Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   NvC-1: What is the premise of Naturalism in Biology?
Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 91 of 452 (876018)
05-11-2020 4:56 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by Richard L. Wang
05-10-2020 3:33 PM


Re: Re — Tangle(56&58&61): Let’s move on. Warning: I set up a trap ahead
Hi Richard,
I didn't realize this thread would be accumulating posts at such a rapid rate. Moderation should have stepped in sooner.
From Message 67:
Richard L. Wang writes:
Let’s move on. Warning: I set up a trap called Life consists of matter and information for your guys.
Please don't set up traps. The Forum Guidelines encourage you to be clear and precise, presenting evidence and arguments and then through discussion clarifying and elaborating upon them.
From Message 68:
Richard L. Wang writes:
Because the evolution in my mind is different from Neo-Darwinism’s evolution. We’ll discuss it later.
If there's a key distinction between evolution and neo-Darwinian evolution such that you accept one and reject the other then you should make it clear.
From Message 69:
Richard L. Wang writes:
DN represents Neo-Darwinists’ naturalistic explanation of evolution, not evolution itself.
I don't think anyone will see the distinction you're drawing between "evolution" and "evolution itself."
Also, when appropriate it would improve the clarity of your posts to quote the specific portion of a message that you're responding to. There are a couple dBCodes available for this purpose: [quote] and [qs]. See dBCode Help for details.
From Message 76
Richard L. Wang writes:
I have my own creationism, which I mentioned is different from all other creationism. I don’t think it’s a good idea to introduce my creationism all around at once. For example, if it contains ten subtopics, it would be impossible to debate/discussion if I propose all ten subtopics at once. Let’s discuss one subtopic at a time.
There's a general consensus in this thread that your idiosyncratic ideas do not cohere into a consistent and rational whole. Some are trying to gain further insights into your thinking. Being evasive is just raising further suspicions that you're not being honest and forthright.
If your ideas are evidenced and rational then they you should be able to state them clearly. Your inability to make these clear statements and your reluctance to respond to requests for clarification and more information is working against you.
To conclude, I'm seeing multiple comments in this thread that tell me people are seeing you as unclear, obfuscatory, illogical and evasive, and that you're ignoring such feedback. No one can make you care what other people think, but when many people say the same thing it shouldn't be ignored, either. This is a moderated forum, so if moderation thinks they have a point then moderation will step in. I'm stepping in. Please step it up.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by Richard L. Wang, posted 05-10-2020 3:33 PM Richard L. Wang has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by GDR, posted 05-11-2020 8:34 PM Admin has seen this message but not replied
 Message 97 by Richard L. Wang, posted 05-12-2020 9:49 AM Admin has seen this message but not replied
 Message 103 by Richard L. Wang, posted 05-13-2020 10:14 AM Admin has seen this message but not replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 92 of 452 (876030)
05-11-2020 8:34 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by Admin
05-11-2020 4:56 PM


Re: Re — Tangle(56&58&61): Let’s move on. Warning: I set up a trap ahead
Hi Richard
I am really interested to hear what you have to say. Please just read Percy's post above and follow the rules of the forum. It is his forum.
Thanks

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.
Micah 6:8

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by Admin, posted 05-11-2020 4:56 PM Admin has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by JonF, posted 05-11-2020 9:15 PM GDR has not replied
 Message 107 by Richard L. Wang, posted 05-13-2020 10:48 AM GDR has not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 93 of 452 (876031)
05-11-2020 9:15 PM
Reply to: Message 92 by GDR
05-11-2020 8:34 PM


Re: Re — Tangle(56&58&61): Let’s move on. Warning: I set up a trap ahead
And, since Percy closed his second thread proposal and gently chastised him here, he posted his third thread proposal.
Really slow learner.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by GDR, posted 05-11-2020 8:34 PM GDR has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


(1)
Message 94 of 452 (876035)
05-12-2020 12:11 AM
Reply to: Message 67 by Richard L. Wang
05-10-2020 3:33 PM


Re: Re — Tangle(56&58&61): Let’s move on. Warning: I set up a trap ahead
Firstly it is apparent that this discussion is largely philosophical.
There is no real disagreement over the role of genes in passing information between generations. It’s a cornerstone of evolution - you’re more likely to find a creationist denying it.
The question of whether life consists of matter or whether life consists of matter and information has more to do with the ontological status of information. Information is an abstraction which raises the question of whether it can be even said to exist (because abstracts do not exist in the same way as concrete entities). It certainly raises the question of whether something can be said to consist - even partly - of information.
But also - even if information is somehow independent of matter (another philosophical question) - in this case certainly it is not. The information is carried by physical means and it’s transmission is carried out by entities obeying physical law. Indeed, if there are separate rules regarding information evolution itself would be a good candidate but it can still be boiled down to an outcome of physical interactions. And the various mechanisms of mutation show how physical events can change or delete or even add to the information present.
In short the claims do not reveal any scientific difference. If there is a substantive difference it isn’t scientific, it’s philosophical.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by Richard L. Wang, posted 05-10-2020 3:33 PM Richard L. Wang has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by Richard L. Wang, posted 05-13-2020 10:52 AM PaulK has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(2)
Message 95 of 452 (876038)
05-12-2020 6:01 AM
Reply to: Message 67 by Richard L. Wang
05-10-2020 3:33 PM


Warning: I set up a trap ahead
Yeah, it's easy to see where you're going. You're going to declare that (1) information is immaterial, and (2) that it is therefore out of reach of "naturalism".
But the thing is, Richard, scientists do in fact believe in, record, and study, the information in DNA. (They also believe that there's information in a dictionary, or a gif of a kitten if they come to that.) So if we grant you those two things, it will be necessary for you to concede that scientists are not naturalists, since they believe in a supernatural entity (the information in DNA) and, indeed, know a lot more about the supernatural than you do.
You're building an impossible triangle here, something's got to give.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by Richard L. Wang, posted 05-10-2020 3:33 PM Richard L. Wang has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by Richard L. Wang, posted 05-13-2020 10:56 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.3


(1)
Message 96 of 452 (876048)
05-12-2020 9:26 AM


The symbols on a printed page, codes representing repeatable natural molecular cascades, images from a meme, have no meaning outside the minds of the humans that agreed on them. That agreement, that symbolic meaning, only exists in the form of specific synapses rippling electromagnetic and chemical cascades through the complex physical structure we call the brain.
Information has no independent existence outside the physics of the human mind.
If society would allow me to dissect a few dozen human brains at precisely the moment the word was read I could most definitely tell you the exact measures, weights and matter/energy constituents of the idea of cat. I would need a few thousand victims to get the full matter/energy constituents of a good sized kitten gif but it certainly could be done as long as I’m not caught before I finish.
Chemicals have no choice but to react in accord with QED. Guanine has no option but to bind with Cytosine in set situations. Further, the arrangement of Adenine-Guanine-Cytosine on the mRNA molecule has no choice but to bind with the tRNA holding the amino acid Serine.
It is a natural predicted process defined by QED requiring no outside intellect to direct or achieve.
Chemical reactions have no meaning, they just are what they are as defined and predicted by QED. We can see that specific reactions repeatedly have specific natural effects throughout a complex system. DNA, mRNA, tRNA and amino acids make proteins in very specific complex natural processes.
These are emergent properties of complex chemistry with no purpose or goal. They are cascades of chemistry that have no option but to perform as the universe requires.
We call parts of these processes a code because we can see great consistency with these specific molecules reacting with other molecules cascading into a consistent predictable end product. The reactions we see have no more meaning than the reaction of water and potassium exploding through that natural simple process also defined and predicted by QED.
This is how we have chosen to define and organize these complex sets of natural molecular cascades we observe. Like the symbology in a written book the DNA/RNA codes have no meaning outside the brain of the human studying them.
The code exists only in our minds. And given enough victims to dissect we can discern the precise physical makeup of each symbol, idea and concept.
The hypothesis thus develops that in the hundreds of millions of years and the countless billions upon billions of reaction cascades experienced, the ones we see today in the operations of protein synthesis are the few that survived the rigors of natural selection because they were beneficial to the reproduction of organisms. Countless trillions of organisms did not survive to reproduce because the chemical cascades, the codes in their systems, were not conducive to their reproduction.
Evolution, natural selection, chose which hundreds of billions of codes to discard and which few to keep.
And the molecules we speak of above, just like those in our brains together with all the symbolic information content we care to assign to them, certainly do follow, and are constructively and destructively dependent upon, the same natural physical operations as all matter/energy in this universe.
This information content, like the cats in a gif, are powerful symbolic human constructs for our understanding and intellect, but have no reality outside the human mind and do not exist independent of the other processes of this universe.
All this with natural materials acted upon by natural processes - nothing more.
Information is not immaterial and only exists because of the physical properties and rules of nature.
Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.
Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

Factio Republicana delenda est.

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by WookieeB, posted 05-13-2020 7:18 PM AZPaul3 has replied
 Message 117 by GDR, posted 05-13-2020 8:00 PM AZPaul3 has replied

  
Richard L. Wang
Member (Idle past 1345 days)
Posts: 104
From: Ottawa, ON, Canada
Joined: 04-27-2020


Message 97 of 452 (876051)
05-12-2020 9:49 AM
Reply to: Message 91 by Admin
05-11-2020 4:56 PM


Re-Percy(91): Sorry for replying late
Yesterday, I spent time replying GDR(64) & PaulK(55). Maybe I have a misunderstanding about why people don’t want to move to NvC-2: maybe GDR & PaulK are right, I should introduce my creationism, otherwise people may not know why I raised this or that topic. Therefore, I wrote "A brief of my creationism", it takes me a lot of time.
Thank you for your comment on what I wrote. I need to think about it, and I’ll reply you late this afternoon or tomorrow morning. I also want to ask for your understanding.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by Admin, posted 05-11-2020 4:56 PM Admin has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by RAZD, posted 05-12-2020 4:16 PM Richard L. Wang has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 98 of 452 (876106)
05-12-2020 4:16 PM
Reply to: Message 97 by Richard L. Wang
05-12-2020 9:49 AM


Science articles please
Could you provide a list of journal published peer reviewed scientific physics articles you have published?
Just want to see what your science writing looks like.
Thanks
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmericanZenDeist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by Richard L. Wang, posted 05-12-2020 9:49 AM Richard L. Wang has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by dwise1, posted 05-12-2020 7:07 PM RAZD has not replied
 Message 128 by Richard L. Wang, posted 05-18-2020 5:00 PM RAZD has not replied

  
WookieeB
Member
Posts: 190
Joined: 01-18-2019


Message 99 of 452 (876108)
05-12-2020 4:36 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by Dr Adequate
05-10-2020 9:46 PM


Re: Identifying the supernatural
Dr Adequate writes:
But this isn't so. Think of any miracle in the Bible let's say the bush in Exodus that "burned with fire, and was not consumed". Scientifically we could verify that there were indeed flames, and that the bush was not being consumed. And science would tell us that this was a miracle, being a local violation of the laws of nature.
No,it would not occur like this. For one, a miracle usually is a one-time event, so you usually would not have the opportunity to scientifically test anything.
Secondly, even if you could test something, your tests/observations are limited to physical things and processes. So, at best, in the burning bush scenario science could perhaps determine what the fire was or what the bush was in a physical sense. And there might be a physical explanation for why the bush isn't burning (e.g. the fire is regular fire, but the bush has oil and asbestos interwoven in the wood). If looking only* at the physicality of the situation gives you a physical explanation, no matter how fantastic it may seem, you are talking about a natural thing and not a supernatural thing,
But it isn't the physicality of the situation that only determines it is a supernatural event or not. There is also the component of intentionality. Even if you can describe a burning bush in physical (natural) terms, it does not explain how or why that situation was occurring. If a non-material agent causes that particular scenario, your scientific tests have no way of determining that. There are NO TESTS for the supernatural. So even if given the opportunity, science might be able to explain the physical nature of what is being observed (i.e. an observed burning bush was actually a bush (made of matter) that was on fire (matter and energy) but wasn't being consumed because of some physical (matter) properties. But why that particular arrangement of matter and energy came about could not ever be determined by science if the acting agent that caused that particular arrangement of matter was a supernatural agent.
A third reason why science deferring to a supernatural explanation would likely not ever occur are the scenarios described by dwise1 Message 82 and AZPaul3 Message 83 in the posts following yours.
dwise1:
Rather, we must first thoroughly exhaust all possible natural explanations.
AZPaul3:
There is nothing in this universe, nothing that can impact this universe, nothing that can in any way be a part of this universe that, given the opportunity to study, we can not science the hell out of.
Admitting "all possible natural explanations" are exhausted would never occur. Or, in other words, there is "nothing" that "we can not science the hell out of."
Thus, one may verbally say the premise of a materialistic viewpoint is 'tentatively held', the reality in practice is that a non-materialistic viewpoint is never allowed.
Do you honestly believe that the burning bush scenario could have been a supernatural event?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-10-2020 9:46 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by AZPaul3, posted 05-12-2020 5:45 PM WookieeB has not replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.3


(1)
Message 100 of 452 (876111)
05-12-2020 5:45 PM
Reply to: Message 99 by WookieeB
05-12-2020 4:36 PM


Re: Identifying the supernatural
For one, a miracle usually is a one-time event, so you usually would not have the opportunity to scientifically test anything.
So no one can ever say that the miracle actually occurred. We all know eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable, photos and videos are regularly faked and mass hysteria on the order of Fatima are documented.
If you have a report of a miracle without the ability to repeat it then you have nothing.
Secondly, even if you could test something, your tests/observations are limited to physical things and processes.
If a non-material agent causes that particular scenario, your scientific tests have no way of determining that.
Of course we could. All we need do is to look at what was *not* there.
Actual physical processes leave evidence of their action. If such evidence *is not* there that could be a pretty strong hint.
Again, we can science anything, anytime, anywhere.
A third reason why science deferring to a supernatural explanation would likely not ever occur ...
Admitting "all possible natural explanations" are exhausted would never occur. Or, in other words, there is "nothing" that "we can not science the hell out of."
Such is the force of a history where so many miracles are touted yet all of them, as in each and every such claim ever, has eventually been shown to be natural.
We have learned that despite the heat and ferocity of the initial lies by the miracle proponents, patience and additional scrutiny have always yielded results.
Thus, one may verbally say the premise of a materialistic viewpoint is 'tentatively held', the reality in practice is that a non-materialistic viewpoint is never allowed.
Not without the most extraordinary evidence given the most extraordinary claim.
Put up or shut up.

Factio Republicana delenda est.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by WookieeB, posted 05-12-2020 4:36 PM WookieeB has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by jar, posted 05-12-2020 5:53 PM AZPaul3 has seen this message but not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 101 of 452 (876112)
05-12-2020 5:53 PM
Reply to: Message 100 by AZPaul3
05-12-2020 5:45 PM


Re: Identifying the supernatural
A miracle is still not evidence of the supernatural. At best it can be place in the column marked "Unknowns".

My Sister's Website: Rose Hill StudiosMy Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by AZPaul3, posted 05-12-2020 5:45 PM AZPaul3 has seen this message but not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 102 of 452 (876116)
05-12-2020 7:07 PM
Reply to: Message 98 by RAZD
05-12-2020 4:16 PM


Re: Science articles please
Could you provide a list of journal published peer reviewed scientific physics articles you have published?
Just want to see what your science writing looks like.
It would look like Chinese to you. As I recall, he stated early on that he has only published in Chinese.
ABE:
Here is what he actually wrote in Message 11:
Richard L. Wang writes:
I hold a Ph.D. in (Theoretical) Physics and my main field is applied theoretical chemical physics. I published a book (in Chinese) and dozens of papers; unfortunately, nothing important or influential. I am familiar with physics, chemistry, computational science, mathematics, logic. I know experiment. I self-study biology due to my personal interest.
I would add a comment that the biology that he's been self-studying is probably from creationist sources. Especially Discovery Institute type sources who use information theory to confuse their audience.
Edited by dwise1, : ABE

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by RAZD, posted 05-12-2020 4:16 PM RAZD has not replied

  
Richard L. Wang
Member (Idle past 1345 days)
Posts: 104
From: Ottawa, ON, Canada
Joined: 04-27-2020


Message 103 of 452 (876149)
05-13-2020 10:14 AM
Reply to: Message 91 by Admin
05-11-2020 4:56 PM


Re-Percy(91)
Percy comments writes:
Please don’t set up traps
On I(67) - Let’s move on. Warning: I set up a trap called Life consists of matter and information for your guys.
It’s just a joke.
Percy comments on I(68) writes:
If there's a key distinction between evolution and neo-Darwinian evolution such that you accept one and reject the other then you should make it clear.
Yes, I will.
Percy's comment writes:
I don't think anyone will see the distinction you're drawing between "evolution" and "evolution itself."
On my post(68): DN represents Neo-Darwinists’ naturalistic explanation of evolution, not evolution itself.
What I mean is Neo-Darwinists’ naturalistic explanation of evolution and evolution itself, not "evolution" and "evolution itself.". I stop using DN, which causes confusion.
Percy writes:
There's a general consensus in this thread that your idiosyncratic ideas do not cohere into a consistent and rational whole. Some are trying to gain further insights into your thinking. Being evasive is just raising further suspicions that you're not being honest and forthright.
If your ideas are evidenced and rational then they you should be able to state them clearly. Your inability to make these clear statements and your reluctance to respond to requests for clarification and more information is working against you.
You are right. In my post(97), I mentioned that I changed my mind and briefly introduced the main ideas of my creationism in my post(NvC-2-5). It includes many issues, and I will provide evidence of that issue when we discuss / debate it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by Admin, posted 05-11-2020 4:56 PM Admin has seen this message but not replied

  
Richard L. Wang
Member (Idle past 1345 days)
Posts: 104
From: Ottawa, ON, Canada
Joined: 04-27-2020


Message 104 of 452 (876150)
05-13-2020 10:30 AM


Re-Percy(NvC-3-2): I did not define anything
It’s a good choice for me to stay in this thread before a new thread is opened, so I put Re-Percy(NvC-3-2) here, Percy comments on my proposal (NvC-3-1) in his post(NvC-3-2). Because I comment on Percy’s comment on what I wrote, I copied all of Percy’s post here to make my response clearer.
The following is Percy(NvC-3-2).
Richard L. Wang writes:
In Naturalism’s opinion, life consists only of matter.
A number of people have already disagreed with this. Opening a new thread with this point of disagreement as an axiom could drag your thread off-topic right from the outset. Better to use a definition of naturalism that people agree with.
If I could mention my own way of defining naturalism (lowercase n, by the way), it's that the universe consists of what we can observe, either directly or indirectly. In the case of life we observe matter and energy (not just matter) following known physical laws. Is a definition somewhat along those lines amenable to you? Or you could draw upon the Wikipedia definition of naturalism, which covers both methodological and metaphysical naturalism.
Richard L. Wang writes:
From NvC-1-32, information here represents all Non-physical or quasi-physical substance, such as information, ideas, values, logic, mathematics, intellect, and other emergent phenomena. How do biological processes describe ideas, values, logic? We know very little. Therefore, from now on, in our discussion, I will limit information to the information consisting of a sequence of symbols, and it is enough to reach conclusions. Genetic information in biological cells and text, image, sound and other information in cellphones are such information.
You seem to be leaning toward an information theoretic view of information, which I'm glad to see since I was going to suggest that anyway.
Most all words already have definitions. We can't assign our own personal definitions to them. We wouldn't let an atheist start a thread that defined evangelicalism as the irrational belief in a being that doesn't exist and based upon a book of fiction, because that's a biased distortion of the word's meaning. In the same way, we can't allow people to make up or distort the definitions for words that already have clear definitions, like naturalism and information.
--------
Here is my response.
If someone read my post(NvC-1-32) — The premise of Neo-Darwinian-Naturalism -, she/he would agree with me that I did not define anything in my post(NvC-3-1).
Percy writes:
Better to use a definition of naturalism that people agree with.
The definition of naturalism that I often cite is that of the Oxford English Dictionary Online: in philosophy, naturalism is the "idea or belief that only natural (as opposed to supernatural or spiritual) laws and forces operate in the world." This is almost identical to the Wikipedia definition of naturalism that you suggested in (NvC-3-2): In philosophy, naturalism is the idea or belief that only natural (as opposed to supernatural or spiritual) laws and forces operate in the universe.
life consists only of matter is not my definition of Naturalism. It is the first point of my simplified biological version of Schafersman’s definition of Naturalism, which also appears in Wikipedia definition of naturalism. On post(NvC-1-32), I presented my simplified biological version of Schafersman’s definition of Naturalism
1. Life consists only of matter;
2. Information either supervenes upon the physical or can be reduced to a physical account;
3. Life operates by the laws of physics;
4. No supernatural power, no God.
Percy writes:
In the case of life we observe matter and energy (not just matter) following known physical laws. Is a definition somewhat along those lines amenable to you?
And your comment on
I(NvC-3-1) writes:
From NvC-1-32, information here represents all Non-physical or quasi-physical substance, such as information, ideas, values, logic, mathematics, intellect, and other emergent phenomena.
that
Percy writes:
Most all words already have definitions. We can't assign our own personal definitions to them.
In order to get a simplified biological version,
I used matter to REPRESENT matter and energy and
I used information to REPRESENT all Non-physical or quasi-physical substance, such as information, ideas, values, logic, mathematics, intellect, and other emergent phenomena.
I did NOT define anything.
If I propose a new topic with these simplification -
Life consists of only matter OR Life consists of matter and information.
I don’t think anyone will be confused, and think that I have defined something. Please compare it with a new topic without simplification -
Life consists of matter, energy OR Life consists of matter, energy and non-physical or quasi-physical substance, such as information, ideas, values, logic, mathematics, intellect, and other emergent phenomena.
Which one do you think clearer and better?

Replies to this message:
 Message 114 by Admin, posted 05-13-2020 1:38 PM Richard L. Wang has replied

  
Richard L. Wang
Member (Idle past 1345 days)
Posts: 104
From: Ottawa, ON, Canada
Joined: 04-27-2020


Message 105 of 452 (876151)
05-13-2020 10:35 AM


Methodological naturalism, metaphysical naturalism, philosophical naturalism
On this topic, some people have talked a lot about methodological naturalism, metaphysical naturalism, philosophical naturalism, and their definitions.
Take the origin of life on Earth for example. If I say that science cannot explain the origin of life on Earth, then ALL Naturalists will say No, science can.
When they all say No, science can, I would not ask them - Methodological naturalists, metaphysical naturalists or philosophical naturalists — the question what is in your mind. No. I don't need to know what they think and I can discuss it with them.
I won't talk about methodological naturalism, metaphysical naturalism, philosophical naturalism

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by PaulK, posted 05-13-2020 11:27 AM Richard L. Wang has not replied
 Message 111 by Tangle, posted 05-13-2020 11:37 AM Richard L. Wang has not replied
 Message 112 by Richard L. Wang, posted 05-13-2020 11:50 AM Richard L. Wang has not replied
 Message 122 by dwise1, posted 05-14-2020 4:06 PM Richard L. Wang has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024