Well, it's ironic in the same sense that driving to work while wearing shoes is ironic. I.e. not at all.

And for the record, personal anecdotes do not count as empirical evidence in science. You can't use empiricism and empirical method interchangeably, in the same vein that you can't use "democratic" and "election" interchangeably.


Successful? The leading empiricist thinkers of the 20th century argued that methodological naturalism was not defensible in testing scientific hypotheses and scrapped it.

Do a google search for methodological naturalism and what you'll find plastered over your search results is theological blogs, rationalwiki and religious websites. Do a google scholar search and what you'll find is philosophical and theological essays.

Do a google search for empirical method on the other hand and you'll find encyclopedias, reputable science websites and wikipedia links. Do a google scholar search for empirical method and you'll find actual scientific articles.

MN in the layman world is a buzzword for theological quarrels, MN in the academic word is a philosophical and theological subject of very little consequence for the practical application of science.

MN is dead because it isn't needed. All MN does is wrap your hypothesis in the statement "for the purposes of this model, we will assume no supernatural force influences experiment or observation". There is no need to do that, any more than you need to say "for the purposes of this experiment we will assume invisible gnomes didn't rig the result".

Ironic that you can't see the irony. Talk to me some more about using your personal experiences as evidence for why empiricism isn't that important....

As I've repeatedly said before, something scientific must be empirical, but something can be empirical without being scientific, you're proving nothing here. Name a current major scientifically valid theory that doesn't meet the criteria I've listed, name just one that includes some supernatural element and you'll have disproved my argument. Note that I'm using the word 'valid' now, in the sceintific context, to rule out string 'theory' et al, since we dont know yet whether or not they actually explain anything.

Can't deny I've played a part in that, for which I apologise, however... wrong forum dude. What did you think was going to happen? Can you really start a thread about coincidence/gaurdian angels in RGT and not expect it to turn into something else?

Sure, I agree, and I haven't said otherwise. I have in fact said that science makes no claim to absolute knowledge. I've also said that it's not the only way to acquire and understand knowledge. I think I'm being mistaken for someone who thinsk science is the only way to do this and thinks it's infallibale. I don't, but I do think it's highly effective.

No, in fact I struggle to find one single credible source that contains all the criteria conveniently listed for me in one place. I do find them partially (but overall comprehensively) listed repeatedly in multiple places though. But... this issue of the criteria is seperate from the issue of which version of MN we apply, whether or not we try to include supernatural or non-physical elements. Interestingly, if you apply the criteria, you soon realise that you can't include the supernatural, because it meets none of them.

The naturalistic paradigm, used by the majority of scientists, makes claim 1). Others try to do it differently. But naturalistic science can't disprove the existence of something that it discounts in order to be applicable in the first place, it's why naturalistic science can't and never will be able to make any kind of claim about a spiritual god. If science could prove naturalistic god exists, it would only be because he exists in the physical, material universe, detectable with our senses, and would therefore not be the spirit, non-physical god described in the bible. So proving his existence would simultaneously disprove his existence as it's generally understood... Ironic.


Yes, it means that they're in conflict if you tried to use them in a court of law, the court wouldn't accept that, it rules out certain types of evidence in exactly the same way that the naturalistic paradigm rules out non-natural types of evidence/explanations. But again, you don't seem to understand that I understand that naturalistic science is very specific context, just as a court of law is, where rules are applied that may not be applied, and may not be relevant, in other arenas. It's simply one of many paradigms used for for the acquisition and understanding of knowledge (as I said before). But, it has been highly effective, has it not? I might not go so far as to claim it as 'the best', but I'm certainly a huge fan....

And I will continue to argue that we can't apply both paradigms simultaneously, our belief system wouldn't be coherent. Just as that parent/lawyer can't apply both sets of rules simultaneously with their child.

I wouldn't agree that they're 'simply patterns', I don't think that's strong enough. They have to be repeatedly and experimentally observable. i.e. this is what always happens. But perhaps we're not really disagreeing about this.

It does make sense logically. Physics, by definition, is the study of the material, physical properties of the universe. They make no claim about the supernatural, they simply rule it out in their attempt to provide explanations, e.g. IF the supernatural doesn't exist, then the universe was created by a process we call the big bang.

Since god is by definition supernatural (backed up by references in the bible to his spirit, non-physical nature), then he is simply ruled out by Physics and the laws of physics can only apply if you rule him out. But, that doesn't mean that he doesn't exist.

I believe in the importance of using empirical evidence to support scientific claims, but that does not necessarily make me an empiricist.

The big bang theory isn't exactly repeatable, as far as we can tell.

Also, show me a car that doesn't have doors. That proves that the definition of a car is that it has doors.

Note that I'm excluding all of the things that are scientific theories that don't meet my definition of scientific theory.

One might reasonably conclude from this that these words do not *DEFINE* a scientific theory... But not you. You're going to take a mixture of all sorts of things and cram them together in a unique way to defend some thesis that nobody in their right mind would defend. Because winning is more important than knowing.

What do you mean "which" version? You've been using this as if there's only one thing.

Trying to "include" is different from making ontological arguments against their existence. I'll repeat my analogy. Physicists do not include the methods of psychologists in their studies, and vice versa. But one does not therefore claim that the ideas of the other theory do not exist.

No, it doesn't. YOU make the claim.

This is a good example of defining yourself out of a conversation and the creation of empty categories. "Even if you could prove X, then you would disprove X." It's shoehorning knowledge into preexisting categories, rather than using knowledge to understand things.

The irony is that you've used irony several times in non-ironic settings and non-ironically.

I will remain willfully ignorant. Because not understanding and not learning from the scenarios presented to me is what I do. I will take whatever analogy you make, and misinterpret it so that I can remain in my belief of my rightness. Because clearly an analogy that uses two sets of distinct rules that aren't in conflict must therefore be in conflict and be incoherent.

There's no need to apologize. I took a flyer thinking that this forum might like a fun thread, that's all. And, besides, it's a hit anyway!

This is what passes for fun for us! Serious is the new fun.

Have at it, then! May this thread last forever.

I'm confused. You said, "a scientist adhering to methodological naturalism as philosophical method can rule out magic." I disputed this claim, saying that while scientists can point out that magic explanations aren't testable, they can't really rule them out. Are you now agreeing with me that scientists can't rule them out? If so, then on what basis are you claiming that the scientific method is mutually exclusive with a belief in magic?


Then how do you justify them? You obviously have a particular model of what constitutes science, so how did you decide on that model?

You are introducing a new term here, the "naturalistic paradigm." Maybe you are right that the majority of scientists use this, but my interest was in what you were calling the "scientific paradigm." My claim is that this paradigm doesn't say that there is no supernatural objects or causation. Instead, it is agnostic about the supernatural since supernatural claims are usually not testable.

You claimed that the scientific method was mutually exclusive with theism. I took this to mean that you thought that they were in conflict or contradictory. But maybe you just mean that scientists can't test supernatural claims when they are doing science. Is that all you mean? I don't say that parental rules are "mutually exclusive" with being a lawyer just because I wouldn't use them in a courtroom. But maybe you do?

Actually, I think is that empirical science is one of the absolute pinnacles of human achievement and one of the most important endeavors in human history. As for the irony, even if I had used the strictest empirical method possible to conclude that empirical method isn't always employed in science, that still wouldn't be ironic.

Conflating empiricism with empirical science like you continue to do is bad form and shows a poor understanding of the underlying matter. Science is mostly about method, the practical application of underlying epistemology. This doesn't necessitate personal acceptance of the underlying philosophy, only that you for the purpose of given research assume it. You won't be fired from your research job in a bio-lab because you are a rationalist. I suspect you'd merely be the most popular person to debate with over lunch.

Empirical science is not methodological naturalism. As has been pointed out to you about a dozen times, Karl Popper rejected methodological naturalism. And he is the chief architect who refined modern day empirical method. His name and work is is taught in pretty much any entry level textbook worth its salt on empirical method in universities worldwide. That alone is should be more than adequate to explain why methodological naturalism is not a necessary component of neither science nor empirical science. MN is a sidenote, perhaps an interesting 5-minute debate in the hallway, but completely uninteresting in a scientific paper. Empirical method on the other hand, is what an empirical scientist actually employs in his work.

When I was about 14 we went to my grandparents' house. My grandfather had a pellet gun in a little alcove at the top of the stairs. He'd sit in a chair at the window and shoot squirrels that came to eat the squash -or some other grandparenty vegetable - he'd planted. (We went there often, but the pellet gun sniper blind was a new development, so I was unfamiliar with it and we were super pacifist religious so I'd never touched any kind of gun before.)

I picked up the gun and started blasting pretend varmints through the window. My little sister came into the alcove and stood maybe 8 feet away, smiling with her hands up in a "don't shoot" posture. Assuming the gun was unloaded, I aimed it at her forehead and pulled the trigger. Nothing happened. Then I set the gun down, and as I did, it shot a pellet into the ceiling. I was religious at the time and attributed it to Divine Intervention.

Oh, oh! I just remembered this one which is straight out of the movies:

Since I was re-habbing/managing low income housing in the West Bronx I got visited by every law enforcement agency there is. Even the FBI got boring and I eventually threw their business cards away but kept the one from the only visit by the Secret Service.

Anyway, one day a detective shows up and I asked him if he wanted a drink to which he replied 'I'm on duty and, besides, I only drink Hennessy.' Guess what was the only alcohol I had on the premises. So I whipped open my desk drawer, pulled out the bottle of Hennessy, and we both had a drink.

Tell me there is no God.

Ah ok, sorry, poor phrasing on my part. I meant that they can rule it out because they 'must' rule it out in order to adhere to MN, but no, of course they can't say 'there is no such thing as magic' just as they can't say 'there is no such thing as god'

I justify it by what causes it to be different from non-naturalistic scientific thinking. A scientific method that accepts the supernatural as a possible explanation is no more Useful any other method, including the theistic paradigm. What has made science so effective in providing explanations is that it operates from that different set of rules. All the major scientific theories are based on them.


I'm trying to be more specific and clear in my terminology by differentiating the scientific paradigm that I consider to be scientific (that is based on the strict application of the naturalistic paradigm), from forms of science that try to include non-natural phenomena. A form of science using methodological naturalism that accepts supernatural explanations is in my view not scientific in the truest, and it's completely useless, we might as well stick to trying to figure out god's 'mysterious ways' and use him to fill the gaps. But yes, you could label what I'm describing as an 'agnostic' method.

I would disgree that "supernatural claims are usually not testable", they're never testable nor do they meet any of the other criteria.

(Assuming that by 'testable' we mean that by testing it must be possible to prove that the hypothesis is true, it must be possible to prove that the hypothesis is false, it must be possible to reproduce the results of the hypothesis.)


Yes, that's what I mean, I'm sorry if I haven't made that clear, I thought it was more obvious than it appears to be. Those rules wouldn't stop someone being a lawyer, but that's where that analogy has limitations for me because the court room isn't a good analogy for 'reality', and reality is what science is attempting to explain. The lawyer can leave the courtroom and no longer be in a context where he has to use that different and conflicting set of parenting rules from those he uses at home. We can't step out of the reality that science explains and simply exist, for a time, in a different reality where those scientific rules no longer apply.

So, a scientist that applies some verion of MN that includes the supernatural isn't living with contradictory rules, but the theistic paradigm and the version of MN that rules out the supernatural are mutually exclusive.

I never said that it implies "personal acceptance of the underlying philosophy" but by saying that you're implicitly accepting what I've been saying all along, that there can be a contradiction between a scientific method and the personal beliefs of the scientist and that the contradiction exists because those two things are mutually exclusive. A rationalist will never accept that certainty of knowledge can be gained from the application of a methodology based entirely on what knowledge can be gained solely through sense experience.

You just agreed with me.

Never said that it was. After all these words, you still don't get what I've consistently been saying, but given that you agreed with me above, I see no point in continuing this conversation.

That's not a good example. The question is one of why those electrons are moving, is god doing it? In the naturalistic paradigm, that's not a relevant question because no supernatural explanations are considered. Whatever is causing those electrons to move has a natural explanation.

Except that you spent quite a while arguing quite vehemently that an agnostic perspective is insufficient.

But of course, you've always been saying the same thing the whole time and so you're going to be convinced that everyone is finally agreeing with you even though you're the one who is changing their perspective.

It's probably worth questioning your sense of what "Useful" means. You keep using that word, but I don't know how you think that assuming ontological features of the universe is useful other than you get to wave it around to make claims that "Science rejects the existence of the supernatural" (even though it doesn't).

Its a perfectly fine example of being able to believe in god and also believing that electricity is due to the transfer or flow of electrons. You can believe that electriciy is due to the tranfer or flow of electrons without asking "is god doing it"?

Science cant answer the fundamental "why", either. It can say electricity is electrons moving, then it can say they are moving because of electric charge, then they can say things have electric charge because sub atomic particles have electric charge, then they can say that sub atomic particles have electric charge because quarks have different properties. But they cant say why quarks have different properties ( or if they can, it just pushes the question one level deeper, to where they cant answer why)


Religious scientists do not ask "is god doing it"

I think we don't mean the same thing by "methodological naturalism." As I use it, methodological naturalism is contrasted with ontological naturalism. Ontological naturalism says that the natural universe is all that exists. Methodological naturalism doesn't say that the natural universe is all that exists, but that the natural world is all that we can show to exist. Since you can't valid derive ontology from epistemology, the elision you are using between these two is incorrect.

So you justify your criteria based on how useful your definition is? Your definition of science doesn't seem very useful to me, as it implies that many of history's greatest "scientists" aren't actually scientists.

Okay. I'm not sure this is worth pursuing. You are using non-standard terminology here and I guess if you are willing to grant that theism is not mutually exclusive with science then I'm not that bothered.

You don't think we can falsify supernatural claims, eg ESP or astrology?

No version of MN rules out the supernatural, so we are in agreement here.

No, you did not say there "could" be a contradiction between a scientist and his personal beliefs, you said religion was mutually exclusive with science.

That there "can be a contradiction" is completely trivial, and if that is what you meant that is what you should have written it.

See above. You must write what you mean for it to be possible to understand.

Actually what you have been saying is that it must be falsifiable, something doesn't need to be empirical to be falsifiable. You can use falsifiability in a simulation, but a simulation certainly isn't empirical. So this claim of yours is a recent development. Maybe you always meant it, but you didn't say it. Neither did you originally press empirical method as the qualifier for science, you used methodological naturalism.

Empirical methods certainly do represent the majority of science, but they do not represent all of it. Perhaps you feel that only empirical science is "properly scientific", you're certainly not the only one to press that point. But to state "I hold" or "I think" before these claims would make them very different.

I mean, I've literally sat in lectures by scientists who have worked with non-empirical methods and presented their work. They have research positions in faculties, they teach students and they publish in peer-reviewed journals. According to you, these people do not exist or are violating some sort of scientific decorum. Perhaps you think they are not doing "real science", but to argue that you have to as a bare minimum concede that there is a debate.

And you gave me an example of someone doing science using a paradigm that was mutually exclusive with their personal beliefs which use a different paradigm. Different context, same problem.

I honestly don't know why you're finding this so hard to follow, I said that science must be empirical, it can't not be because it deals with the physical and the physical can only be detected using the senses, which is what empiricism is.... And, among other things, it also, ultimately, must be falsifiable. You can't test something unless you have a way to falsify or prove the hypothesis and a hypothesis that can't be falsified simply isn't useful.

Correct.

lol @ "According to you, these people do not exist "... Yes, they're doing science, in the loosest possible use of the term. ID 'scientists' are doing science too... heck they're calling themselves scientists, and they have theories, so they must be scientists right?