Same conversation.

When have I done that?

When you claimed phenomenological method was essentially empirical method.

Interpretation of testimony is what phenomenological method does, after all. It's a qualitative method. A collective term for types of research that foregoes scientific objectivity and focuses on exploring subjects instead.

There is a nice case that shows how it can be useful. In a quantitative survey-based empirical study of how prone cultures were to violence, researchers were surprised that Chinese culture in some sections scored much higher than American culture, but much lower in others. To explore this they conductive qualitative (and thus non-empirical) interviews and found that the sections regarding physical contact (shoving, forcing your way forward) where often seen as non-violent by the Chinese, because it was a result of very crowded spaces being more common and less cultural inhibition to bodily contact, not aggressive behavior. Essentially the qualitative study revealed an inherent bias in the empirical model that was likely destroying its validity.

Didn't I say that after looking up what you said was the wrong kind of Phenomenology?

After you provided links to what you're referring to, I quoted a sentence from that actual page that agreed that it's not a science.

Why then on this page is the first sentence "Phenomenology is commonly understood in either of two ways: as a disciplinary field in philosophy, or as a movement in the history of philosophy." Or is that the wrong kind of Phenomenology too?

It's a scientific method that is employed a fair bit in medicine, psychology and various social sciences. I'm sure there are people who think it is not scientific, as you will find with all scientific methods.

Karl Popper didn't think methodological naturalism was scientific or justifiable in empirical method, I'm sure you disagree with him.

In this context it refers to a school of philosophical thought developed by the mathematician and philosopher Edmund Husserl, who also developed it into a philosophy of science. It was later refined into phenomenological method, a way of interpreting and structuring data from research interviews.

Let's backtrack a little, how do you define 'science'?

Bear in mind that I consider this to be a different conversation to 'what is a scientific theory'?

On the top of my head?

Something ala "A loosely organized collective dedicated to systematically advancing human knowledge, recognizable by peer-based review, academic standards of education and ideals of rigor".

Though admittedly that could probably be refined a fair bit.

Noted here that "science" is English can has a slightly connotation than the term "vitenskap" from my language, related to the german "wissenschaft", which translates to "knowledge crafting". But it's not like that interpretation does not exist in English.

Feel free, it can't hurt, I think we're discussing specifics rather than bigger concept/paradigm differences, so having some specifics would be useful. The word 'rigor' is, I think doing a lot of work in that description, can you expand on that part?

Rigor would mean something ala consistency, fairness and honesty. Meaning that you should strive to keep your techniques similar over time and be systematic in your approach to science, you should be fair as in applying criteria equally and honesty in that you write / report what you actually find and what you actually think, not retro-fit your study to make it seem better or more acceptable or to affirm some external view.

Note that within my definition it is fully possible for two scientists to view each-other as unscientific. I'm sure you can find some grumpy old biology professor who considers literary analysis to be hooey, or some critical theory sociologist who finds the empirical science to be paradoxical.

If you ask me what _I_ am, I'm an empiricist at heart, but I have an open mind towards other approaches in science. And while I don't necessarily find critical theory or similar approaches very compelling, I think they are circling around a grain of truth - that many empiricists are too lax in considering the limitations of their approach and often fail to take the inherent bias of existing paradigms into account.

A lot of scientific theories are 'retro fitted'. ToE for example. I don't think that's a problem unless it omits or ignores glaring conflicts. But if your hypothesis perfectly matches what has been observed, AND meets all the criteria, then that's fine.

Perhaps you have more to add to your definition but I'm still failing to see where ID fails to meet your criteria such that it could be considered a form of science (this is not where I was going with this, it just popped back up for me). It's consistent with other religious theories, I don't think we can assume dishonesty or a lack of fairness, it's peer reviewed, so it's rigorous, there is evidence of a type that satisfies it's proponents. What do you consider a scientific theory to be such that ID fails to be that thing?

For myself, ID fails every criteria that determine a scientific theory, not least that it's not falsifiable.

Oh, so now I have to accept ID and reject ToE? Nice.

You misunderstand what retro-fit means, it does not mean to adjust models, which we always have to be willing to do, it means to make dishonest concessions to make papers seem more acceptable. This should be clear from what I wrote.

The ID thing is a long-dead dead horse and it makes you look stupid.

I think this is a pretty straight-forward example of the humanness of science and how the criteria MB propose cannot be applied in a purely objective manner. It's one thing to adjust a model to fit new data, and quite another to adjust an analysis of data to fit a previously existing model. The first is considered an advancement of knowledge (based on what we know now, we can refine this) and the second is more of an intellectual concession (X conforms to the pre-existing beliefs of the field more than Y, so we will make the data sound like it supports X). If the community likes X more than Y, then the intellectual merits of new information supporting Y won't be given its full consideration.

Perhaps the most relevant comparison is MB's conversation itself. His refusal to adopt and incorporate new information in his view prevents him being able to advance his knowledge. Rather than allowing his perspective to change and his underlying models to adjust, he shoehorns information into his pre-existing beliefs and tries to make it sound like everything supports his argument.

No, don't be silly.

Ok, you were using a different definition than I am.

ToE has most certainly been retro-fitted though in the sense that it has elements it didn't have when first developed that have been added to explain new evidence. You could refer to it as 'corrective' though, that would be more accurate, and would also be a criteria necessary for something to be considered a scientific theory, unlike ID, which can't be corrected. How do you correct the idea that godddidit?

No it isn't and no it doesn't, it makes you look like you have such a vague and nebulous defition of what science is that pretty much anything could fit your ambiguous criteria. ID has met every criteria you've described so far.

ID can be corrected in exactly the same sense that you've indicated here. There are elements of the theory that be adapted on the basis of new information.

I guess I might as well call it out because it's information worth having: Intelligent design isn't equivalent to goddidit. It makes no assertion which intelligence designed things. It's merely the claim that design can, in some form, be detected.

http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr...ls.php/id/1341

Edit: I'm doubtful it's worth the effort to educate MB on this, as he will likely be at least as uneducatable on this as he is on science.

Indeed, the idea that design can be detected is about as irrefutable as the idea that things can change over time. Why? Because we have examples of both. We understand that they both can happen, and both do happen. So that, in and of itself, is not why one is science and the other is not. Indeed, MB still has not actually given what he believes the "theory of evolution" and based on the various types of statements he's made I'm doubtful that he actually has a clear concept of what he means by it. I suspect it's about as poorly formed as his concept of Intelligent Design.

But one should never let facts get in the way of defending one's prior beliefs.



Edit: I'm doubtful it's worth the effort to attempt to educate MB on this, as he will likely be at least as uneducatable on this as he is on science.

Well, earlier we established that you see Intelligent Design as systematic, educated, evidence-based, peer-based and fair. Now we have also established that you find it consistent and honest.

Interesting.

Also, it is peculiar that in 3 long debates on science you just end up telling me what I think. I'm not sure debates have rules per se, but usually we allow people to determine that for themselves.

Yes, it's all those things, or some of the proponents of it are those things. You know what it isn't though? It's none of the things that would make it a 'scientific theory'. I won't list those things yet again though, I don't want to make you nauseous.

Not even sure what I said that was telling you what you think, nor why you're resorting to this tactic. Is it because you accept that your definition of science is nebulous, vague and virtually useless?

Because a scientific theory must meet an an arbitrary list of criteria to be scientific. Why? Because MB is the authority of science. (But every time he uses "science" or "methodological naturalism" he's really just talking about "scientific theories".)

Willful ignorance.

I'll just ignore the first part of the post, refer to my former replies.

Well, I'm sorry if the "tactic" of knowing that I don't see ID as an evidence-based, peer-based, honest, consistent, fair or educated proposal stumps you.

My definition of science certainly isn't nebulous or vague, it's merely broad. I agree that it is virtually useless.

Context:

And now in this thread:

This isn't the first time (nor will it be the last time) that MB has failed at the basic standard of intellectual honesty.

Lol you can’t argue with faith

There is evidence for god.
There are 'peers' within the theistic community who have reviewed and signed off on ID.
They are being 'honest', they truly believe this.
They think it's fair, especially now that they have something to counter the totally unfair practice of urging ToE on children without balancing that with ID.
There are a great many highly educated proponents of ID.

So, where does ID fail to meet your criteria?

Here's where it fails to meet 'mine'...

Is it Naturalistic? No, it accepts supernatural explanations.
Is it Useful? No, it can't actually explain anything.
Is it Predictive? Nope, what can you use it to predict? God exists therefore..... what?
It is Falsifiable? Nope, you can't disprove god so we could never know if we were wrong about it.
Is it Corrective? Nope, you can't correct god, he doesn't make mistakes, this theory can't be improved because you can't identify mistakes in it.
Is it internally and externally consistent? Meh.
Is it Repeatable? Nope.
Is it Testable? Nope.

It fails every criteria that determine what is a scientific theory.


And the form of science that has been the most 'useful' (and 'Useful' is actually a criteria) is the one that subscribes to a Naturalistic philosophy. We've made astonishing progress since that model was adopted by the majority of scientists. It could all be wrong of course, but that's the beauty of it, that there's a way for it to be wrong, and every day it isn't proven wrong we can rely on it that much more.

It's no coincidence that the proportion of theist scientists in a scientific field drops the more that field relates to, or involves explanations that contradict theological claims, fields such as Physics or Geology.

Lol you can't argue with atoms clanging together.

How do you define faith?

It depends on the context. I don't recall myself using that word anytime in any recent threads, so you'd have to give me the quote. Thanks.

You replied to the idea that you 'can't argue with faith' by (inexplicably for me) bringing up atoms. So I'm curious how you define faith.

Clearly, MB knows what the word "corrective" means here. He is showing just how deep his understanding of these words are.

On behalf of scientists everywhere, please stop saying "we" did things in the context of your definition of "scientific theory."

And thus, the problem of induction is solved! Oh... wait...

This makes no sense.

http://www.pewforum.org/2009/11/05/s...ts-and-belief/

So.... you're talking about that precipitous drop from 32% in biology/medical to 30% and 29% and geosciences and physics, respectively?

And those 30-ish percent of scientists are (according to your view) doing some form of disingenuous science, of course.

I'll also point out that the mixing of biological and medical sciences is doing a bit of masking. Anecdotally, I've heard tends to be more openly antagonistic towards religion, whereas medical tends to be more accepting (as part of a wholistic perspective of health care).

Also...

http://news.rice.edu/2015/12/03/firs...-are-atheists/

But wait... this is America. We can ignore what others think when forming our opinions about what others think.