out the validity of empirico-inductive reasoning. if anything, one may argue that the very methodology of induction is itself foundational given that you cannot prove logic empirically.
Both belief in and "absence of belief" in mechanisms that exist beyond the neurobiological limitations of perception are equally unfalsifiable, equally unprovable. It is formally absurd to claim that one is superior to the other on the basis of empirical merit, because in -either- case, the very framework of empirical feedback is moulded in accordance with the observer's belief.
This is what is meant when it is stated that empiricism cannot apply to foundational beliefs.
@JCrownwell Science can only operate under the assumption that natural events have natural causes. Can you think of an example of any naturalistic explanation that has been displaced by a more accurate supernatural one?
The empirical/rationalist methodologies at the root of science are essentially the same under a theistic premise as under naturalism.
The vast majority of contemporary observation based studies do not essentially require metaphysical assumptions. Theistic scientists still excel today as historically, despite the current policy of enforced naturalism. The only discrepancies arise when science is applied to the theories of origins which provokes differences between foundational belief systems.
@JCrownwell Theistic scientists excel using the scientific method - methodological naturalism. Science has discovered more in the last 2 weeks than theistic beliefs have in the last 2000 years. Science works, religion doesn't.
"the scientific method - methodological naturalism"
The scientific method is the union of two occasionally conflicting theories of knowledge, empiricism and rationalism. It is metaphysically neutral except when it is used to address ontological problems.
There is no fundamental commitment to naturalism, "methodological" or otherwise, in terms of its methodological mechanics. Any claim towards naturalistic exclusivity here is essentially religious, and formally weak.
"Science has discovered more in the last 2 weeks [sic] than theistic beliefs have in the last 2000 years"
A poorly-observed comment. What confounding factors would account for the rate of increase in scientific discoveries in the past century or so as compared to the previous millennia?
An exponentially increasing global population, a formalised scientific and communications infrastructure founded upon prior scientific accomplishments. I'm sure there are countless others.
@JCrownwell You fail to address the point. With access to the same techniques, equipment and knowledge-base, theism has explained precisely nothing about the universe. No discoveries, no lives saved, no suffering ameliorated. Nothing. Only wishful thinking, claims of absolute knowledge and a huge money-making machine, all based on zero evidence. Theist scientists - the honest ones - have to use methodological naturalism to explain the world around them; appeals to the supernatural are never made
Neither has naturalism. Evidence based observations of physical phenomena are not a de facto validation of naturalistic principles because they are equally congruous with theistic ideas.
Metaphysical beliefs, naturalism and theism, are only pertinent in the theories of origins - cosmologic origins, the origin of species. Most practical observation-based studies that have discretely progressed science do not allude to either position.
@JCrownwell "...they are equally congruous with theistic ideas." No, they're not. If a phenomenon has a natural explanation it cannot at the same time have a supernatural one. Either the sun rises and sets because of the earth's rotation or Ra travels across the sky in his solar boat, driving away the demon Apep.
While the origin of the universe has yet to be fully explained there is no reason to think it cannot be by naturalistic means and, of course, we already know the origin of species.
"If a phenomenon has a natural explanation it cannot at the same time have a supernatural one"
I suspect even you cringe at how poor a response this is.
A metaphysical foundation of belief does not, in any way, exclude natural explanations. It is the belief that there are metaphysical laws operating in tandem with natural laws, in contrast to the naturalistic assumption that there is nothing beyond natural laws. Both positions are empirically unprovable, both are unfalsifiable.
@JCrownwell What people believe has no affect on the substance of the universe and as there is no evidence for anything other than the natural it would be incredibly foolish to try to explain a natural phenomenon via supernatural means. It's a very simple concept.
@BobsOldSocks "If a phenomenon has a natural explanation it cannot at the same time have a supernatural one"" What kind of divorced-from-reality statement is this? Are you claiming that devout that explanations for natural phenomena cannot exist at multiple levels of mechanics? The very fact that we can, for example, have chemical, physical, physiological, homeostatic and self-organisational explanations of complex biological phenomena says otherwise.
@Calenfeyn41 I have no idea what your first questions means "that devout that" makes no sense.
Your subsequent point: all of those are part of the same explanation or are you suggesting they contradict each other? And can you provide an example of a phenomenon that has a natural and a supernatural explanation?
In the absence of empirical justifications either way, rational justifications take precedence. I have already summarised the rational merits for metaphysical causation in a previous comment.
"all of those are part of the same explanation or are you suggesting they contradict each other?"
Then why would metaphysical mechanisms not be a "part of the same explanation" as these natural mechanisms? You've formed an arbitrary boundary there which is refractory to justification.
though I have to admire your patience, you've explained this to him as clearly as its possible to explain them. and now you're repeating your points. there's clearly something of an attitudinal nature stopping him from taking these ideas on board -- either that or hes just not very bright. I say just let things go for now -- and hope there's enough seeded there to give him that "eureka" moment when he's faced by a life event.
In truth, much of our contemporary scientific understanding has developed from a foundation of discoveries constructed, historically, by theists operating from a doctrinal belief in primary metaphysical causation.
One may even argue that their compliance to the notion of broader determinism gave them foundational insight lacking in naturalists who subject themselves to a bizarre masochistic contortion game of sophistry, tautology and infinite regress in the study of existential origins.
@JCrownwell "...much of our contemporary scientific understanding has developed from...theists operating from a doctrinal belief in primary metaphysical causation." and using the scientific method.
"One may even argue..." one may, if one is committed to straw man arguments.
"It works - spectacularly so - and there's no faith involved."
Hopefully, if you manage to take these ideas on board, you can understand that naturalism merely appears to work well because:
(1) As a foundational belief, it defines the very standards by which we define "what works" and what doesn't.
(2) People are generally too philosophically incompetent, unintelligent, proud, cowardly or dishonest to (a) recognise and (b) address their root precepts.
@JCrownwell Yet, science continues to work while assumptions of theistic causes continues to fail, abjectly so. If both are foundational beliefs and one has no intrinsic value over the other, how would one explain the yawning gulf in the explanatory power of each?
In the absence of empirical arguments either way, there are rational arguments for belief in primary metaphysical causation.
It resolves numerous formal logical problems that plague naturalism regarding cosmologic origins - another issue on which an empirically neutral "absence of belief" position is impossible, due to neurobiological restrictions. It also ties up numerous epistemological, teleological and ontological problems that arise within the naturalistic philosophy.
"how would one explain the yawning gulf in the explanatory power of each?"
The simple answer to this is that there is no yawning gulf. There is a religious tendency now to interlace metaphysically-neutral, valid and practical evidence-based findings with speculative naturalistic assertions; but that attempt at association does not render naturalism any more valid or falsifiable than its epistemic analysis would suggest.
"everything that science has so far explained supports [naturalism]"
Let me explain, in simple terms, how cringingly awful statements like this sound: Naturalism is a foundational belief in that, for an individual who holds such beliefs, it is integrated within the very standards of evidentiary assessment and the framework of critical thinking.
If naturalism determines the very framework of evidentiary assessment, then to use evidentiary assessment to prove naturalism is a tautology.
"you fail to understand the inherent difference between the methodological and the philosophical"
Methodological naturalism is an epistemic/procedural methodology whose only rational justification is a primary assumption in metaphysical naturalism. It cannot be justified empirically due to epistemic restrictions.
The two are thus inseparable facets of the same overlying principle. The only alternative to this view is to render methodological naturalism a faith-based doctrine.
i find this hillarious in a satirical way. awesome self irony
asse080 4 months ago
Glorious!!
wiseguy910 9 months ago
who's the woman in the bikini?
Appletree34 9 months ago
Comment removed
Calenfeyn41 9 months ago
@Appletree34
isn't she associated with the NCSE?
Calenfeyn41 9 months ago
@Calenfeyn41 I think so. I can't remember her name, but I swear I know her from somewhere that had to do with an organization.
Rary113 9 months ago
@Rary113 Her name is Eugenie Scott, physical anthropologist and executive director of the National Center for Science Education.
BobsOldSocks 8 months ago
@BobsOldSocks Thanks.
Rary113 8 months ago
This is brilliant satire where satire is due, now that the "scientific orthodoxy" has clarified its religious commitment to the unfalsifiable precepts of naturalism.
The inevitable move away from enforced naturalism will be a revolutionary moment in the history of science.
JCrownwell 9 months ago
@JCrownwell There is no "religious commitment" in science, only an obligation to follow the facts where they lead. Religion demands blind faith based on no evidence at all; that's completely at odds with the scientific method. Methodological naturalism is obligatory in science because there is no evidence whatsoever for the supernatural and no need to invoke it when trying to explain the natural world. Doing so leads to "god of the gaps" hypotheses.
BobsOldSocks 8 months ago
@JCrownwell However, methodological naturalism makes no claims about the supernatural, for or against.
BobsOldSocks 8 months ago
@BobsOldSocks
"However, methodological naturalism makes no claims about the supernatural, for or against."
Well that's part of the problem. Methodological naturalism operates upon the fallacious premise that naturalism can be maintained as an empirical methodology. It can't, simply due to the nature of human perception and the nature of foundational beliefs. Entire fields of epistemology ridicule the precepts held by naturalists, methodological or metaphysical.
JCrownwell 7 months ago
@JCrownwell Methodological naturalism operates upon the valid premise that natural phenomena can be explained by natural means and everything that science has so far explained supports that. Human perception can and is accounted for and beliefs are pretty much irrelevant, as can be seen by the numbers of scientists of all religions, and none, who explain natural phenomena via natural means every day.
I don't care about "entire fields of epistemology..."; science works.
BobsOldSocks 7 months ago
That's a poor definition of methodological naturalism, and of my allusion to the nature of perception.
Naturalism is the unfalsifiable, non-empirical assumption in the exclusivity of the physical universe, a faith-based creed akin to any other religious belief. Such a belief cannot be verified scientifically, nor can it be functionally be maintained as an empirically neutral position due to our inherent neurobiological tendencies.
The end of your comment is just clear willful ignorance.
JCrownwell 7 months ago
@JCrownwell You're confusing methodological naturalism with philosophical naturalism. As I have stated before, the former makes no claim about the supernatural. It's a tool, the best that we've ever discovered to explain our universe. It works - spectacularly so - and there's no faith involved.
However, I'm open to new ideas; do you have an alternative methodology for investigating the world around us?
Oh, and ad hominem noted.
BobsOldSocks 7 months ago
@BobsOldSocks
"You're confusing methodological naturalism with philosophical naturalism"
This is a distinction made only by the philosophically incompetent. Seeing as you're still not appreciating the arguments here, let me take the language down another notch and see if it gels, accusations of ad hominem attacks aside.
JCrownwell 7 months ago
@JCrownwell The two positions are vastly different and your refusal or inability to acknowledge that is surprising.
Your continued use of ad hominems is disappointing but not unexpected.
BobsOldSocks 7 months ago
@BobsOldSocks
"Your continued use of ad hominems is disappointing"
I'm sorry if the "ad hominems" bother you, but your lack of philosophical insight -is- a pertinent problem here. Perhaps you'd care to take it less personally if I were to claim that I was in the same state of philosophical confusion as you through most of my professional career.
I recommend you go back and read my explanation of foundational beliefs more carefully, because it's clear you haven't taken these ideas on board.
JCrownwell 7 months ago
@BobsOldSocks
The basic tenet of empiricism is to maintain an absence of belief until there is evidence otherwise. There is no problem with this, permitted that one understands its restrictions. The restrictions inherent within empiricism are such that they can not apply to foundational beliefs, only to beliefs that are derivative and are falsifiable.
To illustrate this idea further without going into neurobiology, let me try and explain what foundational beliefs are.
JCrownwell 7 months ago
@JCrownwell You state these things as if they are settled fact and accepted across the board - Sceptics would disagree.
BobsOldSocks 7 months ago
@BobsOldSocks
The human mind requires a system of foundational beliefs, which serve as an essential "framework", or a system of fundamental rules, for critical thinking. We cannot prove these foundational beliefs to be true using evidence derived from observations of the real world. This is because the process by which we formalise evidence from observation of phenomena is itself validated by these foundational beliefs.
JCrownwell 7 months ago
@BobsOldSocks
We are compelled by neurobiology to maintain foundational assumptions in logic, mathematics and geometry. Moreover, perception compels us into some system of foundational belief regarding the possibility of agencies and influences beyond our senses (direct/indirect realism, representationalism) or beyond all observation/measurement by physical means (naturalism, theism, atheism, uniformitarianiam; ie. the metaphysical doctrines).
JCrownwell 7 months ago
Naturalism is the unfalsifiable, metaphysical belief in the exclusiveness of the physical universe, that all phenomena are attributable solely to natural laws and processes. All beliefs which allude to the nature of the metaphysical/physical dichotomy (including a uniform absence of belief in metaphysical causes) are foundational by definition, because they differentially influence the mechanics by which we perceive, interpret and derive evidentiary feedback from phenomenal observations.
JCrownwell 7 months ago
@JCrownwell That seems a reasonable definition of *philosophical* naturalism, the belief the natural is all that exists. It's wide of the mark when it comes to *methodological* naturalism, however; the *required* assumption (required because how else do scientists avoid the capriciousness of magic that can disregard natural laws on a whim?) that natural processes can be explained by natural means. No claims of truth, only a methodological assumption.
BobsOldSocks 7 months ago
A philosophically inept naturalist will claim that an absence of belief regarding the metaphysical is a neutral basis from which to formulate an empirical argument for the existence of the metaphysical. An arbitrary understanding of epistemology clearly shows this to be impossible. As soon as an observer commits to a position in naturalism, his perception is immediately framed to exclude metaphysical considerations at every turn.
Naturalism cannot be maintained as an empirically neutral method.
JCrownwell 7 months ago
@JCrownwell But *methodological* naturalism can.
BobsOldSocks 7 months ago
@BobsOldSocks
"I'm open to new ideas"
You can then be open to the idea that naturalism is an unfalsifiable world view philosophy, or even a religious system (certainly its adherents be as ignorant and indoctrinated as the most crazed cult fundamentalists).
You've fallen prey to one of my past failings - the critical misunderstanding that scientific methodology is only valid under a naturalistic premise.
JCrownwell 7 months ago
@JCrownwell As there is no evidence for anything other than the natural, and scientists of all religions and none produce valid results, there is no reason to consider the supernatural. How would one go about accounting for "magic" anyway? How does one frame and investigate a hypothesis when the rules may change at any time?
BobsOldSocks 7 months ago
Comment removed
JCrownwell 7 months ago
@BobsOldSocks
"Religion demands blind faith based on no evidence at all; that's completely at odds with the scientific method."
So naturalism is at odds with the scientific method. As are the axioms of logic, mathematics and geometry, and the philosophical doctrine of indirect realism.
Faith-based assumptions are pervasive within the very framework of empiricism, if you'd care to notice. I'd like to see you provide empirical arguments to support the logical axioms, for example.
JCrownwell 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@BobsOldSocks
"No evidence for anything other than the natural"
I've explained how one's framework of evidentiary assessment is subject to metaphysical beliefs, naturalistic or theistic. This is a recognised limitation of empiricism.
The only component of your argument that remains is the directly realistic assertion that metaphysical considerations are invalid because they are insensible.
Why don't we apply directly realistic restrictions upon the rest of science and see how far it goes.
JCrownwell 7 months ago
@BobsOldSocks
"there is no reason to consider the supernatural."
This is the one poignant and interesting point you've raised.
Why consider the metaphysical at all? Because it is the neurobiologically default position, and most open and broad-minded to consider the influence of agencies and causes beyond that which is detectible.
How far would science have progressed had we not considered the possibility of insensible agencies and mechanisms when we lacked the tools to detect them?
JCrownwell 7 months ago
@JCrownwell Which agencies and which mechanisms? Direct observation is not always necessary to make an inference about the existence of a particular phenomenon or material thing. However, there has to be *some* evidence, some starting point, if one is to come to a logical conclusion. There is no evidence for anything supernatural. How then does one proceed?
BobsOldSocks 7 months ago
@BobsOldSocks
"there has to be *some* evidence, some starting point, if one is to come to a logical conclusion."
I've gone over this in a previous point. Empirical feedback cannot apply to foundational ideas, such as naturalism, because foundational ideas dictate the very critical thinking mechanics which underlie empirical validation. Evidence can only lie within rational justifications - congruity/incongruity versus other foundational beliefs, such as the axioms of logic and mathematics.
JCrownwell 7 months ago
Comment removed
JCrownwell 7 months ago
Comment removed
JCrownwell 7 months ago
@BobsOldSocks
There's more to this issue, of course, and why I'm so hopeful of a break away from enforced naturalism.
My belief is that we're starting to reach the boundaries of where naturalistically-restricted science can take us. This is evident, for example, in bizarre phenomena such as quantum non-determinism and quantum logic that defy the very precepts of causality and locality science has held dear.
We are at the stage where naturalism is starting to hold science back.
JCrownwell 7 months ago
@JCrownwell Science is not "restricted" by the natural, the natural is all we have evidence for. Science can only investigate things that exist.
BobsOldSocks 7 months ago
@BobsOldSocks
"the natural is all we have evidence for"
You're now repeating refuted arguments in an ostensible coping pattern.
Refer to my prior points regarding the restrictions of empiricism, direct and indirect realism. An empirically neutral "absence of belief" cannot apply to any position that pertains to the physical/metaphysical dichotomy, due to the nature of human perception. Your inability to understand this relatively simple epistemological idea is the source of your trouble here.
JCrownwell 7 months ago
@JCrownwell The argument has most definitely not been refuted. "An empirically neutral "absence of belief" cannot apply to any position that pertains to the physical/metaphysical dichotomy" of course it can - no evidence for the supernatural? No reason to consider it.
BobsOldSocks 7 months ago
@BobsOldSocks
"The argument has most definitely not been refuted."
Formal logic and epistemology argues otherwise. Atheist scholars appreciate that the precepts of naturalism are unfalsifiable. You are still not able to understand that empiricism has limitations when it comes to "basic beliefs" (foundational beliefs) that influence the very framework of critical thinking itself.
JCrownwell 7 months ago
@JCrownwell You keep making reference to "foundational beliefs" as if they're a settled fact, as if there is no criticism within different schools of philosophy. It's very obvious that your world view is inextricably linked to this unprovable, faith-based assertion and the comments that you have posted and then removed show very, very clearly that you are some kind of anti-science religious fundamentalist.
BobsOldSocks 7 months ago
@BobsOldSocks 'You keep making reference to "foundational beliefs" as if they're a settled fact, as if there is no criticism within different schools of philosophy.'
look up and read up on "munchausen's trilemma." this will explain why youre wrong, and why science is impossible without foundational ideas. in science you call it "first principles". I hope that clears up any confusion on your part.
Appletree34 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Appletree34 Look up and read Hume's "Problem of induction". This will explain why you're wrong. I hope that clears up any confusion on your part.
BobsOldSocks 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@BobsOldSocks 'Look up and read Hume's "Problem of induction". This will explain why you're wrong'
this message was caught under the spam filter, so I seemed to have missed it.
foundational epistemology doesn't rule out the validity of empirico-inductive reasoning. if anything, one may argue that the very methodology of induction is itself foundational given that you cannot prove logic empirically.
Appletree34 2 months ago
Comment removed
JCrownwell 7 months ago
Comment removed
JCrownwell 7 months ago
@BobsOldSocks
Both belief in and "absence of belief" in mechanisms that exist beyond the neurobiological limitations of perception are equally unfalsifiable, equally unprovable. It is formally absurd to claim that one is superior to the other on the basis of empirical merit, because in -either- case, the very framework of empirical feedback is moulded in accordance with the observer's belief.
This is what is meant when it is stated that empiricism cannot apply to foundational beliefs.
JCrownwell 7 months ago
@JCrownwell Please provide evidence for things"...that exist beyond the neurobiological limitations of perception...".
BobsOldSocks 7 months ago
@JCrownwell Science can only operate under the assumption that natural events have natural causes. Can you think of an example of any naturalistic explanation that has been displaced by a more accurate supernatural one?
BobsOldSocks 7 months ago
The empirical/rationalist methodologies at the root of science are essentially the same under a theistic premise as under naturalism.
The vast majority of contemporary observation based studies do not essentially require metaphysical assumptions. Theistic scientists still excel today as historically, despite the current policy of enforced naturalism. The only discrepancies arise when science is applied to the theories of origins which provokes differences between foundational belief systems.
JCrownwell 7 months ago
@JCrownwell Theistic scientists excel using the scientific method - methodological naturalism. Science has discovered more in the last 2 weeks than theistic beliefs have in the last 2000 years. Science works, religion doesn't.
BobsOldSocks 7 months ago
@BobsOldSocks
"the scientific method - methodological naturalism"
The scientific method is the union of two occasionally conflicting theories of knowledge, empiricism and rationalism. It is metaphysically neutral except when it is used to address ontological problems.
There is no fundamental commitment to naturalism, "methodological" or otherwise, in terms of its methodological mechanics. Any claim towards naturalistic exclusivity here is essentially religious, and formally weak.
JCrownwell 7 months ago
@BobsOldSocks
"Science has discovered more in the last 2 weeks [sic] than theistic beliefs have in the last 2000 years"
A poorly-observed comment. What confounding factors would account for the rate of increase in scientific discoveries in the past century or so as compared to the previous millennia?
An exponentially increasing global population, a formalised scientific and communications infrastructure founded upon prior scientific accomplishments. I'm sure there are countless others.
JCrownwell 7 months ago
@JCrownwell You fail to address the point. With access to the same techniques, equipment and knowledge-base, theism has explained precisely nothing about the universe. No discoveries, no lives saved, no suffering ameliorated. Nothing. Only wishful thinking, claims of absolute knowledge and a huge money-making machine, all based on zero evidence. Theist scientists - the honest ones - have to use methodological naturalism to explain the world around them; appeals to the supernatural are never made
BobsOldSocks 7 months ago
@BobsOldSocks
"theism has explained precisely nothing ..."
Neither has naturalism. Evidence based observations of physical phenomena are not a de facto validation of naturalistic principles because they are equally congruous with theistic ideas.
Metaphysical beliefs, naturalism and theism, are only pertinent in the theories of origins - cosmologic origins, the origin of species. Most practical observation-based studies that have discretely progressed science do not allude to either position.
JCrownwell 7 months ago
@JCrownwell "...they are equally congruous with theistic ideas." No, they're not. If a phenomenon has a natural explanation it cannot at the same time have a supernatural one. Either the sun rises and sets because of the earth's rotation or Ra travels across the sky in his solar boat, driving away the demon Apep.
While the origin of the universe has yet to be fully explained there is no reason to think it cannot be by naturalistic means and, of course, we already know the origin of species.
BobsOldSocks 7 months ago
Comment removed
JCrownwell 7 months ago
"If a phenomenon has a natural explanation it cannot at the same time have a supernatural one"
I suspect even you cringe at how poor a response this is.
A metaphysical foundation of belief does not, in any way, exclude natural explanations. It is the belief that there are metaphysical laws operating in tandem with natural laws, in contrast to the naturalistic assumption that there is nothing beyond natural laws. Both positions are empirically unprovable, both are unfalsifiable.
JCrownwell 7 months ago
@JCrownwell What people believe has no affect on the substance of the universe and as there is no evidence for anything other than the natural it would be incredibly foolish to try to explain a natural phenomenon via supernatural means. It's a very simple concept.
BobsOldSocks 7 months ago
Comment removed
Calenfeyn41 7 months ago
@BobsOldSocks "If a phenomenon has a natural explanation it cannot at the same time have a supernatural one"" What kind of divorced-from-reality statement is this? Are you claiming that devout that explanations for natural phenomena cannot exist at multiple levels of mechanics? The very fact that we can, for example, have chemical, physical, physiological, homeostatic and self-organisational explanations of complex biological phenomena says otherwise.
Calenfeyn41 7 months ago
@Calenfeyn41 I have no idea what your first questions means "that devout that" makes no sense.
Your subsequent point: all of those are part of the same explanation or are you suggesting they contradict each other? And can you provide an example of a phenomenon that has a natural and a supernatural explanation?
BobsOldSocks 7 months ago
@BobsOldSocks
In the absence of empirical justifications either way, rational justifications take precedence. I have already summarised the rational merits for metaphysical causation in a previous comment.
"all of those are part of the same explanation or are you suggesting they contradict each other?"
Then why would metaphysical mechanisms not be a "part of the same explanation" as these natural mechanisms? You've formed an arbitrary boundary there which is refractory to justification.
JCrownwell 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@JCrownwell
though I have to admire your patience, you've explained this to him as clearly as its possible to explain them. and now you're repeating your points. there's clearly something of an attitudinal nature stopping him from taking these ideas on board -- either that or hes just not very bright. I say just let things go for now -- and hope there's enough seeded there to give him that "eureka" moment when he's faced by a life event.
Appletree34 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Appletree34 Another of your sock-puppets?
BobsOldSocks 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@BobsOldSocks "Another of your sock-puppets?"
Paranoid much?
Appletree34 4 months ago
In truth, much of our contemporary scientific understanding has developed from a foundation of discoveries constructed, historically, by theists operating from a doctrinal belief in primary metaphysical causation.
One may even argue that their compliance to the notion of broader determinism gave them foundational insight lacking in naturalists who subject themselves to a bizarre masochistic contortion game of sophistry, tautology and infinite regress in the study of existential origins.
JCrownwell 7 months ago
@JCrownwell "...much of our contemporary scientific understanding has developed from...theists operating from a doctrinal belief in primary metaphysical causation." and using the scientific method.
"One may even argue..." one may, if one is committed to straw man arguments.
BobsOldSocks 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@BobsOldSocks
"It works - spectacularly so - and there's no faith involved."
Hopefully, if you manage to take these ideas on board, you can understand that naturalism merely appears to work well because:
(1) As a foundational belief, it defines the very standards by which we define "what works" and what doesn't.
(2) People are generally too philosophically incompetent, unintelligent, proud, cowardly or dishonest to (a) recognise and (b) address their root precepts.
JCrownwell 7 months ago
@JCrownwell Yet, science continues to work while assumptions of theistic causes continues to fail, abjectly so. If both are foundational beliefs and one has no intrinsic value over the other, how would one explain the yawning gulf in the explanatory power of each?
BobsOldSocks 7 months ago
Comment removed
Calenfeyn41 7 months ago
Comment removed
Calenfeyn41 7 months ago
Comment removed
JCrownwell 7 months ago
Comment removed
JCrownwell 7 months ago
Comment removed
JCrownwell 7 months ago
Comment removed
JCrownwell 7 months ago
Comment removed
JCrownwell 7 months ago
@BobsOldSocks
In the absence of empirical arguments either way, there are rational arguments for belief in primary metaphysical causation.
It resolves numerous formal logical problems that plague naturalism regarding cosmologic origins - another issue on which an empirically neutral "absence of belief" position is impossible, due to neurobiological restrictions. It also ties up numerous epistemological, teleological and ontological problems that arise within the naturalistic philosophy.
JCrownwell 7 months ago
@BobsOldSocks
"how would one explain the yawning gulf in the explanatory power of each?"
The simple answer to this is that there is no yawning gulf. There is a religious tendency now to interlace metaphysically-neutral, valid and practical evidence-based findings with speculative naturalistic assertions; but that attempt at association does not render naturalism any more valid or falsifiable than its epistemic analysis would suggest.
JCrownwell 7 months ago
@BobsOS
"everything that science has so far explained supports [naturalism]"
Let me explain, in simple terms, how cringingly awful statements like this sound: Naturalism is a foundational belief in that, for an individual who holds such beliefs, it is integrated within the very standards of evidentiary assessment and the framework of critical thinking.
If naturalism determines the very framework of evidentiary assessment, then to use evidentiary assessment to prove naturalism is a tautology.
JCrownwell 7 months ago
@JCrownwell "everything that science has so far explained supports [naturalism]"
Nice straw man. Care to address what I actually wrote?
BobsOldSocks 7 months ago
@BobsOldSocks
The paraphrasing was clumsy, but the comment itself addressed the methodological doctrine.
Nice try.
JCrownwell 7 months ago
@JCrownwell No, it didn't. Yet again you fail to understand the inherent difference between the methodological and the philosophical.
BobsOldSocks 7 months ago
Comment removed
JCrownwell 7 months ago
Comment removed
JCrownwell 7 months ago
Comment removed
JCrownwell 7 months ago
Comment removed
JCrownwell 7 months ago
Comment removed
JCrownwell 7 months ago
Comment removed
JCrownwell 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@BobsOldSocks
"you fail to understand the inherent difference between the methodological and the philosophical"
Methodological naturalism is an epistemic/procedural methodology whose only rational justification is a primary assumption in metaphysical naturalism. It cannot be justified empirically due to epistemic restrictions.
The two are thus inseparable facets of the same overlying principle. The only alternative to this view is to render methodological naturalism a faith-based doctrine.
JCrownwell 7 months ago
Comment removed
JCrownwell 9 months ago
Very good
metacosmos 9 months ago