|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The definition of science: What should it be? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rob  Suspended Member (Idle past 5849 days) Posts: 2297 Joined: |
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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminWounded Inactive Member |
Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6408 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ohnhai Member (Idle past 5162 days) Posts: 649 From: Melbourne, Australia Joined: |
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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
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: 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1467 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
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: 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: Doesn't seem very relevant to science, though. (Courtesy of Bronze Dog.)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1467 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
How does one pursue the supernatural? I dunno. What is it?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rob  Suspended Member (Idle past 5849 days) Posts: 2297 Joined: |
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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 412 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1467 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Isaac Inactive Member |
quote: quote: Well, that was an anticlimax. I was expecting a serious answer.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rob  Suspended Member (Idle past 5849 days) Posts: 2297 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Isaac Inactive Member |
Tip: Leave religion at the door, when learning about science.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ramoss Member (Idle past 612 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
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.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024