Total Posts:21|Showing Posts:1-21
Jump to topic:

My problem with science

a_drumming_dog
Posts: 93
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/1/2015 10:21:20 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
First off, I'm a christian. Just wanted to get that out of the way.

So, my problem with science, especially in research into evolution, is that almost all scientist seem to presuppose atheism/naturalism when they do science/research. For example, with research into evolution and the origin of life, it seems to me that scientists presuppose naturalism, and then because of their presupposition, they conclude that there must be a natural mechanism by which life arose/evolved, then they look for that mechanism even if it may not be actual. Perhaps some of the mechanisms of today's theories only work in theory. I do not know. It seems that scientists do not even consider divine intervention as a possibility of our existence. Of course, if they were to consider divine intervention a possibility, their work would cease to be real "science," since science deal with the natural world only. It seems to me that much evidence (especially that of common descent) can be explained through common design just as well.

These are just my opinions of course. What do you guys think?
The truth will set you free
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/1/2015 11:10:38 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/1/2015 10:21:20 PM, a_drumming_dog wrote:
First off, I'm a christian. Just wanted to get that out of the way.

So, my problem with science, especially in research into evolution, is that almost all scientist seem to presuppose atheism/naturalism when they do science/research. For example, with research into evolution and the origin of life, it seems to me that scientists presuppose naturalism, and then because of their presupposition, they conclude that there must be a natural mechanism by which life arose/evolved, then they look for that mechanism even if it may not be actual. Perhaps some of the mechanisms of today's theories only work in theory. I do not know. It seems that scientists do not even consider divine intervention as a possibility of our existence. Of course, if they were to consider divine intervention a possibility, their work would cease to be real "science," since science deal with the natural world only. It seems to me that much evidence (especially that of common descent) can be explained through common design just as well.

These are just my opinions of course. What do you guys think?

This is really just an attack against evolution. Would you complain about such things if the claim was invisible angels move the planets ? should we give equal time to such a theory as we do to the theory of gravity ?

No, you would tell such people to go away.

As far as I know evolution meets the same criteria as any other scientific theory, intelligent design or creationism does not.

It has nothing about presupposing or not the existence of the supernatural.
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
Paleophyte
Posts: 57
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/1/2015 11:58:15 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/1/2015 10:21:20 PM, a_drumming_dog wrote:
First off, I'm a christian. Just wanted to get that out of the way.

So, my problem with science, especially in research into evolution, is that almost all scientist seem to presuppose atheism/naturalism when they do science/research. For example, with research into evolution and the origin of life, it seems to me that scientists presuppose naturalism, and then because of their presupposition, they conclude that there must be a natural mechanism by which life arose/evolved, then they look for that mechanism even if it may not be actual. Perhaps some of the mechanisms of today's theories only work in theory. I do not know. It seems that scientists do not even consider divine intervention as a possibility of our existence. Of course, if they were to consider divine intervention a possibility, their work would cease to be real "science," since science deal with the natural world only. It seems to me that much evidence (especially that of common descent) can be explained through common design just as well.

These are just my opinions of course. What do you guys think?

There isn't anything magical about science. It's just a method for asking and answering questions based on observation and reason. It doesn't presuppose anything.

Many scientists have considered the possibility of divine intervention in our origins. Most of them were around Darwin's time but there are still a few around today. The divine has not been observed. Natural phenomena suffice for an explanation.

Typically I find that mixing science and faith is a bad idea. Do you really want to make your beliefs testable? There are two options here. You can be honest and keep science and faith separate. Or you can mix the two and when the data comes back refuting your religion then you'll have to either reject your beliefs or stick your fingers in your ears and keep shouting "I can't hear you!"
chui
Posts: 507
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/2/2015 8:56:32 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/1/2015 10:21:20 PM, a_drumming_dog wrote:
First off, I'm a christian. Just wanted to get that out of the way.

So, my problem with science, especially in research into evolution, is that almost all scientist seem to presuppose atheism/naturalism when they do science/research. For example, with research into evolution and the origin of life, it seems to me that scientists presuppose naturalism, and then because of their presupposition, they conclude that there must be a natural mechanism by which life arose/evolved, then they look for that mechanism even if it may not be actual. Perhaps some of the mechanisms of today's theories only work in theory. I do not know. It seems that scientists do not even consider divine intervention as a possibility of our existence. Of course, if they were to consider divine intervention a possibility, their work would cease to be real "science," since science deal with the natural world only. It seems to me that much evidence (especially that of common descent) can be explained through common design just as well.

These are just my opinions of course. What do you guys think?

I think you are right in that science does assume that the world has a natural explanation and we automatically reject the supernatural in science. It is not because scientists have a bias towards atheism, although many are atheists, but because it is extremely difficult to work with supernatural explanations. The supernatural is by definition un-explainable, unpredictable and unlimited in scope.

No area of science uses supernatural thinking but despite this it is extremely successful. A measure of the success is the practical use of science in the form of technology used everyday: food, clothing, drink, heating, entertainment, communication, transport, housing, medicine, education. I see no reason to change our approach.
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/2/2015 4:46:10 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
ALL science presupposes naturalism, it is an axiom of science. This is because, at least how I understand it, there is no evidence for anything outside the natural, and no way to draw conclusions about anything that is not natural.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
Otokage
Posts: 2,347
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2015 7:39:46 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/1/2015 10:21:20 PM, a_drumming_dog wrote:
First off, I'm a christian. Just wanted to get that out of the way.

So, my problem with science, especially in research into evolution, is that almost all scientist seem to presuppose atheism/naturalism when they do science/research.

I think you should have said they presupose naturalism and therefore atheism too. But maybe that's what you meant.

For example, with research into evolution and the origin of life, it seems to me that scientists presuppose naturalism, and then because of their presupposition, they conclude that there must be a natural mechanism by which life arose/evolved, then they look for that mechanism even if it may not be actual. Perhaps some of the mechanisms of today's theories only work in theory. I do not know. It seems that scientists do not even consider divine intervention as a possibility of our existence. Of course, if they were to consider divine intervention a possibility, their work would cease to be real "science," since science deal with the natural world only. It seems to me that much evidence (especially that of common descent) can be explained through common design just as well.

These are just my opinions of course. What do you guys think?

The point of science is testing what they try to demonstrate. Since non-naturalist hypothesis can not be tested, why would science bother with something that doesn't fit into naturalism? Waste of time and money.
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2015 7:50:21 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/1/2015 10:21:20 PM, a_drumming_dog wrote:
First off, I'm a christian. Just wanted to get that out of the way.

So, my problem with science, especially in research into evolution, is that almost all scientist seem to presuppose atheism/naturalism when they do science/research. For example, with research into evolution and the origin of life, it seems to me that scientists presuppose naturalism, and then because of their presupposition, they conclude that there must be a natural mechanism by which life arose/evolved, then they look for that mechanism even if it may not be actual.

Science utilises "methodological naturalism", it is distinct from metaphysical naturalism in that science doesn't make claims about reality. Instead it starts from what we can test (the natural) and providing explanatory constructs from it.

IF something was not testable from a standpoint from methodological naturalism, then it would not be science. it would remain in another field, such as metaphysics, or other philosophy.

So when it comes to evolution, in science we would look for natural explanations for the dataset we have (for example the fossil record, gene phylogeny) and see if they fit within a naturalistic construct, which they do. Then we would look for naturalistic explanations for these constructs, and we indeed found those too. Thus, in this case, the application of methodological naturalism was successful. It may or may not be successful in other areas of study, although it can be applied the same. We would only say that naturalism really is true for any situation IF we do find naturalistic explanations for them which are well-supported, thus scientific theory.

Perhaps some of the mechanisms of today's theories only work in theory. I do not know. It seems that scientists do not even consider divine intervention as a possibility of our existence.

You do realist that like half of western scientists are religious, right> Science simply does not deal with the divine, as it is incapable of doing that. You cannot apply methodological naturalism to something that is by definition not natural. Yes, something may have a possible super-natural explanation, but science will only go as far as to say "science simply doesn't explain this".

The search for non-naturalistic explanations is simply beyond the purview of science.

Of course, if they were to consider divine intervention a possibility, their work would cease to be real "science," since science deal with the natural world only. It seems to me that much evidence (especially that of common descent) can be explained through common design just as well.

Well, evolution is one of a few fields of science where there is virtually no debate that naturalism does a superb job in explaining the facts as we have them, and that the case that all of life is related via. common ancestry is as good as any other fact. If we assume that divine causation really was the explanation of life, then we would expect the origin of species to remain an open question in science, that is and will always remain unsolved, since the answer simply doesn't lie within naturalism. Thus methodological naturalism will never yield the explanation.

Yet.... it did.

These are just my opinions of course. What do you guys think?
18Karl
Posts: 351
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2015 8:18:44 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/1/2015 10:21:20 PM, a_drumming_dog wrote:
First off, I'm a christian. Just wanted to get that out of the way.

So, my problem with science, especially in research into evolution, is that almost all scientist seem to presuppose atheism/naturalism when they do science/research. For example, with research into evolution and the origin of life, it seems to me that scientists presuppose naturalism, and then because of their presupposition, they conclude that there must be a natural mechanism by which life arose/evolved, then they look for that mechanism even if it may not be actual. Perhaps some of the mechanisms of today's theories only work in theory. I do not know.

The problem with your synopsis is that you want everything to relate to God; the world should all relate to this one dude in the sky who created naked people for His amusement. When science conflicts with religion, it is not science that needs to change: via the scientific method, whatever is unknown is resolved with results from what is ALREADY known in attempting to resolve the "new discovery". Sometimes, these new discoveries will be so new that what is already known must be challenged, and often times, when this happens, a whole new branch of science pops up. Evolutionary biology only popped up after Darwin.

It seems that scientists do not even consider divine intervention as a possibility of our existence. Of course, if they were to consider divine intervention a possibility, their work would cease to be real "science," since science deal with the natural world only. It seems to me that much evidence (especially that of common descent) can be explained through common design just as well.

Imagine, sire, if some guy discovered that gravity was not constant on even all places of this earth: his conclusion will be God did it. The world would be shrouded in ignorance: God created gravity, so don't go trolling around with it. God created the universe, so don't study it. Whatever is there, is there. C'mon! They did that in the Dark Ages: where lightning strikes and plague were blamed on God's dissatisfaction with man and all. Look at where that ended.


These are just my opinions of course. What do you guys think?

When a person thinks science is wrong, it is the person that is wrong, not science.
praise the lord Chin Chin
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,153
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2015 8:22:55 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/1/2015 10:21:20 PM, a_drumming_dog wrote:
First off, I'm a christian. Just wanted to get that out of the way.

So, my problem with science, especially in research into evolution, is that almost all scientist seem to presuppose atheism/naturalism when they do science/research. For example, with research into evolution and the origin of life, it seems to me that scientists presuppose naturalism, and then because of their presupposition, they conclude that there must be a natural mechanism by which life arose/evolved, then they look for that mechanism even if it may not be actual. Perhaps some of the mechanisms of today's theories only work in theory. I do not know. It seems that scientists do not even consider divine intervention as a possibility of our existence. Of course, if they were to consider divine intervention a possibility, their work would cease to be real "science," since science deal with the natural world only. It seems to me that much evidence (especially that of common descent) can be explained through common design just as well.

These are just my opinions of course. What do you guys think?
Science is a discipline, it has parameters, you describe those, indirectly.
The considerations you expect belong to other disciplines, various branches of Philosophy.
"common design" in no way fits into any scientific paradigm.
Epistemology and metaphysics considers Science, and sets the parameters.
Your complaint is with Philosophy, not Science.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2015 10:14:15 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
I'll just repost what I said in another thread:

"1. Science isn't based on methodolgical naturalism. That's a meta-theoretic shaping principle that's popular nowadays, not science itself. MSP's can used or discarded depending on well they work. If an appeal to God works in ones best scientific theories then that is science.

As Quine said (the quintessential atheist empiricist): "If I saw indirect explanatory benefit in positing sensibilia, possibilia, spirits, a Creator, I would joyfully accord them scientific status too, on a par with such avowedly scientific posits as quarks and black holes."

Or as Kitcher (an atheist philosopher of science) says "postulating an unobserved Creator need be no more unscientfic tha postulating unobserved particles"

All philosophers of science know that demarcating between science and non science in all instances is ridiculously hard and have pretty much given up on the problem as insoluable. However, you can distinguish between good science and bad science. An appeal to God may have scientific status, but it also may be bad science (like the current ID programme).

So, appeals to God are not ruled out in principle, in science.

2. Seems like a no win situation. Many atheists will (supposedly) only accept "scientfic" evidence for God, but according to you, that sort of evidence is ruled out in principle."
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2015 10:20:47 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/2/2015 4:46:10 PM, SNP1 wrote:
ALL science presupposes naturalism, it is an axiom of science.

No (MOST) scientists presuppose naturalism; nothing about science simpliciter presupposes naturalism. There's a reason why idealists (for instance) can be just as good scientists as a physicalist.

This is because, at least how I understand it, there is no evidence for anything outside the natural, and no way to draw conclusions about anything that is not natural.

How did you come to this conclusion?

How did you move from "science doesn't explain the non-natural" to "there is no evidence of the non-natural/no way to draw conclusions aboutt he non-natural"?
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,153
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2015 11:00:09 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/3/2015 10:14:15 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
I'll just repost what I said in another thread:

"1. Science isn't based on methodolgical naturalism. That's a meta-theoretic shaping principle that's popular nowadays, not science itself. MSP's can used or discarded depending on well they work. If an appeal to God works in ones best scientific theories then that is science.

As Quine said (the quintessential atheist empiricist): "If I saw indirect explanatory benefit in positing sensibilia, possibilia, spirits, a Creator, I would joyfully accord them scientific status too, on a par with such avowedly scientific posits as quarks and black holes."

Or as Kitcher (an atheist philosopher of science) says "postulating an unobserved Creator need be no more unscientfic tha postulating unobserved particles"

All philosophers of science know that demarcating between science and non science in all instances is ridiculously hard and have pretty much given up on the problem as insoluable. However, you can distinguish between good science and bad science. An appeal to God may have scientific status, but it also may be bad science (like the current ID programme).

So, appeals to God are not ruled out in principle, in science.

2. Seems like a no win situation. Many atheists will (supposedly) only accept "scientfic" evidence for God, but according to you, that sort of evidence is ruled out in principle."
Well, maybe the confusion is because of statements by groups such as National Academies of Science:

"In science, explanations must be based on evidence drawn from examining the natural world.... Because they are not a part of nature, supernatural entities cannot be investigated by science."

"Science is a way of knowing about the natural
world. It is limited to explaining the natural
world through natural causes. Science can say
nothing about the supernatural. Whether God
exists or not is a question about which science
is neutral."
http://www.colorado.edu...

Conventional wisdom says science can not address the supernatural.
We should not be surprised that some people disagree, in certain circumstances.

It seems to me that the statement such as "So, appeals to God are not ruled out in principle, in science.", is a qualified statement, not universally recognize as true by Philosophers of Science.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2015 11:07:32 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/3/2015 11:00:09 AM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 2/3/2015 10:14:15 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
I'll just repost what I said in another thread:

"1. Science isn't based on methodolgical naturalism. That's a meta-theoretic shaping principle that's popular nowadays, not science itself. MSP's can used or discarded depending on well they work. If an appeal to God works in ones best scientific theories then that is science.

As Quine said (the quintessential atheist empiricist): "If I saw indirect explanatory benefit in positing sensibilia, possibilia, spirits, a Creator, I would joyfully accord them scientific status too, on a par with such avowedly scientific posits as quarks and black holes."

Or as Kitcher (an atheist philosopher of science) says "postulating an unobserved Creator need be no more unscientfic tha postulating unobserved particles"

All philosophers of science know that demarcating between science and non science in all instances is ridiculously hard and have pretty much given up on the problem as insoluable. However, you can distinguish between good science and bad science. An appeal to God may have scientific status, but it also may be bad science (like the current ID programme).

So, appeals to God are not ruled out in principle, in science.

2. Seems like a no win situation. Many atheists will (supposedly) only accept "scientfic" evidence for God, but according to you, that sort of evidence is ruled out in principle."
Well, maybe the confusion is because of statements by groups such as National Academies of Science:

"In science, explanations must be based on evidence drawn from examining the natural world.... Because they are not a part of nature, supernatural entities cannot be investigated by science."

"Science is a way of knowing about the natural
world. It is limited to explaining the natural
world through natural causes. Science can say
nothing about the supernatural. Whether God
exists or not is a question about which science
is neutral."
http://www.colorado.edu...

Conventional wisdom says science can not address the supernatural.

Does it? Also, doesn't science often overturn "conventional wisdom"? ;)

We should not be surprised that some people disagree, in certain circumstances.

It seems to me that the statement such as "So, appeals to God are not ruled out in principle, in science.", is a qualified statement, not universally recognize as true by Philosophers of Science.

No, I'm saying the demarcation problem (distinguishing between science and non-science) is one that is recognized as nearly insoluable by most philosophers of science, because any criteria proposed will inevitably exclude ostensibly "real" scientific enteprises and include non scientific enterprises.

Of course my statement about appeals to God isn't universally recognized, but the in principle arguments for excluding God are weak. The in practice arguments are much better.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,153
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2015 12:07:06 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/3/2015 11:07:32 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 2/3/2015 11:00:09 AM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 2/3/2015 10:14:15 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
I'll just repost what I said in another thread:

"1. Science isn't based on methodolgical naturalism. That's a meta-theoretic shaping principle that's popular nowadays, not science itself. MSP's can used or discarded depending on well they work. If an appeal to God works in ones best scientific theories then that is science.

As Quine said (the quintessential atheist empiricist): "If I saw indirect explanatory benefit in positing sensibilia, possibilia, spirits, a Creator, I would joyfully accord them scientific status too, on a par with such avowedly scientific posits as quarks and black holes."

Or as Kitcher (an atheist philosopher of science) says "postulating an unobserved Creator need be no more unscientfic tha postulating unobserved particles"

All philosophers of science know that demarcating between science and non science in all instances is ridiculously hard and have pretty much given up on the problem as insoluable. However, you can distinguish between good science and bad science. An appeal to God may have scientific status, but it also may be bad science (like the current ID programme).

So, appeals to God are not ruled out in principle, in science.

2. Seems like a no win situation. Many atheists will (supposedly) only accept "scientfic" evidence for God, but according to you, that sort of evidence is ruled out in principle."
Well, maybe the confusion is because of statements by groups such as National Academies of Science:

"In science, explanations must be based on evidence drawn from examining the natural world.... Because they are not a part of nature, supernatural entities cannot be investigated by science."

"Science is a way of knowing about the natural
world. It is limited to explaining the natural
world through natural causes. Science can say
nothing about the supernatural. Whether God
exists or not is a question about which science
is neutral."
http://www.colorado.edu...

Conventional wisdom says science can not address the supernatural.

Does it? Also, doesn't science often overturn "conventional wisdom"? ;)

Well, no, not about itself, not often.
Occasionally, yes, of course. The Scientific method has undergone several revisions in just the last 50 years, for example.
It is not in the habit of overturning it's own conventional wisdom.

We should not be surprised that some people disagree, in certain circumstances.

It seems to me that the statement such as "So, appeals to God are not ruled out in principle, in science.", is a qualified statement, not universally recognize as true by Philosophers of Science.

No, I'm saying the demarcation problem (distinguishing between science and non-science) is one that is recognized as nearly insoluable by most philosophers of science, because any criteria proposed will inevitably exclude ostensibly "real" scientific enteprises and include non scientific enterprises.

Well I would have to see a reference on that.
Philosophical problems are only insolvable if we expect universal agreement.
In practice there is the main body of belief, and those who splinter off and disagree. Each group has solved the problem, they just do not agree with each other.

Of course my statement about appeals to God isn't universally recognized, but the in principle arguments for excluding God are weak. The in practice arguments are much better.

The epistemology and metaphysics of Science are as determined by Philosophers of Science, as accepted by the professional organizations of Science.
So if you can show some professional organizations who agree with you, your argument may have merit.
If not, just another splinter group who may or may not be successful at changing the epistemology and metaphysics of Science.

So, enlighten me.
Show me the money.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2015 1:29:51 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/3/2015 12:07:06 PM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 2/3/2015 11:07:32 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 2/3/2015 11:00:09 AM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 2/3/2015 10:14:15 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
I'll just repost what I said in another thread:

"1. Science isn't based on methodolgical naturalism. That's a meta-theoretic shaping principle that's popular nowadays, not science itself. MSP's can used or discarded depending on well they work. If an appeal to God works in ones best scientific theories then that is science.

As Quine said (the quintessential atheist empiricist): "If I saw indirect explanatory benefit in positing sensibilia, possibilia, spirits, a Creator, I would joyfully accord them scientific status too, on a par with such avowedly scientific posits as quarks and black holes."

Or as Kitcher (an atheist philosopher of science) says "postulating an unobserved Creator need be no more unscientfic tha postulating unobserved particles"

All philosophers of science know that demarcating between science and non science in all instances is ridiculously hard and have pretty much given up on the problem as insoluable. However, you can distinguish between good science and bad science. An appeal to God may have scientific status, but it also may be bad science (like the current ID programme).

So, appeals to God are not ruled out in principle, in science.

2. Seems like a no win situation. Many atheists will (supposedly) only accept "scientfic" evidence for God, but according to you, that sort of evidence is ruled out in principle."
Well, maybe the confusion is because of statements by groups such as National Academies of Science:

"In science, explanations must be based on evidence drawn from examining the natural world.... Because they are not a part of nature, supernatural entities cannot be investigated by science."

"Science is a way of knowing about the natural
world. It is limited to explaining the natural
world through natural causes. Science can say
nothing about the supernatural. Whether God
exists or not is a question about which science
is neutral."
http://www.colorado.edu...

Conventional wisdom says science can not address the supernatural.

Does it? Also, doesn't science often overturn "conventional wisdom"? ;)

Well, no, not about itself, not often.
Occasionally, yes, of course. The Scientific method has undergone several revisions in just the last 50 years, for example.
It is not in the habit of overturning it's own conventional wisdom.


There's no such thing as THE scientific method (as in a method that covers all of science). It's more like the scientific method(s).

Yes, it is. Science ALWAYS overturns it's own conventional wisdom.

We should not be surprised that some people disagree, in certain circumstances.

It seems to me that the statement such as "So, appeals to God are not ruled out in principle, in science.", is a qualified statement, not universally recognize as true by Philosophers of Science.

No, I'm saying the demarcation problem (distinguishing between science and non-science) is one that is recognized as nearly insoluable by most philosophers of science, because any criteria proposed will inevitably exclude ostensibly "real" scientific enteprises and include non scientific enterprises.

Well I would have to see a reference on that.

"Central questions in the philosophy of science have long been what science is, what characterizes science and what distinguishes science from non-science (the demarcation problem). These questions have recently somewhat moved out of focus, however, due to the lack of acceptable answers. Philosophers of science have not been able to satisfactorily explicate the nature of science (for a recent suggestion, see Hoyningen-Huene, 2008) or to specify any clear-cut criterion by which science could be demarcated from non-science or pseudo-science. As philosopher of science Paul Hoyningen-Huene (2008: 168) wrote: "fact is that at the beginning of the 21st century there is no consensus among philosophers or historians or scientists about the nature of science.""

http://www.iep.utm.edu...

Also, this:

http://plato.stanford.edu...

Philosophical problems are only insolvable if we expect universal agreement.
In practice there is the main body of belief, and those who splinter off and disagree. Each group has solved the problem, they just do not agree with each other.


Or, if they just don't have good answers to the problem.

Of course my statement about appeals to God isn't universally recognized, but the in principle arguments for excluding God are weak. The in practice arguments are much better.

The epistemology and metaphysics of Science are as determined by Philosophers of Science, as accepted by the professional organizations of Science.
So if you can show some professional organizations who agree with you, your argument may have merit.
If not, just another splinter group who may or may not be successful at changing the epistemology and metaphysics of Science.

So, enlighten me.
Show me the money.

There is no epsitemology and metaphysics of science (as in that there is one epistemological or metaphycial system that "Science" entails) so there is nothing to change. Your challenge is built on false premises.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,153
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2015 2:15:06 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/3/2015 1:29:51 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 2/3/2015 12:07:06 PM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 2/3/2015 11:07:32 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 2/3/2015 11:00:09 AM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 2/3/2015 10:14:15 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
I'll just repost what I said in another thread:

"1. Science isn't based on methodolgical naturalism. That's a meta-theoretic shaping principle that's popular nowadays, not science itself. MSP's can used or discarded depending on well they work. If an appeal to God works in ones best scientific theories then that is science.

As Quine said (the quintessential atheist empiricist): "If I saw indirect explanatory benefit in positing sensibilia, possibilia, spirits, a Creator, I would joyfully accord them scientific status too, on a par with such avowedly scientific posits as quarks and black holes."

Or as Kitcher (an atheist philosopher of science) says "postulating an unobserved Creator need be no more unscientfic tha postulating unobserved particles"

All philosophers of science know that demarcating between science and non science in all instances is ridiculously hard and have pretty much given up on the problem as insoluable. However, you can distinguish between good science and bad science. An appeal to God may have scientific status, but it also may be bad science (like the current ID programme).

So, appeals to God are not ruled out in principle, in science.

2. Seems like a no win situation. Many atheists will (supposedly) only accept "scientfic" evidence for God, but according to you, that sort of evidence is ruled out in principle."
Well, maybe the confusion is because of statements by groups such as National Academies of Science:

"In science, explanations must be based on evidence drawn from examining the natural world.... Because they are not a part of nature, supernatural entities cannot be investigated by science."

"Science is a way of knowing about the natural
world. It is limited to explaining the natural
world through natural causes. Science can say
nothing about the supernatural. Whether God
exists or not is a question about which science
is neutral."
http://www.colorado.edu...

Conventional wisdom says science can not address the supernatural.

Does it? Also, doesn't science often overturn "conventional wisdom"? ;)

Well, no, not about itself, not often.
Occasionally, yes, of course. The Scientific method has undergone several revisions in just the last 50 years, for example.
It is not in the habit of overturning it's own conventional wisdom.


There's no such thing as THE scientific method (as in a method that covers all of science). It's more like the scientific method(s).

Yes, it is. Science ALWAYS overturns it's own conventional wisdom.

We should not be surprised that some people disagree, in certain circumstances.

It seems to me that the statement such as "So, appeals to God are not ruled out in principle, in science.", is a qualified statement, not universally recognize as true by Philosophers of Science.

No, I'm saying the demarcation problem (distinguishing between science and non-science) is one that is recognized as nearly insoluable by most philosophers of science, because any criteria proposed will inevitably exclude ostensibly "real" scientific enteprises and include non scientific enterprises.

Well I would have to see a reference on that.

"Central questions in the philosophy of science have long been what science is, what characterizes science and what distinguishes science from non-science (the demarcation problem). These questions have recently somewhat moved out of focus, however, due to the lack of acceptable answers. Philosophers of science have not been able to satisfactorily explicate the nature of science (for a recent suggestion, see Hoyningen-Huene, 2008) or to specify any clear-cut criterion by which science could be demarcated from non-science or pseudo-science. As philosopher of science Paul Hoyningen-Huene (2008: 168) wrote: "fact is that at the beginning of the 21st century there is no consensus among philosophers or historians or scientists about the nature of science.""

http://www.iep.utm.edu...

Also, this:

http://plato.stanford.edu...

Philosophical problems are only insolvable if we expect universal agreement.
In practice there is the main body of belief, and those who splinter off and disagree. Each group has solved the problem, they just do not agree with each other.


Or, if they just don't have good answers to the problem.

Of course my statement about appeals to God isn't universally recognized, but the in principle arguments for excluding God are weak. The in practice arguments are much better.

The epistemology and metaphysics of Science are as determined by Philosophers of Science, as accepted by the professional organizations of Science.
So if you can show some professional organizations who agree with you, your argument may have merit.
If not, just another splinter group who may or may not be successful at changing the epistemology and metaphysics of Science.

So, enlighten me.
Show me the money.

There is no epsitemology and metaphysics of science (as in that there is one epistemological or metaphycial system that "Science" entails) so there is nothing to change. Your challenge is built on false premises.

I believe I see your point and it is well taken.
Lots of new information (to me) to review.
I may revisit.
Thanks
Iredia
Posts: 1,608
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2015 6:00:20 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/1/2015 10:21:20 PM, a_drumming_dog wrote:
First off, I'm a christian. Just wanted to get that out of the way.

So, my problem with science, especially in research into evolution, is that almost all scientist seem to presuppose atheism/naturalism when they do science/research. For example, with research into evolution and the origin of life, it seems to me that scientists presuppose naturalism, and then because of their presupposition, they conclude that there must be a natural mechanism by which life arose/evolved, then they look for that mechanism even if it may not be actual. Perhaps some of the mechanisms of today's theories only work in theory. I do not know. It seems that scientists do not even consider divine intervention as a possibility of our existence. Of course, if they were to consider divine intervention a possibility, their work would cease to be real "science," since science deal with the natural world only. It seems to me that much evidence (especially that of common descent) can be explained through common design just as well.

These are just my opinions of course. What do you guys think?

It has to be one of the most successful and amazing paradigm changes in history. Scientists of old had no qualms with divine intervention. But today even suggesting intelligent design for life's origins is a no-go area to scientists despite the glaring lack of evidence of abiogenesis and the many failures in OOL experiments and their penchant for intervention in their experiments supposedly simulating pre-biotic conditions.

It is my hope that at some point though scinetists will wake up and smell the coffee and kick out the monster called materialism plaguing the scientific enterprise.
Porn babes be distracting me. Dudes be stealing me stuff. I'm all about the cash from now. I'm not playing Jesus anymore.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2015 9:38:19 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/3/2015 2:15:06 PM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 2/3/2015 1:29:51 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 2/3/2015 12:07:06 PM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 2/3/2015 11:07:32 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 2/3/2015 11:00:09 AM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 2/3/2015 10:14:15 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
I'll just repost what I said in another thread:

"1. Science isn't based on methodolgical naturalism. That's a meta-theoretic shaping principle that's popular nowadays, not science itself. MSP's can used or discarded depending on well they work. If an appeal to God works in ones best scientific theories then that is science.

As Quine said (the quintessential atheist empiricist): "If I saw indirect explanatory benefit in positing sensibilia, possibilia, spirits, a Creator, I would joyfully accord them scientific status too, on a par with such avowedly scientific posits as quarks and black holes."

Or as Kitcher (an atheist philosopher of science) says "postulating an unobserved Creator need be no more unscientfic tha postulating unobserved particles"

All philosophers of science know that demarcating between science and non science in all instances is ridiculously hard and have pretty much given up on the problem as insoluable. However, you can distinguish between good science and bad science. An appeal to God may have scientific status, but it also may be bad science (like the current ID programme).

So, appeals to God are not ruled out in principle, in science.

2. Seems like a no win situation. Many atheists will (supposedly) only accept "scientfic" evidence for God, but according to you, that sort of evidence is ruled out in principle."
Well, maybe the confusion is because of statements by groups such as National Academies of Science:

"In science, explanations must be based on evidence drawn from examining the natural world.... Because they are not a part of nature, supernatural entities cannot be investigated by science."

"Science is a way of knowing about the natural
world. It is limited to explaining the natural
world through natural causes. Science can say
nothing about the supernatural. Whether God
exists or not is a question about which science
is neutral."
http://www.colorado.edu...

Conventional wisdom says science can not address the supernatural.

Does it? Also, doesn't science often overturn "conventional wisdom"? ;)

Well, no, not about itself, not often.
Occasionally, yes, of course. The Scientific method has undergone several revisions in just the last 50 years, for example.
It is not in the habit of overturning it's own conventional wisdom.


There's no such thing as THE scientific method (as in a method that covers all of science). It's more like the scientific method(s).

Yes, it is. Science ALWAYS overturns it's own conventional wisdom.

We should not be surprised that some people disagree, in certain circumstances.

It seems to me that the statement such as "So, appeals to God are not ruled out in principle, in science.", is a qualified statement, not universally recognize as true by Philosophers of Science.

No, I'm saying the demarcation problem (distinguishing between science and non-science) is one that is recognized as nearly insoluable by most philosophers of science, because any criteria proposed will inevitably exclude ostensibly "real" scientific enteprises and include non scientific enterprises.

Well I would have to see a reference on that.

"Central questions in the philosophy of science have long been what science is, what characterizes science and what distinguishes science from non-science (the demarcation problem). These questions have recently somewhat moved out of focus, however, due to the lack of acceptable answers. Philosophers of science have not been able to satisfactorily explicate the nature of science (for a recent suggestion, see Hoyningen-Huene, 2008) or to specify any clear-cut criterion by which science could be demarcated from non-science or pseudo-science. As philosopher of science Paul Hoyningen-Huene (2008: 168) wrote: "fact is that at the beginning of the 21st century there is no consensus among philosophers or historians or scientists about the nature of science.""

http://www.iep.utm.edu...

Also, this:

http://plato.stanford.edu...

Philosophical problems are only insolvable if we expect universal agreement.
In practice there is the main body of belief, and those who splinter off and disagree. Each group has solved the problem, they just do not agree with each other.


Or, if they just don't have good answers to the problem.

Of course my statement about appeals to God isn't universally recognized, but the in principle arguments for excluding God are weak. The in practice arguments are much better.

The epistemology and metaphysics of Science are as determined by Philosophers of Science, as accepted by the professional organizations of Science.
So if you can show some professional organizations who agree with you, your argument may have merit.
If not, just another splinter group who may or may not be successful at changing the epistemology and metaphysics of Science.

So, enlighten me.
Show me the money.

There is no epsitemology and metaphysics of science (as in that there is one epistemological or metaphycial system that "Science" entails) so there is nothing to change. Your challenge is built on false premises.

I believe I see your point and it is well taken.
Lots of new information (to me) to review.
I may revisit.
Thanks

I appreciate your open mind, sir.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
debate_power
Posts: 726
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2015 2:18:22 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/1/2015 10:21:20 PM, a_drumming_dog wrote:
First off, I'm a christian. Just wanted to get that out of the way.

So, my problem with science, especially in research into evolution, is that almost all scientist seem to presuppose atheism/naturalism when they do science/research. For example, with research into evolution and the origin of life, it seems to me that scientists presuppose naturalism, and then because of their presupposition, they conclude that there must be a natural mechanism by which life arose/evolved, then they look for that mechanism even if it may not be actual. Perhaps some of the mechanisms of today's theories only work in theory. I do not know. It seems that scientists do not even consider divine intervention as a possibility of our existence. Of course, if they were to consider divine intervention a possibility, their work would cease to be real "science," since science deal with the natural world only. It seems to me that much evidence (especially that of common descent) can be explained through common design just as well.

These are just my opinions of course. What do you guys think?

We would consider divine intervention a possibility if there were a reason to believe so... you can't interpret a pie chart for the possibility of something if that thing is not on the pie chart. Through the pie chart I mentioned, I represent existing scientific evidence.

For divine intervention, there needs to be divinity...

Scientists have not seen evidence of divinity, thus they reject the possibility of divine interpretation, seeing as they do that divinity is an extraneous assumption. Science is about going on what one knows, not making arguments from ignorance.

Whoever makes an argument from ignorance is destroying the scientific process.

Evolution is science so long as its remains scientific fact. Science allows for the possibility of evolution, like every other fact, being refuted.

What then, is your problem with science?
You can call me Mark if you like.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2015 5:08:51 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
scientist seem to presuppose atheism/naturalism when they do science/research.

DD, what is being assumed is empiricism. This is the principle that physical properties determine physical consequences. Empiricism -- the idea that nature plays fair with everyone -- is key to the repeatability of scientific experiments, and if you believe that (for example) moral, social or emotional properties determine physical consequences and could prove that, then this would represent a major challenge to scientific investigation.

However, nobody has ever proved it -- and if it were true, it should be easy to prove.

Modern science started in the Enlightenment, when most European scientists were Christian, and expected to find tangible evidence of (for example) humans descended from Adam and Eve, a garden of Eden, an ark full of animals. These are all physical claims and if true they should be supportable scientifically.

However over time, science has debunked the major geographical, geological, physical, astrophysical, medical, psychological and sociological claims of religion (not just of Christianity -- of pretty much all religions.) Consequently, the rate of religiious belief among top scientists is now lower than any other profession in the world. The US Academy of Science runs a periodic survey, and currently only 7% of its members profess some religious belief. This is not because of some ideological indoctrination, but simply because asking questions and answering them empirically tends to erode ideas lacking evidence.

Because nature operates empirically, experiments are repeatable regardless of your personal beliefs. Thus, the religious belief or disbelief of scientists does not affect their experiments or results, but it does mean that some questions are no longer explored. For example, very few scientists now are looking into claims of miracles, because so many past claims were comprehensively debunked. Few credible scientists are now looking for Noah's Ark or the Garden of Eden any more, because science has refuted those stories, and come up with better explanations for world and human history.

On the other hand, if contrary evidence were credible and available, any scientist -- atheist or theist -- could test it, and if it proved robust, scientists of every culture all over the world would accept it.

What's hard is to get people without scientific literacy to understand the fairness in the process, and accept the umpire's call.

I hope that may help.