tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post2589047962507571831..comments2024-01-23T02:32:28.567-08:00Comments on Darwin's God: The Inexorable March of Convergent Evolution ContinuesUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger112125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-84446825950961978112016-10-25T10:21:53.432-07:002016-10-25T10:21:53.432-07:00Yep echo locating barnacles.I can see it now, they...Yep echo locating barnacles.I can see it now, they echo located their dinner they just have to work out how to get off the rocks to catch em now.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-40209157265783593462013-09-23T06:35:48.612-07:002013-09-23T06:35:48.612-07:00Hello again if you're still around.
I'm c...Hello again if you're still around.<br /><br />I'm confused. Are you now suggesting that we DON'T have free will?<br /><br />Above you were insisting that we do. Which is it?<br /><br />In any case, you are merely quoting a determinist. But it does not follow that determinism follows logically and necessarily from naturalism.<br /><br />IF we have free will, then it is a product of the brain - a physical, material, natural object.<br /><br />The passage you have quoted suggests that we do not, in fact, have free will.<br /><br />Neither support the position you were claiming above - which is that free will does exist and that it comes from a non-physical, non-material, non-natural source. Can you support THAT claim at all?Ritchiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03494987782757049380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-9178590339148170262013-09-15T09:01:38.568-07:002013-09-15T09:01:38.568-07:00lifepsy
It doesn't matter how many profession...<i>lifepsy<br /><br />It doesn't matter how many professionals believe in evolution, or how many keep publishing that evolution must have dunnit somehow. What matters is if they can show it's true or likely with the data, and in this task they have utterly failed</i><br /><br />Since you've never read or studied any of the data, how would you know?<br /><br />Still waiting for <b>your</b> explanation of the patterns in the fossil and genetic data on cetaceans BTW. <br /><br />Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-23367319507269473202013-09-15T04:27:07.414-07:002013-09-15T04:27:07.414-07:00V,
It doesn't matter how many professionals b...V,<br /><br />It doesn't matter how many professionals believe in evolution, or how many keep publishing that evolution must have dunnit somehow. What matters is if they can show it's true or likely with the data, and in this task they have utterly failed.lifepsyophttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16335224141967694317noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-75474260960111853762013-09-14T21:53:07.778-07:002013-09-14T21:53:07.778-07:00Scott: Quoting ... "Instrumentalism shifts th...Scott: Quoting ... "Instrumentalism shifts the basis of evaluation away from whether or not phenomena observed actually exist, and towards an analysis of whether the results and evaluation fit with observed phenomena."<br /><br />J: Scott, you're truly confused beyond belief, dude. How can one ever know "whether or not phenomena observed actually exist" if one doesn't know if memory occurs? Are you truly this confused? Seriously?<br /><br />Scott: IOW, you're saying we cannot make progress on the origin of concrete biological adaptations. So, apparently, I haven't misunderstood you after all. <br /><br />J: I said no such thing. You're just REALLY confused.<br />Jeffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16852362499722076519noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-62771882007465837502013-09-14T09:59:25.861-07:002013-09-14T09:59:25.861-07:00Scott: IOW, evolutionary theory is an explanation ...Scott: IOW, evolutionary theory is an explanation about how the world works, not just what we'll experience.<br /><br />Jeff: Wrong. It's a theory to the extent that it PREDICTS how the world works<br /><br />Scott: So, you're an instrumentalist, in that you think it is meaningless to ask if evolutionary theory is actually based on some degree of reality or it's just a useful fiction to predict what we will experience?<br /><br />Jeff: Well, it would be meaningless to you, for sure. <br /><br />Since it's not meatless for me and you seem to be confused as to how the question is relevant to your response - from the Wikipedia entry on Instrumentalism… <br /><br /><i>In the philosophy of science, instrumentalism is the view that a scientific theory is a useful instrument in understanding the world. A concept or theory should be evaluated by how effectively it explains and predicts phenomena, as opposed to how accurately it describes objective reality.<br />Instrumentalism avoids the debate between anti-realism and philosophical or scientific realism. It may be better characterized as non-realism. <b>Instrumentalism shifts the basis of evaluation away from whether or not phenomena observed actually exist, and towards an analysis of whether the results and evaluation fit with observed phenomena.</b></i><br /><br />So, I'll again ask, are you an instrumentalist in regards to evolutionary theory? <br /><br />Jeff: Don't misunderstand, though. I'm NOT saying that a biological history in terms of ID has support either. Both views require so many a-plausible assumptions to be possible that they are literally non-enumerable by humans. Rather, ID explains subsets of the data more parsimoniously than naturalistic UCA, and vice versa. But neither come close to explaining the whole biological history.<br /><br />IOW, you're saying we cannot make progress on the origin of concrete biological adaptations. So, apparently, I haven't misunderstood you after all. Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11193595678064010528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-78566467138331216332013-09-14T09:39:58.850-07:002013-09-14T09:39:58.850-07:00Carolus: You have a point only if Dr.Hunter intent...Carolus: You have a point only if Dr.Hunter intentionally leaves out an evolutionary mechanism which explains the enigma of convergent evolution. Do you know such a mechanism? <br /><br />First, only if? See above. <br /><br />Second, again, evolutionary theory is part of our current, best explanation for the universal growth of knowledge. That includes convergence. However, I'll need to lay a bit of groundwork here to get started. <br /><br />In the case of the growth of human knowledge, we start out with conjectured theories of how to solve a problem. In the same sense that we do not know if any of these theories actually *will* solve the problem in question, we also don't know one of these theories *won't* unexpectedly solve some *other* problem we weren't trying to solve, either. By virtue of being a conjecture, our theories have unexpected consequences. Human knowledge grows via conjecture and criticism. <br /><br />Convergence is a specific example of the growth of knowledge in an organism's genome. How do we explain this? Natural processes do not conceive of problems like people do. So, in the case of biological darwinism, genetic variation is random *to any specific problem to solve*. Nor can natural processes criticize ideas, as people can. However, genetic variation and natural selection play the same roles in the creation of knowledge in an organisms genome; as conjecture and criticism does in the creation of human knowledge. Again, it's not just random variation, just natural selection or just common decent. It's part of an explanation for the universal growth of knowledge. <br /><br />To clarify, knowledge is information that plays a casual role in causing itself to remain when embedded in a storage medium, such as books, computers, brains and genomes. Only people can create explanations, so only people can create explanatory knowledge. However, both people and evolutionary process can create non-explanatory knowledge, which are essentially useful rules of thumb. <br /><br />The knowledge of how to build adaptations for flight, vision, etc, are all useful rules of thumb. This knowledge didn't always exist, but was genuinely created in multiple organisms. They represent good explanations about how the world works, in that they are hard to vary without reducing their ability to solve the problem in question. As such, it comes as no surprise that we should see those hard to vary explanations created as convergence. <br /><br />IOW, we come to the same good explanations as how the world works as others because they withstand criticism. From this <a href="http://nautil.us/issue/2/uncertainty/why-its-good-to-be-wrong" rel="nofollow">article on fallibilism</a>…. <br /><br /><i>Fallibilism, correctly understood, implies the possibility, not the impossibility, of knowledge, because the very concept of error, if taken seriously, implies that truth exists and can be found. The inherent limitation on human reason, that it can never find solid foundations for ideas, does not constitute any sort of limit on the creation of objective knowledge nor, therefore, on progress. The absence of foundation, whether infallible or probable, is no loss to anyone except tyrants and charlatans, because what the rest of us want from ideas is their content, not their provenance: If your disease has been cured by medical science, and you then become aware that science never proves anything but only disproves theories (and then only tentatively), you do not respond “oh dear, I’ll just have to die, then.”</i>Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11193595678064010528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-33150186924121470022013-09-14T09:39:36.708-07:002013-09-14T09:39:36.708-07:00Carolus: Scott, the pattern of common descent is a...Carolus: Scott, the pattern of common descent is a foundational pattern to evolutionary theory, isn’t it?<br /><br />Imagine I said that "objects falling" is a "gravitational pattern", then pointed out that we sometimes do not experience "objects falling" due to being attracted to a magnet, blasted with compressed air or any other number of exceptions. <br /><br />IOW, gravitational theory doesn't predict we will experience "objects falling". Rather, it's a one of many universal theories about how the world works. On the other hand, "objects falling" is an experience, which can be effected by a number of parallel yet unrelated events in other fields. <br /><br />No theory of gravity predicts we will experience "objects falling", followed with a near infinite list of exceptions that could prevent that experience, such as hot air balloons, blasts of high pressure water and even yet to be invented exceptions, such as the future invention of tractor beams. <br /><br />Any claim to predict what we will experience would also be an implicit a claim to account for an near infinite number of unrelated, yet parallel events that could change the outcome, which would essentially represent a claim to be prophecy. Furthermore, we start out knowing that all theories are conjectures which are both incomplete and contain errors to some degree. This is in contrast to a supposedly single, infallible theory of everything, or the idea that's it's possible to get theories from data. <br /><br />While you might believe there are infallible sources of information which you can infallibly interpret, this doesn't mean theories which just so happen to intersect with your beliefs must also be held as infallible by everyone else. Science is under no obligation to fill a God shaped hole in anyone's belief system. Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11193595678064010528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-81187244539545646362013-09-14T06:30:27.285-07:002013-09-14T06:30:27.285-07:00pedant,
That's a character flaw(Curiousity )
,...<b>pedant,<br />That's a character flaw(Curiousity )<br />, but we'll allow it for the sake of (hopefully civil) discussion</b><br /><br /> Perhaps even more debilitating is my fascination with bad logic. velikovskyshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10957523527184649923noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-35237625226774852542013-09-13T17:43:04.968-07:002013-09-13T17:43:04.968-07:00velikovskys:
I am curious.
That's a characte...velikovskys:<br /><br /><i>I am curious.</i><br /><br />That's a character flaw, but we'll allow it for the sake of (hopefully civil) discussion .Pedanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12656298969231453877noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-84078210215235080582013-09-13T16:31:03.339-07:002013-09-13T16:31:03.339-07:00Scott: But one could claim that about anything, at...Scott: But one could claim that about anything, at which point it predicts nothing.<br /><br />Louis: Nonsense.<br /><br />Did you comment get cut off?<br /><br />Again, anyone could merely reply with "nonsense" to anything, at which point it's essentially a non-respoinse.<br /><br />So, It's nonsense because? <br /><br />Let me guess, it's nonsense because I'm a Jackass? But that's simply more of the same. Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11193595678064010528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-44086086238652318942013-09-13T08:17:39.988-07:002013-09-13T08:17:39.988-07:00Ritchie, you may be interested in this article by ...Ritchie, you may be interested in this article by Maverick Philosopher, since it touches on some of the issues we discussed.<br />http://maverickphilosopher.typepad.com/maverick_philosopher/2013/08/steven-pinker-on-scientism.html<br /><br />Excerpts:<br />“If the only genuine knowledge is natural-scientific knowledge, then the only genuine knowledge of the mind is via neuroscience and behavioral psychology; and if reality is all and only what is accessible to natural-scientific knowledge, then not only is phenomenological and introspective knowledge bogus, but the mind as we actually experience it is illusory.”<br />“I am glad to hear that he thinks that there are truths and values in addition to ‘physical stuff.’ What I'd like him to tell us is which natural science is equipped to elucidate truth, falsity, explanation, inference, normativity, rationality, understanding, and all the rest. Biology perhaps?”<br /><br />Also of interest Jerry Coyne on free will: http://chronicle.com/article/Jerry-A-Coyne/131165/<br /><br />“<b>You Don't Have Free Will</b><br />I construe free will the way I think most people do: At the moment when you have to decide among alternatives, you have free will if you could have chosen otherwise. To put it more technically, if you could rerun the tape of your life up to the moment you make a choice, with every aspect of the universe configured identically, free will means that your choice could have been different. <br />Although we can't really rerun that tape, this sort of free will is ruled out, simply and decisively, by the laws of physics. Your brain and body, the vehicles that make "choices," are composed of molecules, and the arrangement of those molecules is entirely determined by your genes and your environment. Your decisions result from molecular-based electrical impulses and chemical substances transmitted from one brain cell to another. These molecules must obey the laws of physics, so the outputs of our brain -- our "choices" -- are dictated by those laws. (It's possible, though improbable, that the indeterminacy of quantum physics may tweak behavior a bit, but such random effects can't be part of free will.) And deliberating about your choices in advance doesn't help matters, for that deliberation also reflects brain activity that must obey physical laws.”<br /><br />Have a nice weekend.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04694840643392968116noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-10262950279970122092013-09-13T07:49:40.796-07:002013-09-13T07:49:40.796-07:00I didn't say chemicals had free will, I said t...I didn't say chemicals had free will, I said the brain does.<br /><br />Chemicals are not capable of sight either. But an eye is.<br /><br />The whole is greater than the sum of its parts.<br /><br />But yes, nice talking to you. Have a nice weekend.Ritchiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03494987782757049380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-52500304907245274752013-09-13T07:21:32.946-07:002013-09-13T07:21:32.946-07:00Here's my Christian reply to you. Kiss my ass,...Here's my Christian reply to you. Kiss my ass, jackass.Rebel Sciencehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11762287159937757216noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-41860140238683944922013-09-13T07:04:11.705-07:002013-09-13T07:04:11.705-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Ritchiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03494987782757049380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-4649992893125643742013-09-13T06:53:51.458-07:002013-09-13T06:53:51.458-07:00Ritchie,
There is nothing inherently contradictor...Ritchie,<br /><br /><b>There is nothing inherently contradictory in the idea that a brain, though chemical, is nevertheless capable of free will.</b><br /><br />I strongly disagree with your statement. And I believe that it is crucial to our disagreement. That said, I don't see much point in making an argument that chemicals are <i>not</i> capable of free will. <br />Ritchie, thanks for the civil exchange of ideas, it has been a pleasure.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04694840643392968116noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-17339532950045065092013-09-13T06:19:53.365-07:002013-09-13T06:19:53.365-07:00Carolus
follows from methodological naturalism - ...Carolus<br /><br /><b>follows from methodological naturalism - or metaphysical naturalism if you will.</b><br /><br />Actually it is important to make a distinction between the two here. The latter says that no supernatural forces or beings exist. The former simply insists we find naturalistic explanations for naturalistic phenomena - it does not make any claims about whether the supernatural exists. It is the former which science employs, not the latter.<br /><br /><b>It then follows that my thoughts, like the ones I’m typing right now, stem from chemical processes – they are not constituted by free will, logic, wisdom, overview and such. According to science the notion that I’m free intelligent agent must therefore be an illusion.</b><br /><br />You are far overreaching yourself here. Science makes no such claims.<br /><br />The opinion you are describing here is called determinism, and it is a philosophical position, not a scientific one. Determinists do indeed hold that the whole future of the universe is inevitable, including the functions of our brains, and that free will is thus an illusion.<br /><br />But to say this conclusion follows necessarily from methodological naturalism is silly. Free will also finds it roots in our brains. There is nothing inherently contradictory in the idea that a brain, though chemical, is nevertheless capable of free will.<br /><br />And you have gone even further off the rails with 'wisdom' and 'logic'. Even a determinist might well allow for these, even if they conclude that each thought you have was predetermined to be wise, logical or not.<br /><br /><b>Therefore consciousness, free will, thoughts, wisdom etc. are not acceptable causes for science.</b><br /><br />What nonsense. These are all properties of the brain, and as such are perfectly natural. It seems you have been listening to far too many silly Creationist strawmen.<br /><br /><b>So not everything has to belong to the world of space and time; sometimes relatability is sufficient? You will agree that there is no way science can measure or test a number.</b><br /><br />I'm not sure I even understand what you mean by that. Mathematics is the discipline of studying numbers.<br /><br /><b>My point will be clear by now: consciousness, free will, feelings, thoughts, overview, wisdom, numbers etc. – the phenomena of man’s inner world – are also beyond measurement or test. </b><br /><br />No they are not. Psychology, neurology and sociology are all perfectly valid scientific fields and testing and measuring man's inner world is exactly what they do.Ritchiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03494987782757049380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-55369590491601354512013-09-13T05:37:46.405-07:002013-09-13T05:37:46.405-07:00>>>> Therefore I maintain my statement...>>>> Therefore I maintain my statement that epistemological (methodological) naturalism does not apply to mathematics and social sciences.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04694840643392968116noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-29320063569441344632013-09-13T05:26:01.231-07:002013-09-13T05:26:01.231-07:00Ritchie,
These are indeed not tangible objects. ...Ritchie, <br /><br /><b>These are indeed not tangible objects. But they are still properties of the natural world. Consciousness, thoughts, feelings and ideas are all properties of a tangible, physical object - the brain. They are part of how this real world object functions.</b><br /><br />The hypothesis that consciousness, thoughts etc. are reducible to chemical processes in the brain follows from methodological naturalism - or metaphysical naturalism if you will. It then follows that my thoughts, like the ones I’m typing right now, stem from chemical processes – they are not constituted by free will, logic, wisdom, overview and such. According to science the notion that I’m free intelligent agent must therefore be an illusion. So if science explains my writings it cannot – within the restricted mind set of epistemological naturalism - invoke ‘logic’ and ‘free will’ as causes. Science cannot grant those illusive intangible phenomena the status of causes and must unearth the <i>real cause</i> which are tangible blind chemical processes in ‘my’ brain.<br />Therefore consciousness, free will, thoughts, wisdom etc. are not acceptable causes for science [<i>conducted within the restricted mind set of epistemological naturalism</i>]. Needless to say that these ‘unacceptable intangible causes’ play major roles in social sciences.<br /><br /><b>There is a whole philosophy of mathematics which goes a little over my head, but it seems the key point for us is that every number or equation is, at least in principle, relatable to the real world.</b><br /> <br />So not everything has to belong to the world of space and time; sometimes relatability is sufficient? You will agree that there is no way science can measure or test a number.<br /> <br /><b>Compare this with the intervention of a deity. This is not a natural force because it is not a property of, or relatable to, any real world object at all. It cannot be measured or tested, even in principle. </b><br /><br />My point will be clear by now: consciousness, free will, feelings, thoughts, overview, wisdom, numbers etc. – the phenomena of man’s inner world – are also beyond measurement or test. <br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04694840643392968116noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-33451242717986231312013-09-13T02:05:50.022-07:002013-09-13T02:05:50.022-07:00Carolus -
So, what then is the status of numbers...Carolus - <br /><br /><b>So, what then is the status of numbers, equations and ideas? Is science, like you say, impotent to discover anything about them since they are no tangible objects in space and time? How about consciousness, thoughts and feelings? Science demands intersubjectivity.</b><br /><br />These are indeed not tangible objects. But they are still properties of the natural world. Consciousness, thoughts, feelings and ideas are all properties of a tangible, physical object - the brain. They are part of how this real world object functions.<br /><br />Numbers are a little more abstract. But then, they are relatable to the real world. If we ever want to check whether 2+2=4, then we can add two apples to two more apples and see how many we have in total. There is a whole philosophy of mathematics which goes a little over my head, but it seems the key point for us is that every number or equation is, at least in principle, relatable to the real world.<br /><br />"Am I correct when I state that, according to methodological naturalism, all objects and events, that are allowed the status of a cause, must me reducible to elementary particles?"<br /><br />All objects must, yes. But events? I wouldn't say so. <br /><br />If I dropped my book, I might ask what causes it to fall downwards. Gravity is that cause. Gravity itself is not reducible to elementary particles - it is in no way tangible. But it does describe the force of attraction between tangible objects - objects reducible to particles.<br /><br />Gravity is a natural force because we can study it. We can take two objects and run a series of experiments measuring the attraction between them, and tweak the variables to see what properties affect this force and which do not.<br /><br />Compare this with the intervention of a deity. This is not a natural force because it is not a property of, or relatable to, any real world object at all. It cannot be measured or tested, even in principle. We can run no experiments to discover what divine intervention is or is not capable of. This, by definition, puts it beyond the reach of science.Ritchiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03494987782757049380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-42028312292925007712013-09-13T00:44:24.770-07:002013-09-13T00:44:24.770-07:00louis, you obviously missed this:
"...or som...louis, you obviously missed this:<br /><br />"...or some other designer (aka god) that is imaginarily based on one or more of the many thousand of religions or versions of religions that people have ever conjured up?"<br /><br />In other words, all of the religious fairy tales ever conjured up, INCLUDING but no limited to christianity. <br /><br />Since you've chosen to be a self-proclaimed christian, and since you believe in your own particular version of christianity, then by your own standard you must have hangups with all other versions of christianity and all other religious beliefs that have ever been conjured up.<br /><br />Were you molested as a child by believers in every version of christianity except your particular version, and by believers in every other version of all religious fairy tales that have ever been conjured up? Poor baby. <br /><br />"I'll tell you what. Go eat your own feces and see if I care."<br /><br />That's mighty christian of you. <br />The whole truthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07219999357041824471noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-54582829615053241152013-09-12T17:50:06.266-07:002013-09-12T17:50:06.266-07:00So, what then is the status of numbers, equations ...So, what then is the status of numbers, equations and ideas? Is science, like you say, impotent to discover anything about them since they are no tangible objects in space and time? How about consciousness, thoughts and feelings? Science demands intersubjectivity. <br /> "(...) all objects and events are part of nature, i.e. they belong to the world of space and time."<br />Am I correct when I state that, according to methodological naturalism, all objects and events, that are allowed the status of a cause, must me reducible to elementary particles? Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04694840643392968116noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-4076588689443830152013-09-12T17:18:33.157-07:002013-09-12T17:18:33.157-07:00Epistemological naturalism is also known as method...<b>Epistemological naturalism is also known as methodological naturalism.</b><br /><br />On that we agree. Methodological naturalism - using only natural entities in your methodology.<br /><br /><b>Could you please define 'natural causes'? Am I mistaken to assume that ‘natural causes’ are purely simple material causes - such as elementary particles and laws ? </b><br /><br />Well, to quote from the below link, "Scientific naturalism is a view according to which all objects and events are part of nature, i.e. they belong to the world of space and time."<br /><br />http://ethesis.helsinki.fi/julkaisut/mat/maant/pg/lipsanen/041.html<br /><br />If you invoke a cause from outside of the world of space and time then it is an un-, sub-, or super- natural one.<br /><br />Moreover, the reason why they must be dismissed is easy to see - if these forces or beings do operate outside our world of space and time, then we could never learn anything about them. We could construct no test to discern their properties or limits as we could a natural force, eg., gravity.<br /><br />This is not to say that such forces definitely do not exist. But if they do, then science is impotent to discover anything about them. It is therefore by necessity, not by religious or philosophical bias, that scientists simply omit them as part of their explanations.Ritchiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03494987782757049380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-72155544434749578012013-09-12T16:53:17.261-07:002013-09-12T16:53:17.261-07:00Scott: So, you're an instrumentalist, in that ...Scott: So, you're an instrumentalist, in that you think it is meaningless to ask if evolutionary theory is actually based on some degree of reality or it's just a useful fiction to predict what we will experience?<br /><br />J: Well, it would be meaningless to you, for sure. But not to me, since I believe we actually have APPARENT (i.e., NATURALLY-FORMED) memories. That wasn't my point, though. There is NO theory that predicts ANY UCA tree that has withstood criticism. Zilch, notta, zero! Hence, the naturalistic UCA hypothesis is ABSOLUTELY worthless thus far. It may yet be supported by evidence. But it hasn't yet.<br /><br />Don't misunderstand, though. I'm NOT saying that a biological history in terms of ID has support either. Both views require so many a-plausible assumptions to be possible that they are literally non-enumerable by humans. Rather, ID explains subsets of the data more parsimoniously than naturalistic UCA, and vice versa. But neither come close to explaining the whole biological history.Jeffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16852362499722076519noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-30615024884942955692013-09-12T15:52:14.923-07:002013-09-12T15:52:14.923-07:00Epistemological naturalism is also known as method...Epistemological naturalism is also known as methodological naturalism.<br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methodological_naturalism#Methodological_naturalism<br />Ritchie: "Epistemological naturalism therefore - as I have been meaning the term at least - is simply understanding the world around us through natural causes."<br />Could you please define 'natural causes'? Am I mistaken to assume that ‘natural causes’ are purely simple material causes - such as elementary particles and laws ? <br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04694840643392968116noreply@blogger.com