Run The Gauntlet
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 6 Votes - 2 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
28-02-2013, 02:34 PM
RE: Run The Gauntlet
Quote:Scientific skeptics believe that empirical investigation of reality leads to the truth, and that the scientific method is best suited to this purpose.
Fascinating. The father of SS, Carl Sagan, had as big a confirmatory bias as one of the first modern "out of the closet and getting paid for it" Atheists, as we know.
And SS is taken to be how scientific enquiry is best because it comes from a naturalist's perspective. I'm shocked! Smile SS starts with "there is nothing supernatural, so from that perspective let's investigate the supernatural in a rigorous manner". Got it. Unbiased, critical review.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-02-2013, 02:42 PM (This post was last modified: 28-02-2013 05:29 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Run The Gauntlet
(28-02-2013 02:34 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  
Quote:Scientific skeptics believe that empirical investigation of reality leads to the truth, and that the scientific method is best suited to this purpose.
Fascinating. The father of SS, Carl Sagan, had as big a confirmatory bias as one of the first modern "out of the closet and getting paid for it" Atheists, as we know.
And SS is taken to be how scientific enquiry is best because it comes from a naturalist's perspective. I'm shocked! Smile SS starts with "there is nothing supernatural, so from that perspective let's investigate the supernatural in a rigorous manner". Got it. Unbiased, critical review.

LOL.
Wrong. There is no EVIDENCE for anything "supernatural". (BTW, you also have not even defined what "supernatural" means. If it IS, it's "natural". Are you calling your god "unnatural" ? ) Learn some History, SPJ, (Mr. "Classical Education").
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Locke
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Bacon
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ren%C3%A9_Descartes

Now get back to work, and stop stealing from your boss, SPJ.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
28-02-2013, 02:56 PM (This post was last modified: 28-02-2013 03:01 PM by Vosur.)
RE: Run The Gauntlet
(28-02-2013 02:34 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  
Quote:Scientific skeptics believe that empirical investigation of reality leads to the truth, and that the scientific method is best suited to this purpose.
Fascinating. The father of SS, Carl Sagan, had as big a confirmatory bias as one of the first modern "out of the closet and getting paid for it" Atheists, as we know.
I'm afraid to tell you that "we" don't know that at all.

(28-02-2013 02:34 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  And SS is taken to be how scientific enquiry is best because it comes from a naturalist's perspective. I'm shocked! Smile SS starts with "there is nothing supernatural, so from that perspective let's investigate the supernatural in a rigorous manner". Got it. Unbiased, critical review.
It doesn't actually do that. You are attacking a self-constructed straw man version of scientific skepticism.

Both scientific skepticism and the scientific method are based on methodological naturalism, which is different from philosophical naturalism.

Wikipedia Wrote:Methodological naturalism is concerned not with claims about what exists but with methods of learning what is nature. It is strictly the idea that all scientific endeavors—all hypotheses and events—are to be explained and tested by reference to natural causes and events. The genesis of nature, e.g., by an act of God, is not addressed. This second sense of naturalism seeks only to provide a framework within which to conduct the scientific study of the laws of nature. Methodological naturalism is a way of acquiring knowledge. It is a distinct system of thought concerned with a cognitive approach to reality, and is thus a philosophy of knowledge. Studies by sociologist Elaine Ecklund suggest that religious scientists do in fact apply methodological naturalism. They report that their religious beliefs affect the way they think about the implications, often moral, of their work, but not the way they practice science.

In a series of articles and books from 1996 onwards, Robert T. Pennock wrote using the term methodological naturalism to clarify that the scientific method confines itself to natural explanations without assuming the existence or non-existence of the supernatural, and is not based on dogmatic metaphysical naturalism as claimed by creationists and proponents of intelligent design, in particular Phillip E. Johnson. Pennock's testimony as an expert witness at the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial was cited by the Judge in his Memorandum Opinion concluding that "Methodological naturalism is a "ground rule" of science today":

"Expert testimony reveals that since the scientific revolution of the 16th and 17th centuries, science has been limited to the search for natural causes to explain natural phenomena.... While supernatural explanations may be important and have merit, they are not part of science." Methodological naturalism is thus "a self-imposed convention of science." It is a "ground rule" that "requires scientists to seek explanations in the world around us based upon what we can observe, test, replicate, and verify."
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalism_...naturalism

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-02-2013, 02:57 PM
RE: Run The Gauntlet
There is no evidence any freethinker has presented in 45 pages for anything natural existing at all, except to define empirical items (videos) as if mass gives them true reality--this despite the obvious gap in logic that IF those videos are "real" they are merely binary data transmitted electronically and "heard and seen" via a computer--they have almost no mass in reality.
Or are you going to say there are absolutes that are true? Would you like to go down that road, perhaps, BB? Are you saying that there is absolutely no evidence for anything supernatural and absolutely, that only empirical evidences have real fabric in reality? Are you absolutely sure?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-02-2013, 02:58 PM
RE: Run The Gauntlet
From RationalWiki!
"Methodological naturalism is the label for the required assumption of philosophical naturalism when working with the scientific method."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-02-2013, 03:02 PM
RE: Run The Gauntlet
And before you accuse me of trimming the article, may I point out this quote as well?
"To avoid these traps scientists assume that all causes are empirical and naturalistic; which means they can be measured, quantified and studied methodically."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-02-2013, 03:03 PM
RE: Run The Gauntlet
(28-02-2013 02:21 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  
Quote:None in theory. Although things being likely or having evidence at this stage make assumptions about it limited.
Okay, then if we ourselves advanced to deep space travel, and planted space seed, would it be logical for the intelligent life we planted to seek contact with us later in their development?
It would be logical for the intelligent life that developed in space to question their origins. If we left no evidence, just left some life-form that could develop; there would be no logical reason for them to come to the conclusion that they came from anything out of space.

But if they traveled out of space, found us, and saw the documented evidence of our founding of life on their planet, that would be an experience they should accept. It must assuredly wouldn't be something accepted easily if they're like us, but explaining that evidence in a generation or two it would be understood.

This discussion reminds me a lot of this Futurama episode:
http://www.comedycentral.com/episodes/oz...n-6-ep-609

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-02-2013, 03:03 PM (This post was last modified: 28-02-2013 03:09 PM by Vosur.)
RE: Run The Gauntlet
(28-02-2013 02:58 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  From RationalWiki!
"Methodological naturalism is the label for the required assumption of philosophical naturalism when working with the scientific method."
I am getting really fucking tired of your dishonest tactics, PleaseJesus. The cited RationalWiki article continues as follows:

RationalWiki Wrote:However, this assumption of naturalism need not extend beyond an assumption of methodology. This is what separates methodological naturalism from philosophical naturalism - the former is merely a tool and makes no truth claim; while the latter makes the philosophical - essentially atheistic - claim that only natural causes exist.
Source: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Methodological_naturalism

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Vosur's post
28-02-2013, 03:24 PM
RE: Run The Gauntlet
I saw that sentence--it is surrounded by the other sentences I quoted!
"
Methodological naturalism is the label for the required assumption of philosophical naturalism when working with the scientific method. Methodological naturalists limit their scientific research to the study of natural causes, because any attempts to define causal relationships with the supernatural are never fruitful, and result in the creation of scientific "dead ends" and God of the gaps-type hypotheses. To avoid these traps scientists assume that all causes are empirical and naturalistic; which means they can be measured, quantified and studied methodically.

However, this assumption of naturalism need not extend beyond an assumption of methodology. This is what separates methodological naturalism from philosophical naturalism - the former is merely a tool and makes no truth claim; while the latter makes the philosophical - essentially atheistic - claim that only natural causes exist."

To wit, MN is predicated on the philosophical assumption, and scientists avoid a God of the gaps by making all causes naturalistic (also so they can keep their faculty tenure!).

But JUST BECAUSE ALL IS NATURALISTIC AND PREDICATED ON A PHILOSOPHICAL ASSUMPTION, those same biased skeptics can use a tool of naturalism to make no truth claims about impossible-to-naturalistically-verify metaphysical claims!

What did I miss/misrepresent? SS says it is not a truth tool but a methodology, a methodology predicated on the fact that is an empirical, not metaphysical, tool!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-02-2013, 04:07 PM (This post was last modified: 28-02-2013 04:23 PM by Vosur.)
RE: Run The Gauntlet
(28-02-2013 03:24 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  To wit, MN is predicated on the philosophical assumption, and scientists avoid a God of the gaps by making all causes naturalistic (also so they can keep their faculty tenure!).

But JUST BECAUSE ALL IS NATURALISTIC AND PREDICATED ON A PHILOSOPHICAL ASSUMPTION, those same biased skeptics can use a tool of naturalism to make no truth claims about impossible-to-naturalistically-verify metaphysical claims!

What did I miss/misrepresent?
In one of your previous replies, you asserted that "SS starts with "there is nothing supernatural, so from that perspective let's investigate the supernatural in a rigorous manner"", to which I replied that scientific skepticism [ss] is not based on naturalism [n], but on methodological naturalism [mn] and that the two of them are different. You then responded with a quote from a RationalWiki in which no distinction between [mn] and [n] is made, making it look like they are one and the same thing. The surrounding context, however, reveals a very different picture, because the article continues with a clear differentiation between [mn] and [n] and concludes that they, are, in fact, different from each other, especially because [mn] makes no truth claim, whereas [n] does. This contradicts your formerly mentioned assertion, that [ss] starts with the position that "there is nothing supernatural".

Based on the fact that you admit that you have seen the part which I quoted, it can safely be said that you intentionally took the quote out of its surrounding context to make it look like it supports your position, when in reality, it does not. Unfortunately, this tactic, which is popularly known as "quote mining", is being employed rather frequently, especially by creationists.

I'll give you one final chance to refrain from using dishonest tactics, otherwise I'm simply not going to bother with you anymore.

(28-02-2013 03:24 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  SS says it is not a truth tool but a methodology, a methodology predicated on the fact that is an empirical, not metaphysical, tool!
You're mixing up different terms. While scientific skepticism is the position that "empirical investigation of reality leads to the truth", the scientific method is what [ss] claims to be the tool that is "best suited to this purpose". Finally, methodological naturalism is the methodology that both of them are based upon.

By the way, what is a 'metaphysical tool' even supposed to be?

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Vosur's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: