Naturalism is Philosophically Unsound

Post Reply New Topic

As I thought it must, this exchange is bogged in a slush of undefined, nebulous, notions. One can't talk science without some definite description (definition) of what it IS.

Hecklers and obstructionists just love this confusion because it allows them to sabotage any argument that is inconvenient to their ideology by just shifting the goal posts and making up the rules to suit themselves.

I suggest that any ideological Materialists who insist that any "proof" of anything must be empirical do not belong in a discussion of metaphysical things (such as logic) and they should retire to their sand pit, play with their sand castles, and allow the adults to get on with their conversation.

I also suggest that for this conversation to continue a definition of concepts is indispensable. Perhaps the OP would like to begin the process of establishing such definitions.

Thing is David we have been over and over this. with topics such as, What constitutes evidence and, Can assumptions be made in science.

Throughout all of this you have maintained your mantra of "I don't believe in your ideology of pseudoscience I believe in real science etc etc" ad-nauseam. The thing is David we on this side of the debate have made it very clear what we think constitutes valid scientific inquiry, you on the other hand have not. Aside from attesting that evolution is impossible due to entropy (which we have comprehensively shown to be incorrect) and that you do not realise E=MC2 is not a stand alone equation ie it has adjudicative equations which deal with massless particles, you have not elucidated on what it is you actually believe. How do you define "Real Science"?

As I say above, we have repeatedly shown what we regard as valid science, it is you who are being less than transparent.

How profound

Here is an idea: Instead of insulting others intelligence. You show how proof can be achieved without empiricism. Even accidental discoveries are verified, and this needs to be repeated to be proven.

In other words, drop the complex and have a reasonable debate.

Logic, such as deductive reason, is something that was defined by philosophers, but was never exclusive to them.

In my experience often people who think they are logical, tend be not analytical enough to go through multiple layers of deduction. Very few things have an exact answer. Maybe this is something we can agree on? On the other hand for hyper-analytical types, we need to break out of the cycle

The point being is Logic is more a means to an end. "Logical" people simply think they are right, but aren't necessarily logical thinkers, and the "logic" of nature is not the logic of the individual. Perception influences a great deal but we know form scientific studies that perception is often way off the reality. Generally humans have a poor understanding of risk for example.

The problem I have philosophy is it often has this bias of introspection. Science has the same problem, but it is aware of that fact, and good scientists should try to isolate, that is part of the modern scientific method.

Ok then, 'rip it to shreds'. You claim this has already been done, and that no one should take any of the cosmological arguments (there is actually more than one) seriously, so... rip away! Give it your best shot. Who knows, maybe I'll even be convinced. You've got nothing to lose in trying.

'Dude'? Who uses language like this apart from teenagers?

Ok, I'll provide two definitions, to get things going.

a) The scientific method - the process whereby knowledge about the natural realm is gained via 1) the observation of patterns within nature, leading to 2) hypotheses formulated to account for said patterns, which in turn leads one to 3) test one's hypothesis with the objective of determining whether or not one's hypothesis can account for the aforesaid observations. Hypotheses need to be testable, capable of being independently supported, and falsifiable. Evidence that is found, whether in favour or against one's given hypothesis, needs to be interpreted in the light of what is already known. 'Science' does not say this and that; scientists, on the other hand, do.

b) Scientism - the philosophical position that has as its central premise the belief that only via the scientific method can one come to an accurate and complete understanding of reality.

Everyone happy with these definitions? If not, say so.

On the one hand you claim here that 'it actually has' (i.e. science, that is, has demonstrated we don't need God), but then you admit to the, very real, limitations of science when it comes to actually dealing with this question. So... 'science' actually has not shown us that we don't need God anymore. At best, one can say that, using the methodology of science, we cannot reach any conclusions one way or the other.

(By the way, it is not 'science' that makes claims like this, but 'scientists' - an important distinction).

I think a complete understanding of reality is very ambitious, there is a lot to understand.

I think that "Scientism" as you call it isn't quite representative. What I think is that the scientific method, and empirical science is the better way to approach questions of nature. It is not the only way, but other ways fall short in isolation.

There is historic knowledge that is correct (i.e. some traditional medicine), which formed though trial and error, but it is the scientific method that can verify these claims and science can better explain why.

When you form an hypothesis, that is actually fairly open. You could use all sort of approaches, and ways or reasoning. Personally I think using direct observation where available, and going form the most likely to least likely is a good approach. Of course I also like the idea of giving priority to those would be easier to eliminate. Too often, even in science people want to "prove" themselves right, which can produce bad science sometimes.

Ah! Good man.

I didn't expect to agree with you and I don't altogether. I don't think we can equate science with scientific method. For one thing it immediately begs the question; "What is this stuff called science, and how and why can it have this other stuff called method applied to it?"

As for scientism, well, I think it's just another of those "isms" where someone with a little knowledge and a huge fancy takes a perfectly good tool or idea way out of its proper context and tries to make a whole belief system out of it. The makings of a clever comedy sketch, I recon.

Anyhow, science;
I will be pleased to cause a great flurry of feathers and noise in the hen-house by suggesting that philosophy is the mother and queen of all natural science... all the various disciplines in natural science are but subsidiary branches within the great Queenship of philosophy.

So, for a definition I suggest; "The search for knowledge and understanding of reality using the tools of sense and intellect (observation and logic)."

What about that? The various disciplines can have definitions within that which are specific to their field of operation.

I will admit that i use 'science' as an entity and interchangable with scientists, the distinction is indeed valid, but this does not invalidate the bigger point.

Allow me to clarify the (apparant) contradiction in my claims:
I claim that scientists and scientific research have shown that there is no need for a diety "inside our known and visible universe, for the timeperiod lasting from half a second since the big bang up to this very moment we live in".
The second half was the big bang itself and everything (if any) outside of our visible universe, science/scientists can make no claims about that, and therefore don't try.

The point i was trying to make was that all claims made by deists (about the formation of life, earth, evolution, stars, the whole 'visible' universe) can be explained without a diety.

And indeed, you have summarised my argument, both deists and scientists have the same amount of evidence for and against the existence of a diety: El Zilcho. But scientists have an alternative, with heaps of evidence, while diests do not

a. Scientists have the most evidence that supports their claims.

b. The claim that naturalism is philosophically unsound has little evidence to support it.

:: The claim that naturalism is philosophically unsound needs the be revised to fit the available evidence.


Philosophy is not natural.

Science IS

Quote:
"The search for knowledge and understanding of reality using the tools of sense and intellect (observation and logic)."

OMG! Totally Agreed.. this is the Oldavid I am looking for.. with the 'Newdavid'.. mixed in here.. of course..

Quote:

"Scientists have the most evidence that supports their claims."

Bull SH**.

Scientists rarely skim the emotional life of human beings and are almost totally ignorant of it,
per the use of the very limited tool called the scientific method.

All human rational decisions are based on emotion, as even science now shows.

THAT'S IRONIC!

But yet science, STILL is not A tool
per the extremely limited scientific method
THAT CAN BE USED AS AN ACCURATE
TOOL TO
measure the experiment of human being
THAT is almost totally emotionally based
as a reality of the human condition.

Even John Nash, the noted schizophrenic,
AND possibly Asperger's LEANING MATH GENIUS
WHO ADMITTINGLY
HAS little to no
cognitive empathy, DID ADMIT
later in life that WITHOUT a full HUMAN emotional life
in understanding the emotions of others,
his SO-CALLED SCIENTIFIC
METHOD BASED
game theory could not
be held UP,
as VALID.

He IS BiG enough to admit he is wrong.

There are not very many folks BIG enough

in this forum to admit THAT..

Sadly or with little to no complex
nuanced human emotion EXPRESSED

@ALL.

Quote:

"Philosophy is not natural."

Bull SH**

Human emotions are the basis for all human actions, including what is
abstractly defined in human constructs as an action in making the tools
of abstract constructs, generated in origination by
human emotions, LABELED AND defined
as Logic and Reason.

The scientific method cannot measure what is the fullest reality
of the human condition, which is the emotional life of each
human being that is a NON-REPEATABLE EXPERIENCE AND OR
EXPERIMENT IF one WANTS TO LOOK AT THE HUMAN CONDITION
IN SCIENTIFIC METHOD TALK.

THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD IS HIGHLY OVER-RATED FOR THIS ONE
SIMPLE AND VERY COMPLEX 'REASON'.

EMOTION IS NOT REASON.

THE ONLY WAY TO MEASURE EMOTION IS TO OBSERVE IT.

IT IS NOT A DISCRETE REPEATABLE EXPERIMENT.

THEREFORE PHILOSOPHY THAT CAN MEASURE HUMAN EMOTION
THROUGH OBSERVANCE AND GENERAL LOGIC IS THE ONLY REAL
WAY

TO EVEN FRIGGING UNDERSTAND WHAT IT

MEANS TO BE A HUMAN BEING.

AND THEN, one can get to the point of being able to figure out how to
live this frigging life without human suffering, misery, and the killing
fields of HATE, flowing with the blood GENERATED BY literal thinking
psychopathic
leaning minds who don't give an F about the emotional life of their


FELLOW HUMAN BEINGS,

MAINLY 'CAUSE THEY ARE IMPOVERISHED IN ALL THAT REALLY
COUNTS AND GENERATES UNCONDiTIONAL LOVING ACTION
AMONG HUMAN BEINGS.

AND THAT MY FRIEND
IS EMOTIONS FULLY EXPERIENCED,

EXPRESSED, SHARED,

AND VALUED AS SUCH,

ABOVE ALL OTHER MATERIALISTIC COLLECTING WAYS OF LIFE
EITHER IN PROVING SOMEONE IS RIGHT FOR ILLUSORY POWER,

OR THE KILLING FIELDS

OF

HATE GENERATED IN 'LOVE'
OF ILLUSORY POWER AND COLLECTING

MATERIALISTIC

GOODS.

Last edited by aghogday on 26 Mar 2015, 8:17 am, edited 1 time in total.

^ tl:dr ^

Quote:

^.........^

6"tl;dr"6

This is what I look like when I 'REALLY' STICK 'MY TONGUE'
OUT AT 'FOLKS'.. ButT ONLY THE PG-RATED VERSION...
NOT THE 'MIN' VERSION..@@@;)



HAVE A NICE NOW.

I SURELY WILL WITH 100% FAITH IN ME AND 100% TRUST

IN THE GOD OF MOTHER NATURE TRUTH AND LIGHT

AKA ILLUMINATI.



"There are no words OR HUMANS bolder than me

IN REAL LIFE".

QUOTE BY ME,

BY A
WAY....

I WILL LOVE TO SEE
'THE FACE' BEHIND "one's MASK"..

[quote="Lintar"]

a) The scientific method - the process whereby knowledge about the natural realm is gained via 1) the observation of patterns within nature, leading to 2) hypotheses formulated to account for said patterns, which in turn leads one to 3) test one's hypothesis with the objective of determining whether or not one's hypothesis can account for the aforesaid observations. Hypotheses need to be testable, capable of being independently supported, and falsifiable. Evidence that is found, whether in favour or against one's given hypothesis, needs to be interpreted in the light of what is already known. 'Science' does not [i]say this and that; scientists, on the other hand, do. [/i]


No. You have omitted an absolutely vital part of this, can the hypothesis predict further discoveries or can it predict future patterns. omitting this completely removes creativity from the process. Eg Predictions based upon prior discoveries are vastly important to the further gaining of knowledge and for the further verification of prior hypothesis. The Higgs Bosun is a great example of this, we had the Standard Model which predicted the existence of the Bosun, and as predicted it has been discovered, if it had not the Standard Model would have disintegrated.

What do you mean by the highlighted part?



As for scientism this is an invention of your own prejudice.

For me the Scientific model is the best and most complete method of verification we have. Sure anecdotal evidence is useful, and serves us well. After all you do not need to understand Einsteins General Theory nor Newtons laws of motion to "know" that if you fall from a sheer cliff you will most likely die. But if we want to understand why this is so, then we NEED the scientific method. No amount of philosophy will explain the actual physics behind the event.

The Scientific method can only explain things and events that have a natural cause. If there is a supernatural realm that lies beyond the laws of the Universe, science cannot explain it. However it can and has explained many things once thought to be supernatural.

Therefore if a hypothesis cannot be falsified then is it not Scientific as it falls beyond the scope of science. Several points about this

1. Hypothesis that are predictions of already verified knowledge are Scientific as they have a basis in prior knowledge, experiments can be set up to test these hypotheses and eventually (Higgs Bosun as a case in point) they will either be verified or falsified.

2. Things like String Theory and other areas of theoretical physics sitting of the boundaries of knowledge are to a point somewhat philosophical although they have a basis in maths. These hypothesis are vital in the search for knowledge and require a great deal of creativity, are they non-science? Debatable, they are most certainly helping us to work out where to look in our search for reality. Most important in my mind is that they are based upon Math and prior knowledge

3. Speculation based upon nothing but philosophical reasoning is not science. For example the OP has stated that God is not made of the same stuff as everything else in the universe and therefore cannot be detected, this is simple speculation and an attempt to remove "God" from discovery by observation.

If you really think there is a better way than the scientific method to explain reality then please lead the way. But Philosophical speculation kept us in the dark for millennia. Philosophy has its place regarding ethics, morals, what is called spiritualism, but I find nothing objective about it

Yes, I left that out, but not on purpose. Predictions play their role in this process as well.



and



I did not say that we do not need the scientific method. What I did point out was that relying on it, to the exclusion of all else, and to simply dismiss alternatives to it, was wrong. That is what scientism actually is. I am not 'prejudiced' when it comes to determining what is real, this being an accusation of yours I will not accept, because it is based upon the notion that I may have ulterior motives for writing what I do here. Well, no, I am not the type of person to do something like that.



Yes, but it certainly does not rule out the supernatural. For instance, the current gossip within cosmological circles that there may be alternative realities, a 'multiverse' so to speak. Is not this idea, by definition, supernatural in essence? Do not these other realities lie beyond our own and, therefore, beyond what we consider nature to be?



I don't consider 'string theory' to be serious science. It just isn't. It's a joke. After 30 or so years of effort, what has 'string theory' actually demonstrated? Nothing. I'm sure 'string theorists' will disagree with my assessment of their non-science, but facts are facts. Why don't they just admit to engaging in philosophy? I don't have anything against philosophers, if they are honest with me about what they are actually doing.



Yes, I know. I didn't say it was. String theory is also entirely speculative, but you don't seem to have issues with that.



It's not a question of finding something that is better, but recognising that there are complimentary alternatives. Why is that so hard for so many to understand these days?