tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post1718317284330525867..comments2024-01-23T02:32:28.567-08:00Comments on Darwin's God: Oops, Friedman Goes There: Altruism is nth+1 ContradictionUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger45125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-66740404730334212522013-04-10T22:51:09.411-07:002013-04-10T22:51:09.411-07:00so I finally understand how to use the school'...so I finally understand how to use the school's vast resources <a href="http://www.honeybuy.com/c/Cheap-Wedding-Dresses" rel="nofollow"><strong>cheap wedding dresses</strong></a> to find youth literature resources they need to find about 100 papers, seriously read the summary notes, to lay the foundation for their papers. Order point of view, found among the papers in the past and avoid repeating ideas Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-49622000049531420242013-02-10T05:45:55.041-08:002013-02-10T05:45:55.041-08:00I responded to you on the other thread, Ritchie. B...I responded to you on the other thread, Ritchie. But you have to click "Load More" to see it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-48207503437578976582013-02-09T20:47:01.573-08:002013-02-09T20:47:01.573-08:00R: Your belief alone does not make you more likely...R: Your belief alone does not make you more likely to be correct. That is ridiculous.<br /><br />J: But it does render me consistent.<br /><br />R: The idea is not to minimise the NUMBER of unknowns - it is to minimise the imporbability. And God, as a supernatural agent, will always be by definition, less probable than any naturalistic hypothesis.<br /><br />J: You can' calculate the probability of abiogenesis or UCA. You're just confused.<br /><br />R: Anyone can perform science no matter what their religious beliefs. You just cannot posit religious entities or forces as explanations in your work.<br /><br />J: Of course. But that's just another way of saying that naturalism is not known to be true. One need only assume that the event sequences they're trying to explain are naturally-caused without assuming naturalISM.<br /><br />R: If that were true then how were they to tell the sequences that were from the ones that were not?<br /><br />J: They, like most people, had an idea of when they were acting volitionally as opposed to naturally.<br /><br />R: No, not necessarily. But you do need to posit mechanisms.<br /><br />J: They don't explain how intentions effect brain neurons when they argue evidentially for intent in courts. Because that's not necessary to how that kind of explanation works.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-5002610462981218782013-02-09T20:23:54.326-08:002013-02-09T20:23:54.326-08:00But I believe in the normativity of thought, Ritch...<b>But I believe in the normativity of thought, Ritchie. </b><br /><br />Your belief alone does not make you more likely to be correct. That is ridiculous.<br /><br /><b>Granted. But UCA is equally unfalsifiable.</b><br /><br />No it isn't. That is a ridiculous claim you keep parrotting. UCA is highly falsifiable.<br /><br /><b>IOW, after 150 years, all we have is more teleological thinking and speculation.</b><br /><br />No, we have EVIDENCE. That is the difference between a theory and a failure.<br /><br /><b>On the contrary. The ID approach is to minimize libertarianly-caused events to the extent logically-possible.</b><br /><br />The idea is not to minimise the NUMBER of unknowns - it is to minimise the imporbability. And God, as a supernatural agent, will always be by definition, less probable than any naturalistic hypothesis.<br /><br /><b>There is nothing extreme about trying to be logically consistent.</b><br /><br />You are trying to save your pet theory. And the fact you have to go to such lengths is telling.<br /><br /><b>Amazing. All those theists who advanced science in the past never thought so. </b><br /><br />Yes they did.<br /><br />Anyone can perform science no matter what their religious beliefs. You just cannot posit religious entities or forces as explanations in your work.<br /><br /><b>They just figured most event sequences (not all) were natural...</b><br /><br />If that were true then how were they to tell the sequences that were from the ones that were not?<br /><br /><b>So one can never rationally infer that an event or state of affairs was intelligently designed? EVER? All such inference is irrational?</b><br /><br />No, not necessarily. But you do need to posit mechanisms. You do need to say HOW the object, event or state of affairs was designed. Just crying "design" and presuming magic/miracle will fill in the gaps will not do.Ritchiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03494987782757049380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-52175296812075253832013-02-09T19:53:05.908-08:002013-02-09T19:53:05.908-08:00R: Then you are just as much a fool for engaging i...R: Then you are just as much a fool for engaging in it as I.<br /><br />J: But I believe in the normativity of thought, Ritchie. And so might other people who read our correspondence. Now they know that you admit to being a fool. That's worth something, eh? ;)<br /><br />R: They are assumed so they can be tested. And that is exactly the problem with ID - it cannot be tested. Ever. It makes no predictions, it posits no mechanisms. It is all assumption, no testing.<br /><br />J: Granted. But UCA is equally unfalsifiable. We need a bona-fide causal theory that IMPLIES the effects from initial conditions in terms of event regularities. IOW, after 150 years, all we have is more teleological thinking and speculation. Physics, in the meanwhile, is making real progress because of the falsifiable nature of its theories.<br /><br />R: This is called argument by obfuscation. You are pushing the debate back into such a nebulous realm where all things may be possible and reality is so loose-weave that black is white and ID is a sensible theory.<br /><br />J: On the contrary. The ID approach is to minimize libertarianly-caused events to the extent logically-possible. But some have to be posited just to render the number of ad-hoc hypotheses entailed in explanation FINITE.<br /><br />R: The fact that you have to go to such extremes at all is extremely telling.<br /><br />J: There is nothing extreme about trying to be logically consistent.<br /><br />R: Here in the real world, science needs to assume naturalism.<br /><br />J: Amazing. All those theists who advanced science in the past never thought so. They just figured most event sequences (not all) were natural and went about trying to explain them in terms of falsifiable theories.<br /><br />R: And ID fails even at that - it posits no mechanisms, makes no hypotheses<br /><br />J: So one can never rationally infer that an event or state of affairs was intelligently designed? EVER? All such inference is irrational?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-35493425409663946732013-02-09T19:31:02.676-08:002013-02-09T19:31:02.676-08:00No, there's no way you can duplicate the exact...<b>No, there's no way you can duplicate the exact initial conditions. Per naturalism, if you could, the dice would roll identically every time. Hence, no free-will.</b><br /><br />You are clearly pushing the essay I cited far further than it was ever intended. The paper was explaining the practicalities of science. Of course it is impractical for scientists to recreate every exact condition to such a degree that a rolled dice will always give the same result. This is not science, this is philosophy.<br /><br /><b>Hence, debate is futile.</b><br /><br />Then you are just as much a fool for engaging in it as I.<br /><br /><b>All ad-hoc hypotheses are assumed tentatively. And scientists make such ad-hoc assumptions/hypotheses all the time. There's no getting around it.<br /></b><br /><br />They are assumed so they can be tested. And that is exactly the problem with ID - it cannot be tested. Ever. It makes no predictions, it posits no mechanisms. It is all assumption, no testing.<br /><br /><b>There's no way to calculate probabilities for teleological explanations OR the ad-hoc hypotheses required for naturalistic explanations of biological data.</b><br /><br />There is a way to compare scientific theories - measure how well each one accounts for the observed data. And ID loses out woefully to ToE on that score.<br /><br /><b>So are you finally being consistent and denying the reality of libertarian free-will, or are you still going to remain contradictory and claim that all event sequences are repeatable even though some events are caused libertarianly?</b><br /><br />I am not confirming or denying anything. I am merely pointing out that this is philosophy and you are being disingenuous.<br /><br />This is called argument by obfuscation. You are pushing the debate back into such a nebulous realm where all things may be possible and reality is so loose-weave that black is white and ID is a sensible theory.<br /><br />The fact that you have to go to such extremes at all is extremely telling.<br /><br />Here in the real world, science needs to assume naturalism. It just does. And we can compare scientific theories. We just can. And ID fails even at that - it posits no mechanisms, makes no hypotheses; it is nothing but an ad hoc explanation. In total contrast to ToE, which clearly posits mechanisms, is infinitely fertile ground for hypotheses and is highly falsifiable. There really is no comparison. And it speaks volumes that you have to go to such lengths to obfuscate this simple truth.Ritchiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03494987782757049380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-29903926496757565202013-02-09T18:38:13.694-08:002013-02-09T18:38:13.694-08:00R: That is not so. Rolling a dice is a repeatable ...R: That is not so. Rolling a dice is a repeatable action. That does not infer that the number the dice shows was pre-determined.<br /><br />J: No, there's no way you can duplicate the exact initial conditions. Per naturalism, if you could, the dice would roll identically every time. Hence, no free-will.<br /><br />J: Then there's no such thing as normativity to thought. Because your beliefs, per your view, are not intelligibly better or worse than mine in any conceivable, non-relativistic sense.<br /><br />R: And perhaps that is so.<br /><br />J: Hence, debate is futile.<br /><br />R: Yes it is JUST an assumption - that is the whole point.<br /><br />J: All ad-hoc hypotheses are assumed tentatively. And scientists make such ad-hoc assumptions/hypotheses all the time. There's no getting around it.<br /><br />R: It may be an assumption that makes your philosophising easier, but that bears no relation to whether it is more likely to be true.<br /><br />J: There's no way to calculate probabilities for teleological explanations OR the ad-hoc hypotheses required for naturalistic explanations of biological data. We can only compare the number of ad-hoc hypotheses required in both. This relates to the degree of speculation involved.<br /><br />R: It may be an assumption that we would prefer to be true, but that bears no relation to whether it actually is.<br /><br />J: The same is true of ad-hoc hypotheses posited by scientists.<br /><br />J: Libertarian free-will requires that the past could have been different.<br /><br />R: And this is one of the many reason that science and philosophy are different subjects. You are trying to confuse the two.<br /><br />J: So are you finally being consistent and denying the reality of libertarian free-will, or are you still going to remain contradictory and claim that all event sequences are repeatable even though some events are caused libertarianly? What you call philosophy is nothing more than deductive logic, which is used in natural science as much as it is in math, etc. You are seriously confused if you think science can function without deduction.<br /><br /> <br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-41455764537035864232013-02-09T17:31:11.825-08:002013-02-09T17:31:11.825-08:00To say event sequences are repeatable from the sam...<b>To say event sequences are repeatable from the same initial conditions is the same thing as saying they are deterministic. </b><br /><br />That is not so. Rolling a dice is a repeatable action. That does not infer that the number the dice shows was pre-determined.<br /><br /><b>Then there's no such thing as normativity to thought. Because your beliefs, per your view, are not intelligibly better or worse than mine in any conceivable, non-relativistic sense.</b><br /><br />And perhaps that is so.<br /><br /><b>It's not JUST an assumption. It's one that allows for a finite number of ad-hoc hypotheses in our explanations. That's no small thing.</b><br /><br />Yes it is JUST an assumption - that is the whole point.<br /><br />It may be an assumption that makes your philosophising easier, but that bears no relation to whether it is more likely to be true.<br /><br />It may be an assumption that we would prefer to be true, but that bears no relation to whether it actually is.<br /><br /><b>It means there either is no such thing as free-will, or that science can't assume that all events are natural.</b><br /><br />No. You are reading far too much into this. We cannot determine anything about free will simply from scientific experiments being repeatable.<br /><br /><b>Libertarian free-will requires that the past could have been different.</b><br /><br />And this is one of the many reason that science and philosophy are different subjects. You are trying to confuse the two.Ritchiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03494987782757049380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-14512772270430357542013-02-09T16:14:18.890-08:002013-02-09T16:14:18.890-08:00R: Ummm, I don't remember linking to any site ...R: Ummm, I don't remember linking to any site that defined naturalism in terms of determinism and free will. These are totally unrelated concepts.<br /><br />J: To say event sequences are repeatable from the same initial conditions is the same thing as saying they are deterministic. <br /><br />R: But it rests wholly on an entirely hypothetical premise. That is its massive and unavoidable flaw.<br /><br />J: Then there's no such thing as normativity to thought. Because your beliefs, per your view, are not intelligibly better or worse than mine in any conceivable, non-relativistic sense.<br /><br />R: And you're back to playing this ridiculous philosophy game again.<br /><br />J: No, I'm pointing out how you can't avoid circularity.<br /><br />R: No, it is a game because you are applying it selectively.<br /><br />J: How so?<br /><br />R: If you were to be consistent you would acknowledge that we can believe our senses or we cannot. Those are our options.<br /><br />J: On the contrary, it's an option, as some theorists hold, that there's no such thing as senses if, by that, you mean that senses consist of 3-dimensionally-extended particles.<br /><br />R: It won't rescue you from the fact that your design hypothesis is just an assumption. These philosophical games are not giving us any reason to think it is likely to be true.<br /><br />J: It's not JUST an assumption. It's one that allows for a finite number of ad-hoc hypotheses in our explanations. That's no small thing.<br />R: "As already stated, naturalism is one of the basic guiding principles of science. It requires that supernatural causes and agents must be ruled out as scientific explanations for natural phenomena; all proposed scientific explanations must be testable and repeatable,"<br /><br />This is a definition I am perfectly happy with. I see nothing here about determinism or free will.<br /><br />J: It means there either is no such thing as free-will, or that science can't assume that all events are natural.<br /><br />R: Moreover the whole point of it was to demonstrate that science absolutely must assume naturalism.<br /><br />J: If there's free-will, it can't assume that. It can only assume that some event sequences are natural, not all.<br /><br />R: Okay, I see the confusion on this point.<br /><br />I was talking about practicalities. It is not always practically possible to repeat an experiment. This is different from an experiment being repeatable in theory.<br /><br />J: Libertarian free-will requires that the past could have been different. This means that the same initial conditions won't produce a repeatable event sequences NECESSARILY. You have to pick naturalism or free-will. You can't have both.<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-86458994840109017082013-02-09T15:31:47.099-08:002013-02-09T15:31:47.099-08:00The only non-circular way of defining naturalism i...<b>The only non-circular way of defining naturalism is to define as the site you provided does -- the view that all events are deterministic. This rules out free-will</b><br /><br />Ummm, I don't remember linking to any site that defined naturalism in terms of determinism and free will. These are totally unrelated concepts.<br /><br /><b>So even though my view has the same problems as any at that the absolute level, it does ground the intelligibility of true non-relativistic normativity in thought, which allows for meaningful debate between people who accept the same axioms.</b><br /><br />But it rests wholly on an entirely hypothetical premise. That is its massive and unavoidable flaw.<br /><br /><b>Is it intuitive that there is such a thing as evidence? If not, how do you know there is such a thing as evidence? If so, why does this intuition have to be accepted without qualification while others can't be?</b><br /><br />And you're back to playing this ridiculous philosophy game again.<br /><br /><b>It's not a game. It's the nature of logical analysis.</b><br /><br />No, it is a game because you are applying it selectively.<br /><br />If you were to be consistent you would acknowledge that we can believe our senses or we cannot. Those are our options.<br /><br />When it comes to the notion of a designed world, a created world, you are quite happy to accept this. But when it comes to a non-created world, you start on with this whole 'how do we know we know what we think we know?' stuff.<br /><br />It won't rescue you from the fact that your design hypothesis is just an assumption. These philosophical games are not giving us any reason to think it is likely to be true.<br /><br /><b>"As already stated, naturalism is one of the basic guiding principles of science. It requires that supernatural causes and agents must be ruled out as scientific explanations for natural phenomena; all proposed scientific explanations must be testable and repeatable,"</b><br /><br />This is a definition I am perfectly happy with. I see nothing here about determinism or free will.<br /><br />Moreover the whole point of it was to demonstrate that science absolutely must assume naturalism. I assume you missed that if you didn't get any further than the definition of naturalism...?<br /><br /><b>You insisted above that repeatability is not an essential attribute of naturalistic phenomena.</b><br /><br />Okay, I see the confusion on this point.<br /><br />I was talking about practicalities. It is not always practically possible to repeat an experiment. This is different from an experiment being repeatable in theory.<br /><br /><b>Thus, by this site (and my definition as well), science rules out the existence of free-will.</b><br /><br />Ummm, no. That is a massive step away from naturalism - a total non-sequitur. What has science being repeatable have to do with free-will?Ritchiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03494987782757049380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-49643085693291521822013-02-09T14:37:54.446-08:002013-02-09T14:37:54.446-08:00R: How does 'design' do anything to resolv...R: How does 'design' do anything to resolve the conundrum of how we can be sure we, and the world around us, exists? The problem is how we know this. And the problem is identical whether we and the world around us was created or not.<br /><br />J: The only non-circular way of defining naturalism is to define as the site you provided does -- the view that all events are deterministic. This rules out free-will. This in turn rules out normativity for thought. This in turn means no belief is knowably worse than any other in an non-relativistic sense. <br /><br />So even though my view has the same problems as any at that the absolute level, it does ground the intelligibility of true non-relativistic normativity in thought, which allows for meaningful debate between people who accept the same axioms. Your view can't even do that.<br /><br />R: Indeed, we must trust evidence over intuition.<br /><br />J: Is it intuitive that there is such a thing as evidence? If not, how do you know there is such a thing as evidence? If so, why does this intuition have to be accepted without qualification while others can't be?<br /><br />R: You are just playing philosophical games again. And it's cute, but not productive.<br /><br />J: It's not a game. It's the nature of logical analysis.<br /><br />R: Please take the time to read the following post. It is not overly long, and simple enough to follow easily:<br /><br />http://www.ebonmusings.org/evolution/naturalism.html<br /><br />J: I didn't even have to finish it to see that it defines naturalism the way I do, not as you do:<br /><br />"As already stated, naturalism is one of the basic guiding principles of science. It requires that supernatural causes and agents must be ruled out as scientific explanations for natural phenomena; all proposed scientific explanations must be testable and repeatable,"<br /><br />You insisted above that repeatability is not an essential attribute of naturalistic phenomena. Thus, by this site (and my definition as well), science rules out the existence of free-will. Have you thought through the implications of that? They're profound.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-26922861620878157372013-02-09T09:12:54.614-08:002013-02-09T09:12:54.614-08:00Jeff
It certainly seems that one can't be con...Jeff<br /><br /><b>It certainly seems that one can't be consistent over time trying to deny one's intuitions. But one can, for a moment, realize that apart from benevolent/competent design, those intuitions are not known to be true.</b><br /><br />How does 'design' do anything to resolve the conundrum of how we can be sure we, and the world around us, exists? The problem is how we know this. And the problem is identical whether we and the world around us was created or not.<br /><br /><b>Indeed, it's naturalistic scientists that love to tell us we can't trust our intuitions. So it's the modern scientific approach that fails by your own argument.</b><br /><br />Indeed, we must trust evidence over intuition. But I do not advocate methodological naturalism just because it is intuitive. I advocate it because it is absolutely essential for performing science.<br /><br />This is the key point here which I feel you are failing to grasp. If we did not, as scientists, assume naturalism, then science would be utterly impossible to perform. Totally impossible. Science would grind to a halt if we were able to insert 'magic' or 'miracle' to any anomalous piece of data.<br /><br /><b>That's where you're wrong. If those low-level inferences (not volitional assumptions) are not true, it would NOT follow that there is a floor or anything else. There's an infinite set of other logical possibilities that one couldn't rule out once you deny the validity of fundamental intuitions, as many modern scientists do.</b><br /><br />You are just playing philosophical games again. And it's cute, but not productive.<br /><br />Please take the time to read the following post. It is not overly long, and simple enough to follow easily:<br /><br />http://www.ebonmusings.org/evolution/naturalism.htmlRitchiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03494987782757049380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-46757978757295195932013-02-09T06:43:30.017-08:002013-02-09T06:43:30.017-08:00R: Well I'm sorry but that's philosophy, n...R: Well I'm sorry but that's philosophy, not science.<br /><br />J: No, that's logic, which both synthetic philosophy and science depend on.<br /><br />R: You just have to accept the fact that you do exist, as so does the world around you.<br /><br />J: It certainly seems that one can't be consistent over time trying to deny one's intuitions. But one can, for a moment, realize that apart from benevolent/competent design, those intuitions are not known to be true. Indeed, it's naturalistic scientists that love to tell us we can't trust our intuitions. So it's the modern scientific approach that fails by your own argument.<br /><br />R: Yes, those may be assumptions, but if you don't make them then you'll just sit motionless on the floor wonder if the starvation that's slowly eating you away actually exists.<br /><br />J: That's where you're wrong. If those low-level inferences (not volitional assumptions) are not true, it would NOT follow that there is a floor or anything else. There's an infinite set of other logical possibilities that one couldn't rule out once you deny the validity of fundamental intuitions, as many modern scientists do.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-38096003626545790382013-02-06T20:11:39.946-08:002013-02-06T20:11:39.946-08:00What a load of old nonsense.
That all sounds a te...What a load of old nonsense.<br /><br />That all sounds a terribly verbose way of advancing the old problems:<br /><br />How do I know I really exist?<br />How do I know the world aorund me really exists><br /><br />Well I'm sorry but that's philosophy, not science. You just have to accept the fact that you do exist, as so does the world around you. Yes, those may be assumptions, but if you don't make them then you'll just sit motionless on the floor wonder if the starvation that's slowly eating you away actually exists.<br /><br />You exist. And so does the world around you. If you doubt this, then why do you bother interacting with the world around you at all?Ritchiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03494987782757049380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-84296322517733039452013-02-06T18:03:35.450-08:002013-02-06T18:03:35.450-08:00That there is a “world” of 3-dimensionally-extende...That there is a “world” of 3-dimensionally-extended beings is an inference. Some theorists don’t believe it. That there is an “order” of event-regularities is also an inference. There is an infinite set of logical possibilities for which the inferred regularity of events is a fluke inference. Whence our ability to know it’s not a fluke, then?<br /><br />As for detecting intentional “selves,” this too is an analogical inference. Selves are not detectable empirically, divine or no.<br /><br />In short, defining nature is the equivalent of stating a significant aspect of one’s metaphysics. The problem I see with your metaphysics is that I can’t see how it intelligibly grounds the existence of warranted belief.<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-68132909647088428672013-02-06T12:30:30.096-08:002013-02-06T12:30:30.096-08:00Okay, well then let's use "the material w...Okay, well then let's use "the material world" as a definition for nature. Does this help?<br /><br />Natural objects, beings and forces are either directly detectable, or have effects which are detectable.<br /><br />A table is a natural object. It is detectable.<br /><br />Gravity is a natural force. Its effects are detectable.<br /><br />God is supernatural. He is not detectable.Ritchiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03494987782757049380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-59264367880016489632013-02-06T12:29:33.499-08:002013-02-06T12:29:33.499-08:00This comment has been removed by the author.Ritchiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03494987782757049380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-15086707704517714212013-02-05T18:59:14.840-08:002013-02-05T18:59:14.840-08:00So what, then, does "natural" mean? Defi...So what, then, does "natural" mean? Defining it as "characterized by being part of nature" just begs the next question--what is "nature?"Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-50430110410074790312013-02-05T18:04:44.226-08:002013-02-05T18:04:44.226-08:00Methodological Naturalism is simply the belief tha...Methodological Naturalism is simply the belief that natural events have natural causes and that there are physical laws which we can discover and understand. As opposed to Metaphysical Naturalism, which is a belief that no supernatural realm or forces exist.<br /><br />Repeatability is a big part of the scientific process ideally, but not an essential one. There are various events which are unrepeatable, and science can still investigate them - analyse them and glean what they can. Methodological naturalism will simply posit that such events have natural causes.Ritchiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03494987782757049380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-38700583479608624362013-02-05T17:52:20.341-08:002013-02-05T17:52:20.341-08:00J: Doesn't this mean human volition is a facto...J: Doesn't this mean human volition is a factoid outside the realm of scientific inquiry?<br /><br />Ritchie: I don't see why. Human volition is not un- sub- or super- natural. It is a huge part of one of an extremely fertile, if embryonic, field of scientific study - psychology.<br /><br />J: Then you're using the word "naturalism" in a different sense than is meant in the phrase "methodological naturalism." Because "methodological naturalism" deals with that which is repeatable under the same conditions. Free-will, by definition, does not necessarily repeat under the same conditions. So define "naturalism" in the way you mean it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-15199626112279724332013-02-05T02:58:54.671-08:002013-02-05T02:58:54.671-08:00Oh, by the way, joey, you say that "ID doesn&...Oh, by the way, joey, you say that "ID doesn't require the supernatural." but you also say that "Naturalism is a failed philosphy."<br /><br />Make up your puny, deranged mind, joey.<br /><br />P.S. Buy a vowel. <br /><br />The whole truthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07219999357041824471noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-32655258090052704892013-02-05T02:49:12.439-08:002013-02-05T02:49:12.439-08:00Hey joey, why don't you respond in a relevant ...Hey joey, why don't you respond in a relevant manner to what Thorton actually said:<br /><br />"Please explain how to do science when you don't assume naturalism but have to allow for unpredictable and random supernatural interference in all your results."The whole truthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07219999357041824471noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-63171914133523899152013-02-04T06:00:41.372-08:002013-02-04T06:00:41.372-08:00So Stonehenge isn't designed because we don...<b>So Stonehenge isn't designed because we don't know how it was constructed.</b><br /><br />We do know how it was designed.<br /><br />http://www.stonehenge.co.uk/history.php<br /><br />Moving large lumps of stone is demonstrably in the power of ancient people. We have designers, we have various methods of construction. Design here is a reasonable inference.<br /><br />It is not reasonable when we have no candidate designers and absolutely no proposed methods of design. All that leaves us with is a big pile of nothing.<br /><br />Which would explain why ID produces no science whatsoever. No hypotheses, no theories, no experiments, no data, nothing at all. It is sterile. Dead. Useless.<br /><br /><b>You are a moron, Ritchie.</b><br /><br />Ah, insults. The last refuge of the desperate.Ritchiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03494987782757049380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-88994717106964789982013-02-04T04:47:21.058-08:002013-02-04T04:47:21.058-08:00So Stonehenge isn't designed because we don...So Stonehenge isn't designed because we don't know how it was constructed.<br /><br />You are a moron, Ritchie.Joe Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08305194278121208230noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-43954976097281355952013-02-04T04:45:34.986-08:002013-02-04T04:45:34.986-08:00empty bluster boy:
Please explain how to do scienc...empty bluster boy:<br /><i>Please explain how to do science when you don't assume naturalism but have to allow for unpredictable and random supernatural interference in all your results.</i><br /><br />Naturalism is a failed philosphy. And we do science via our knowledge of cause and effect relationships- as always.Joe Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08305194278121208230noreply@blogger.com