News and Politics Forum

Is that pejorative intended for me?

If so, we come to the FIRST issue that haunts these discussions.  Why the hell not just state the facts of the case and leave the ad hominem attacks at home?

Then, the definition of science that you've stolen is written from an ideological positing in direct opposition to the teaching of (or even discovery of) ID.  No bias in that definition...

In particular, I take odds with this statement:

...without assuming the existence or nonexistence of the supernatural, an approach sometimes called methodological naturalism...

The science you've brought forth ASSUMES the non-existence of the supernatural, and that is my primary beef.  It does not "assume" the natural -- it ONLY ALLOWS the natural.  As such, it is in violation of its own originating philosophy, that with careful observation and testing, we might discern the orderliness of the created universe.  It is materialistic naturalism that is the interloper here, not the faith-based underpinnings of science.

In addition, our Declaration of Independence (in honor of the Independence Day weekend) specifically states that this nation declares its independence in accord with NATURE'S GOD.  So, if we are going to get all rigid here, is science, as currently practiced in opposition to our own Declaration of Independence?

Again, I'll ask, "Why not just go where the evidence leads, and if that is design, which implies a designer, then so be it.

I KNOW that you can identify design.  I KNOW that science can identify design.  They and you simply do not want to, and that because of the ramifications of that belief -- NOT because it is somehow not science.

glfredrick wrote:

...without assuming the existence or nonexistence of the supernatural, an approach sometimes called methodological naturalism...

The science you've brought forth ASSUMES the non-existence of the supernatural....

There's your basic problem. You see what you want to see, not what is actually there. Ironically, this is the very tendency that the scientific method was designed to compensate for.


You see what you want to see, and what you want to see if a world full of people come to Jesus, which makes you no better than the Taliban; just not as well armed or poorly bathed.



And btw...

When I insult you, it's not an ad hominem.

An ad hominem is when I respond to your argument by insulting you.

The thing is, I have ALREADY responded to your argument directly. You never listen of course, and there are only so many ways of saying; "It's not science because it's central premise requires a leap of faith.".

So you see, it's not an ad hominem because I have ALREADY responded to your argument, and NOW when I call you an idiot, it's because I'm attacking your BEHAVIOR.

Since the demarcation problem is clearly a philosophical one, placing this thread in the P&R section would be the maore natural choice.

The merits of ID and the limits of science are distinguishable issues.

The wikipaedia article is not just one definition of science, it is also, really primarily, an argument against ID.

MC Escher wrote:

It seems to me to be silly... to need to actually address such a fundamental issue.

Far from silly, leaving fundamental issues unaddressed invites error and confusion.

MC Escher wrote:

I have blatantly stolen the following definition so that I cannot be accused of making this up as I go:

===========================================================

The scientific method is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena and acquiring new knowledge of the natural world without assuming the existence or nonexistence of the supernatural, an approach sometimes called methodological naturalism.

While I think a methodological materialism, what the article calls naturalism, is useful in examining material phenomena, it would not be correct to define science merely as application of a method.  If science were any application of the "scientific" method, demarcation would not be the issue it so clearly is.

MC Escher wrote:

Intelligent design proponents believe that this can be equated to materialist metaphysical naturalism, ...

I don't doubt that some ID proponents have confused the two.  However, this reveals the article as a polemic, since proponents of scientism or metaphysical materialism also equate the limits of science with the limits of truth or knowledge.  In this sense, an ID advocate who so condemns science, and a materialist who condemns non-materialist metaphysics as non-scientific illustrate two sides of the same error.

MC Escher wrote:

This presents a demarcation problem, which in the philosophy of science is about how and where to draw the lines around science. For a theory to qualify as scientific, it is expected to be:

    * Consistent
    * Parsimonious (sparing in its proposed entities or explanations, see Occam's Razor)
    * Useful (describes and explains observed phenomena, and can be used predictively)
    * Empirically testable and falsifiable (see Falsifiability)
    * Based on multiple observations, often in the form of controlled, repeated experiments
    * Correctable and dynamic (modified in the light of observations that do not support it)
    * Progressive (refines previous theories)
    * Provisional or tentative (is open to experimental checking, and does not assert certainty)

For any theory, hypothesis or conjecture to be considered scientific, it must meet most, and ideally all, of these criteria. The fewer criteria are met, the less scientific it is; and if it meets only a few or none at all, then it cannot be treated as scientific in any meaningful sense of the word.

Notable is this article's sense of a sliding scale of "sciency-ness".  Even it does not purport to identify a bright line test for what is and is not science.  Also notable are the problems with grand evolutionary narrative (rather than the more modest evolutionary ideas useful in biology) according to this standard.

-It is not consistent with accepted biological princples inasmuchas it posits spontaneous generation of life, an ancient idea rejected well over a century ago in the community of biologists.

-It is hardly parsimonious, given leaps of faith taken about events taking place that no could have observed.

-Believing that only material things are real and that therefore man's origin, indeed the origin of all life, is the result of an event of a kind never observed is not useful for prediction of physical events.

-Similarly, it is not falsifiable through material testing.

-Nor is it repeatable.

-Nor is it based on repeated observations...

-Or dynamic...

-It is not a refinement of any prior theory, and some of its adherents such as Dawkins and Harris do profess a very high level of certainty about their belief in this.

Certainly, noting the problems with a materialist overreaching proves no contrary position, creationist or otherwise.  However, it should raise a concern if that materialism is presented to students as if it were science.


What is Science?

Each of the material sciences is a study in how material things work, and constructing explanations to predict how they will work.  Which model best predicts how a specific kind of phenomenon will work is a political matter amongst people in each field, and they choose their models not for some ultimate transcendant truth the model may represent, but for the utility of the model in prediction and problem solving.

Biology, chemistry and physics can to one degree or another use different models and still be considered science, they are all still concerned with material things, explanations of events involving them, and problem solving and prediction of those events.

If a science class takes a detour from teaching the accepted and conventional theory of its discipline and chooses to address metaphysical issues, ultimate "Why?"s, then the door has been opened to a range of answers, not just the ones that sound "sciencey" but are actually a deeply flawed metaphysical position.

MC Escher wrote:

The entire entry can be found HERE.

Apparently some of the editors at Wikipedia don't permit some updates contrary to their own positions on things like global warming and ID.

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=Nj … U2Mjc5MGE=

Slap wrote:

MC Escher wrote:

The entire entry can be found HERE.

Apparently some of the editors at Wikipedia don't permit some updates contrary to their own positions on things like global warming and ID.

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=Nj … U2Mjc5MGE=

I've had the same experience Solomon describes.  I corrected the wiki page on McCarthy to reflect what their footnotes actually said.

McCarthy's page asserted that none of the people McCarthy accused of being member of the communist party were ever proven to be communists, then it listed 11 or 13 names of people McCarthy had "wrongly" accused.

Several of those names were elsewhere described on Wiki as admitted party members.

My correction was to change the assertion to "Not all people McCarthy accused were proven to be members of the communist party".  That wasn't good enough for the Wiki editor, who changed it back within 24 hours.  Last time I check, they had reworked the section to have the same impact as the original, but without the footnotes.

ETA what was once a much longer paragraph now only reads,

wiki wrote:

Although there are some cases where Venona or other recent data has increased the weight of evidence against a person named by McCarthy, there are few, if any, cases where McCarthy was responsible for identifying a person, or removing a person from a sensitive government position, where later evidence has increased the likelihood that that person was a Communist or a Soviet agent

Emphasis added.

Qwinn wrote:

Wow, Matt.  Is it just me, or does the part before the first comma directly contradict what comes after it?  Isn't the form of that paragraph basically, "Although X is true, in reality, X is not true."?

Qwinn

Indeed.  There are other parts of that wiki article that indicate a specific viewpoint on the wider subject, and I had stuck strictly to their factual error in my edit.  I received the sense that the editor doesn't want to see any variation on "McCarthy got something right."

Qwinn wrote:

Wow, Matt.  Is it just me, or does the part before the first comma directly contradict what comes after it?  Isn't the form of that paragraph basically, "Although X is true, in reality, X is not true."?

I wonder what kind of people write things like that.  It's almost like I remember some hoary old now-nonexistent ideology that was -known- for writing creepily contradictory things like that in their efforts to propagandize their populations.  But it's so hard to remember.   Cause that was like, 20 years ago, and as we all know they all voluntarily gave up the game after realized the errors of their ways, and they don't exist or matter anymore.

Qwinn

Its called postmodernism...

Slap wrote:

I'm presenting the observation that some subjects presented on wikipedia have an editorial slant.

I'll stipulate to that, as long as you're willing to stipulate that "some" does not equal "all" or even "most".




No one should take Wikipedia's presentation of what is or isn't science as the last word on that issue. I haven't read [that page] looking for factual errors.  I've only read it with an eye toward bias/neutrality.  That ID article appears to have been edited by someone with a dog in that hunt, rather than someone trying to present a balanced, unbiased presentation of the issue.

I chose that page specifically because after reading it I saw that it was an objective summary of the subject.
Remember, I actually BELIEVE in a higher power that created the universe; so I'm not approaching this from some sort of Atheist/Liberal ideology.
If you feel that my analysis was wrong, that the linked page IS biased, please... point it out.
I'm assuming you saw something that bothered you, as opposed to simply not liking what they said.

Slap wrote:

I also cite Wikipedia as a good general reference, but until I read that NRO article I was unaware of the severity of the editorial slant on some issues.

You should see the editorial slant on the creationism articles!

MC Escher wrote:

Slap wrote:

I'm presenting the observation that some subjects presented on wikipedia have an editorial slant.

I'll stipulate to that, as long as you're willing to stipulate that "some" does not equal "all" or even "most".

I wrote:

Slap wrote:

Apparently some of the editors at Wikipedia don't permit some updates contrary to their own positions on things like global warming and ID.

That's not the broad generalization you seem to have read.

MC Escher wrote:

I chose that page specifically because after reading it I saw that it was an objective summary of the subject.

Objective enough that you thought it bolstered your point in this thread, as an ID opponent?

You still haven't answered Zuk's question about how you know things you can get your hands on.  Your position, that your view of ID, and the wiki's view of ID is objective is a part of the problem.

MC Escher wrote:

Remember, I actually BELIEVE in a higher power that created the universe; so I'm not approaching this from some sort of Atheist/Liberal ideology.

You don't have to be an atheist or a liberal to mistakenly perceive objectivity in someone's view.  I'm no bible-beater.  That neither of us are driven to different conclusions by particular ideologies, doesn't resolve the underlying philosophical problem with the way science is sometimes presented. 

MC Escher wrote:

If you feel that my analysis was wrong, that the linked page IS biased, please... point it out.
I'm assuming you saw something that bothered you, as opposed to simply not liking what they said.

Does the wikipedia article on Abiogenesis have a lengthy examination of what is and isn't science, in the context of explaining why Abiogenesis isn't science?  Should I repeat the problems with the ID page that Zuk has already described much more eloquently than I'm able?

I shouldn't really throw out so many questions.  Its not my intention to be burdensome or obtuse.  I just don't believe that there is a significant conflict between faith and science.  Science is partly based on faith, not certainty.  I don't believe science should be taught prior to a good foundation in philosophy.  If students were already familiar with Hume and Kant, the difficulties that arise from overreaching materialism or creationism could be addressed by the students themselves, without relying on state paid educators to indoctrinate them into a particular school of thought.

Until that day arrives, I favor parents having the right to choose how to educate their children, even if that means some will pass on traditions tainted by superstitions and prejudice.  The market of ideas will take care of ID if its so horrible.

MC Escher wrote:

Turbiodiesel! wrote:

"The science you've brought forth ASSUMES the non-existence of the supernatural, and that is my primary beef."

I don't see that as a problem.  The supernatural is, by definition, a subjectively experienced phenomenon.  There's nothing to see, touch, measure, test, sniff, record.  It's experienced in a deeply personal way, and in different ways by different people.  If you can't falsify it, what else can you do with it but experience it?

Actually, the guy you're talking to there is a selective reader. If it conflicts with his beliefs he apparently can't even SEE it.


This is the sentence he read and quoted:

"...without assuming the existence or nonexistence of the supernatural, an approach sometimes called methodological naturalism..."

This is what he saw in his head:

"...without assuming the existence of the supernatural, an approach sometimes called methodological naturalism..."

This is what he thought it meant:

"...while assuming the nonexistence of the supernatural.."

See the problem?

I recommend that you go back and actually read my post -- where I ACTUALLY dealt with both parts of the wiki statement before I just repost it and make you look stupid again...

The science you've brought forth ASSUMES the non-existence of the supernatural, and that is my primary beef.

Can you show me where this assumption is made?  From my reading, the science he's brought forth is agnostic one way or the other on the existence of the supernatural.  Natural sciences, by definition, are agnostic to the supernatural.  This is precisely the argument for not presenting ID in a science class - it is fundamentally a supernatural idea.  If it is supernatural, it shouldn't be taught as part of a natural sciences class.  If it's not subject to the scientific method (which is the principal argument presented by the text the OP posted), and the rigors of scientific scrutiny, then don't present it as though it is.  That doesn't mean it's not true, it just means it's not intellectually appropriate to discuss it in that context.  Major League Baseball outfielders don't get to use lacrosse sticks.  This doesn't mean that a lacrosse stick might not solve a lot of their problems, it's just not allowed within the confines of the rules of baseball, and anyone trying to sneak a lacrosse stick out there would be considered a cheater.  If you don't like the rules, that's another issue entirely.