Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


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


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The definition of science: What should it be?
Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5849 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 1 of 100 (318265)
06-06-2006 10:27 AM


Nwr wrote in another thread 'What mainstream science criticizes, are the claims that creationism is science, and the attempts to have creationism taught in the science classroom. But this is not an oppression of creationism. This is simply a defense of science against those who would attempt to undermine its rigorous standards.'
I have to admit, he is right. But, the reason 'mainstream' scientists can say that, is because 'mainstream science' (the convention) is defined as 'Methodological Naturalism'. So in a legalistic sense they are telling the truth. I also admit that they are consistent. Generally speaking, they believe truth is simply a convention.
Methodological naturalism 'presupposes' that there is no external cause, and that the explanation for the existence of a creature (or organism), the earth, or the cosmos as a whole is found within the creature, the earth, or cosmos itself. To confuse the issue, there are varying definitions of what methodological naturalism means, and the convention is in control of the definition at the present time.
Clearly that is not 'objective' science, in the honest terms the average citizen assumes he is getting from 'respectable' scientific lawyers. The standards are not rigorous, other than they protect the convention from any serious challenge in a number of ways; from funding for opposition research: Denied... by smiling beaurocrats, to dismissal and intimidation of even suggesting such a rediculous notion as stupid and religiously motivated.
That is exactly the way the Catholic church treated Galileo.
Science should presuppose nothing other than that the truth is knowable. If truth were not knowable, then science would be nothing more than an exercize in seeking to prove a bias. That has happened within different churches throughout history and to this day, and in my opinion, that is exactly what is happening with science defined as Methodological Naturalism.
So, in light of my opinion, and seeking to understand whether it is correct or not, (and I assume the answer to it's correctness is knowable) my question for this thread would be:
When trying to define something as pivotal as 'science', should we presuppose as a convention anything at all, other than the search for the truth?
Edited by Rob, : blockquote thing
Edited by Rob, : reasonable approach?
Edited by Rob, : pleading in the name of integrity... You can handle this...
Edited by Rob, : No reason given.
Edited by Rob, : That should wrap it up...
Edited by AdminAsgara, : close blockquote tag
Edited by AdminAsgara, : No reason given.

Any biters in the stream?

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by nwr, posted 06-07-2006 8:58 AM Rob has not replied
 Message 4 by ohnhai, posted 06-07-2006 9:20 AM Rob has not replied
 Message 5 by Modulous, posted 06-07-2006 10:03 AM Rob has not replied
 Message 6 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-07-2006 11:25 AM Rob has not replied
 Message 7 by crashfrog, posted 06-07-2006 1:30 PM Rob has not replied

  
AdminWounded
Inactive Member


Message 2 of 100 (318634)
06-07-2006 8:28 AM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 3 of 100 (318655)
06-07-2006 8:58 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Rob
06-06-2006 10:27 AM


But, the reason 'mainstream' scientists can say that, is because 'mainstream science' (the convention) is defined as 'Methodological Naturalism'.
Can you provide any references to such a definition. The google page of "science" definitions does not even mention "methodological naturalism."
Methodological naturalism 'presupposes' that there is no external cause, and that the explanation for the existence of a creature (or organism), the earth, or the cosmos as a whole is found within the creature, the earth, or cosmos itself.
No, that's wrong. Science explains what it can on the basis of evidence, and leaves unexplained what it cannot explain. It does not claim to explain everything.
To confuse the issue, there are varying definitions of what methodological naturalism means, and the convention is in control of the definition at the present time.
Yes, there are varying definitions. It depends on which creationist site you go to for finding the definition, and which particular way that creationist site wants to misrepresent science.
The standards are not rigorous, other than they protect the convention from any serious challenge in a number of ways; from funding for opposition research: Denied... by smiling beaurocrats, to dismissal and intimidation of even suggesting such a rediculous notion as stupid and religiously motivated.
You need to document these charges. If you cannot document them, then you are bearing false witness.
When trying to define something as pivotal as 'science', should we presuppose as a convention anything at all, other than the search for the truth?
I am not aware of any presupposed conventions. Science uses conventions, but it develops those conventions as needed for the particular study. "Science" is difficult to define, precisely because it is not based on presupposed conventions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Rob, posted 06-06-2006 10:27 AM Rob has not replied

  
ohnhai
Member (Idle past 5162 days)
Posts: 649
From: Melbourne, Australia
Joined: 11-17-2004


Message 4 of 100 (318670)
06-07-2006 9:20 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Rob
06-06-2006 10:27 AM


It was my understanding that science presupposed nothing, but made the single demand that any hypothesis be testable.
If a way to verifiably and objectively test for something could be demonstrated then someone somewhere is likely to put it through the scientific process.
If science seems to presuppose only natural causes for observed events, that’s because there has been no credible objective means of testing for supernatural causes put forward that have yet yielded objective conclusive evidence for the supernatural. (if there had been then the James Randi Organisation would have paid out by now)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Rob, posted 06-06-2006 10:27 AM Rob has not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 5 of 100 (318686)
06-07-2006 10:03 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Rob
06-06-2006 10:27 AM


Ontological vs methodological
Methodological naturalism 'presupposes' that there is no external cause, and that the explanation for the existence of a creature (or organism), the earth, or the cosmos as a whole is found within the creature, the earth, or cosmos itself.
Not strictly true. This sounds closer to ontological naturalism, which proposes that supernatural does not exist. Methodological naturalism proposes that empiricism is the key, that we must be able to test our hypotheses and reasonings before calling it science. This puts the supernatural out of its remit. It does not state that the supernatural does not exist, only that the supernatural is by definition untestable. This leaves things nicely open - things which we call supernatural now will be considered natural if they turn out to be testable.
When trying to define something as pivotal as 'science', should we presuppose as a convention anything at all, other than the search for the truth?
Methodological naturalism is exactly that - it is a method that has been developed to find the truth: using empricism and testing. It goes one step further even than that - by maintaining tentativity.
You seem to be proposing methodological supernaturalism. The problem with methodological supernaturalism is that there is no 'method'. How does one pursue the supernatural? The biggest rational argument at the moment is that if it cannot be explained using the current discoveries of methodological naturalism, then the supernatural can be invoked as an explanation. However - this assumes that methodological naturalism has all the answers already and that new discoveries and ideas do not form. It also falls into the trap that if something is no longer confirmable by science for some reason, the supernatural could be involved. It is the pitfall of the GodDidIt argument. When is it valid to invoke a supernatural agent and when is it invalid? This is where the method of supernaturalism so far fails.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Rob, posted 06-06-2006 10:27 AM Rob has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by crashfrog, posted 06-07-2006 1:32 PM Modulous has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 6 of 100 (318714)
06-07-2006 11:25 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Rob
06-06-2006 10:27 AM


Supernatural hurts science
When trying to define something as pivotal as 'science', should we presuppose as a convention anything at all, other than the search for the truth?
I don't think science presupposes that the supernatural does not exists, it just doesn't include explanations that don't objectively offer evidence of themselves. I think this is an important thing to do.
For example, when I go into the lab this afternoon to scientifically investigate the cause of a problem we are having, I'm going to assume that the cause was not supernatural. How can I find a solution to the problem if one of the possibilities is that a ghost pissed in the beaker last night? Its not so much that I assume this didn't happen, its that there's no reason for me to even offer this as a possibility. This is key to me finding a solution to our problem. I can't propose a solution of: "The problem could be either this or a ghost pissed in the beaker last night so I don't know for sure".
It totally screws up the science to not assume that the supernatural isn't affecting it. Or to eliminate the double negetive, it totally screws up science to assume that the supernatural might be affecting it.
You seem to have some misconceptions about Methodological Naturalism. Here is the wiki article on it.
quote:
Ontological naturalism is often called "metaphysical naturalism," the view that the supernatural does not exist, which entails strong atheism.
In contrast, methodological naturalism is the more limited view that the supernatural can't be used in scientific methods, or shouldn't be.
I agree with methodological naturalism but not ontological naturalism. I think that the supernatural exists but I think it is important to keep it out of science while it cannot be objectively evident. Its an important part of it and one of the reasons that sciece works so well.
Edited by Catholic Scientist, : added subtitle

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Rob, posted 06-06-2006 10:27 AM Rob has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 7 of 100 (318772)
06-07-2006 1:30 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Rob
06-06-2006 10:27 AM


Methodological naturalism 'presupposes' that there is no external cause, and that the explanation for the existence of a creature (or organism), the earth, or the cosmos as a whole is found within the creature, the earth, or cosmos itself.
You're just making this up. Aren't you? I mean, you didn't actually look up "methodological naturalism" at all before you posted this, right? Here's the first paragrahp from the Wikipedia entry on "methodological naturalism":
quote:
Naturalism is any of several philosophical stances, typically those descended from materialism and pragmatism, that do not distinguish the supernatural from nature. Naturalism does not necessarily claim that phenomena or hypotheses commonly labeled as supernatural do not exist or are wrong, but insists that all phenomena and hypotheses can be studied by the same methods and therefore anything considered supernatural is either nonexistent, unknowable, or not inherently different from natural phenomena or hypotheses.
Now, how did you get what you posted from that? Why is it that your definition of "methodological naturalism" seems to have absolutely nothing to do with either "naturalism" or "methodology"?
To confuse the issue, there are varying definitions of what methodological naturalism means
Not really. There's the real definition, as defined by people who are methodological naturalists; and then there's the definition you posted, which you just made up.
That doesn't really "confuse the issue." The only thing confused seems to be your understanding of what words mean.
Since you oppose methodological naturalism, could you post a coherent explanation of what "methodological supernaturalism" would be? For that matter, what is the supernatural? There's only one coherent definition that I'm aware of:
quote:
Supernatural abilities are magical and go away in an antimagic field but are not subject to spell resistance. Supernatural abilities cannot be dispelled. Using a supernatural ability is a standard action unless noted otherwise. Supernatural abilities may have a use limit or be useable at will, just like spell-like abilities. However, supernatural abilities do not provoke attacks of opportunity and never require Concentration checks. Unless otherwise noted, a supernatural ability has an effective caster level equal to the creature's Hit Dice.
The saving throw (if any) against a supernatural ability is 10 + 1/2 the creature's HD + the creature's ability modifier (usually Charisma).
Doesn't seem very relevant to science, though. (Courtesy of Bronze Dog.)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Rob, posted 06-06-2006 10:27 AM Rob has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 8 of 100 (318773)
06-07-2006 1:32 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Modulous
06-07-2006 10:03 AM


Re: Ontological vs methodological
How does one pursue the supernatural?
I dunno. What is it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Modulous, posted 06-07-2006 10:03 AM Modulous has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Rob, posted 06-08-2006 11:17 AM crashfrog has replied

  
Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5849 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 9 of 100 (319055)
06-08-2006 11:17 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by crashfrog
06-07-2006 1:32 PM


Re: Ontological vs methodological
How does one pursue the supernatural?
I dunno. What is it?
By admitting that we are corrupt. Only then will the truth of the Bible begin to make sense.
As far as some of the points brought up here. WOW! You guys are good. I came to be challenged and you've not disapointed.
My source for the definition of 'MN' came from 'Unlocking the mystery of life'. A DVD that obviously none of you have watched. I too had seen the wickepedia definitions which is why I mentioned the different angles in my original post.
No-one is questioning natural selection. Only whether it is equal to 'evolution'. Seems to me that all is devolving. The atmosphere is being polluted, energy used up, etc. All because of sin.
Time pressure enormous right now, got to go.
Fabulous responses!!! I'm going to have to do some serious studying, or give up the gig.

Any biters in the stream?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by crashfrog, posted 06-07-2006 1:32 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by ringo, posted 06-08-2006 1:02 PM Rob has not replied
 Message 11 by crashfrog, posted 06-08-2006 1:07 PM Rob has not replied
 Message 12 by Isaac, posted 06-08-2006 11:04 PM Rob has replied
 Message 15 by ramoss, posted 06-09-2006 8:33 AM Rob has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 10 of 100 (319087)
06-08-2006 1:02 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by Rob
06-08-2006 11:17 AM


Religion and Science
Rob writes:
By admitting that we are corrupt. Only then will the truth of the Bible begin to make sense.
Actually, the Bible makes a lot more sense if you give up that "corruption" dogma.
Seems to me that all is devolving. The atmosphere is being polluted, energy used up, etc. All because of sin.
Those problems have nothing to do with "devolution" (or sin). More like stupidity.
But all of this is pretty off-topic in the science forums. We have some very active religious forums too - you'd be welcome to discuss those ideas over there.
Any biters in the stream?
Ask again after you've been eaten alive.

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Rob, posted 06-08-2006 11:17 AM Rob has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 11 of 100 (319088)
06-08-2006 1:07 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by Rob
06-08-2006 11:17 AM


Re: Ontological vs methodological
I'm going to have to do some serious studying, or give up the gig.
There's a 3rd option - ask us questions. Ask us to explain things you don't understand.
I get that evolution doesn't make sense to you. But surely you recognize that it makes sense to us? Why don't you ask us the questions you need to ask to understand why?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Rob, posted 06-08-2006 11:17 AM Rob has not replied

  
Isaac
Inactive Member


Message 12 of 100 (319380)
06-08-2006 11:04 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by Rob
06-08-2006 11:17 AM


Re: Ontological vs methodological
quote:
How does one pursue the supernatural?
I dunno. What is it?
quote:
By admitting that we are corrupt. Only then will the truth of the Bible begin to make sense.
Well, that was an anticlimax. I was expecting a serious answer.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Rob, posted 06-08-2006 11:17 AM Rob has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by Rob, posted 06-08-2006 11:41 PM Isaac has replied

  
Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5849 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 13 of 100 (319393)
06-08-2006 11:41 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by Isaac
06-08-2006 11:04 PM


Re: Ontological vs methodological
Perhaps someday when I reach that state of righteousness that all of you have attained, I will understand where your coming from.
On that note, I have asked some more questions as a proposed new topic.
It is nice to meet faultless people for a change. For the last two years I was stupid enough to think Jesus was the only one.
Hey crash, is stupidity 'wrong', because you sure 'hate' it? And if the reason is that it has led to so much violence and sufferring, then I have to say it is 'immoral.'
Perhaps Hitler had a good plan huh? eliminate the dummies... You are your worst nightmare.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Isaac, posted 06-08-2006 11:04 PM Isaac has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Isaac, posted 06-09-2006 12:08 AM Rob has not replied
 Message 16 by crashfrog, posted 06-09-2006 8:45 AM Rob has not replied
 Message 17 by PurpleYouko, posted 06-09-2006 9:11 AM Rob has not replied
 Message 26 by Admin, posted 06-10-2006 3:49 PM Rob has not replied
 Message 29 by kuresu, posted 06-14-2006 6:19 PM Rob has replied

  
Isaac
Inactive Member


Message 14 of 100 (319397)
06-09-2006 12:08 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by Rob
06-08-2006 11:41 PM


Re: Ontological vs methodological
Tip: Leave religion at the door, when learning about science.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Rob, posted 06-08-2006 11:41 PM Rob has not replied

  
ramoss
Member (Idle past 612 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 08-11-2004


Message 15 of 100 (319468)
06-09-2006 8:33 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by Rob
06-08-2006 11:17 AM


Re: Ontological vs methodological
Admitting we are corrupt?? In what way? I am not corrupt at all.
My religious beliefs are not your relgious beliefs. For one thing, my religion does not buy into this notion of 'Original sin' that the Christians do.
Your specfic religious belief has nothing do to with what science is.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Rob, posted 06-08-2006 11:17 AM Rob 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