What is this "scientific method" you all speak of?

[ChainBreaker]

should have been, “B follows from A,…”

Can you please comment on this?

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=12530742#post12530742

 

[Hee_Zen]

There is no small bit of equivocating going on here.

The universe is clearly comprised of matter, energy, space and time. To say those are “everything” that exists is to squirrel in all other plausible existents as necessarily having material existence.

This tack seeks to avoid appearing to beg the question of whether all things that exist are necessarily material in nature by defining “everything that exists” as equal to “the material universe” and thus by necessity requiring all things to have a material nature.

It is a piece of sophistry to begin by defining terms in such a way as to shield yourself from having to defend your worldview by hiding behind a definition.

You are arbitrarily defining your materialistic world view as “everything that exists” and, therefore, are begging the question of whether the material universe is, indeed, “everything that exists.”

It is only your incorrect interpretation. Mine is much wider. I do not deny a-priori that the universe is comprised of two parts, one is physical, the other is “immaterial”. After all there are many **immaterial aspects **of the physical “part”. There are attributes, actions and relationships - none of which are ontological objects. There are concepts, which do not exist independently from our ability to conceptualize. So in theory I do not discard the existence of “immaterial” entities.

Our knowledge keeps on growing every day, but it is still finite. There are many things we do not know. There are claims of the paranormal, which are not impossible in a logical fashion. It may be that there are unknown “forces” which allow someone to manipulate physical objects by sheer willpower.

But just like there is no repeatable evidence of any paranormal, there is no evidence of **ACTIVE **immaterial entities. My view is not dogmatic. If there would be any evidence for the claims of theism, or the paranormal, I would re-evaluate my stance. But just like I do not grant an a-priori acceptance of the paranormal, I do not grant it to the claims of theism. It is your job to present your evidence of “gods, angels, demons or ghosts”. The same skeptical approach works in science. If one claims to have discovered a new evidence for something, he is under obligation to support it. It is the ridiculous claim of Uri Geller that one needs to start from the position of provisionally accepting the existence of some paranormal, otherwise it simply does not work!

Two examples. A doctor hypothesized that some type of stomach ulcer is caused by bacteria. He was a laughing stock of the medical community - UNTIL he provided repeatable evidence for his claim. The other example is the “famous” announcement of “cold fusion”. If it would have turned out to be true, the ramifications would have been of extreme importance. The evidence presented turned out to be incorrect.

The point is that just like there is no evidence for the paranormal, there is no evidence for theism, and as such it is rational to assume the nonexistence of the paranormal and the nonexistence of “gods, angels, demons, ghosts, leprechauns… etc.” - with the proviso that one must stay to open to evidence and review one’s worldview. And that brings us to the question of evidence. Ancient stories of alleged “miracles” simply do not cut it. Hearsay stories of new “miracles” are insufficient.

There is a usual attempt to wiggle out from this requirement. Some apologists say that it is unreasonable to demand physical evidence for the immaterial. Of course this is nonsense. The claim is that the “immaterial” is **physically active **and as such it can be detected by physical methods.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Wisdom is just another subjective category. I wonder if you can give an objective definition of “wisdom”.

This is a cavalier dismissal of wisdom as insignificant. Just another subjective category?

As if science was objective and wisdom is not?

I will take wisdom over science any day. I will take the wisdom that says we should never have invented nuclear weapons over the stupidity of scientists who say we should make them bugger and better and as many as we can afford to build.

Wisdom is knowing what to do and what not to do; when to do it and when not to do it.

If you have a more objective definition, let’s hear it.

 

[Hee_Zen]

The two scenarios, an atheistic world and a world created by God, are indistinguishable from a strictly phenomenological point of view, rare miracles with physical manifestations aside.

Agreed with the minor addition: “alleged rare miracles with physical manifestations aside.”

Thus, science does not automatically favor metaphysical naturalism, i.e. nature is all there is. Certainly, the atheist will say: Science shows that nature is self-sufficient, therefore, in extrapolation, if we do not need any outside explanation for what we observe in nature, we also we do not need any outside explanation of nature itself: a wider nature generated nature (our universe).

Yes, also accepted.

However, this does not take into account the possible (and by the theist assumed) scenario that God created our self-sufficient and self-developing nature. Thus, the just mentioned atheist position is not a straightforward logical conclusion as in: “A follows from B, and since we arrive at B, C automatically follows.”

The theist may assume this, but then he needs to show that it is not just an empty assumption. Occam’s razor is not an arbiter between two competing theories, as we all know. Nevertheless it correctly points out that one should use the one which has fewer unsubstantiated assumptions, so the naturalistic point of view should be given preference. Of course, if the theist can bring up **actual evidence **for his assertion, then the “simpler” explanation (naturalism) will “lose”.

And by the way, scenarios of a naturalistic origin of the universe blatantly contradict, or are not at all supported by, observations from science about actual matter, energy or fields, as I show in section 2 of my article:

home.earthlink.net/~almoritz/cosmological-arguments-god.htm

The apparent “fine-tuning” is hogwash. Someone picked a few arbitrary constants and declared that they could have been different. Then he gave some arbitrary limits and said that the probability of having the actual values is just too low. Sheer nonsense, without any justification.

See also my post # 5, reprinted here with emphasis:

And by the way, no such thing as a ‘scientific worldview’ exists. Naturalism is a philosophy, just like theism is.

A “worldview” is just another phrase for philosophy. Of course naturalism is a philosophical stance - to be more precise: “a metaphysical stance”. The existence of the physical world is beyond dispute, we all experience it directly. Not so with “generic theism” and definitely no so with the highly elusive “Christian God”, with all its alleged attributes - parts of which are nonsensical, other parts of which are mutually contradictory. But this is the topic of a different discussion.

It may be an extrapolation from science, but this extrapolation in itself is not scientific, as it would be if it were part of the scientific domain proper, part of scientific observation proper. And obviously, this extrapolation is not the only one that can be drawn from science.

Sure thing. You could make the assumption that we are all just the imagination of super-entity, or we are boxes sitting on the shelves of a mad scientist. So what?

On the contrary, science only enriches my faith in God, since it shows the awesome complexity and vastness of creation. That this complexity evolved — was able to evolve based on very special laws of nature – only shows even more how great the planning of the Creator was.

Completely irrelevant. What makes you “happy” is not an argument in favor of what you believe. Bring up actual evidence for your view, not some ill-conceived, arbitrary and ridiculous empty philosophy of “fine-tuning”. Since your alleged God is supposed to be physically active and supposedly interacts with our physical existence, you should be able present physical evidence for his existence.

 

[Hee_Zen]

This is a cavalier dismissal of wisdom as insignificant. Just another subjective category?

As if science was objective and wisdom is not?

I will take wisdom over science any day. I will take the wisdom that says we should never have invented nuclear weapons over the stupidity of scientists who say we should make them bugger and better and as many as we can afford to build.

Wisdom is knowing what to do and what not to do; when to do it and when not to do it.

Which is totally subjective. And without science it is impossible to make informed decisions.

By the way, it was not the scientists who suggested to make nuclear weapons - it was the politicians.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Which is totally subjective. And without science it is impossible to make informed decisions.

Which, ironically, is also a “totally subjective” opinion that cannot and is not, itself, proved by science.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

Which is totally subjective. And without science it is impossible to make informed decisions.

By the way, it was not the scientists who suggested to make nuclear weapons - it was the politicians.

True, but the politicians couldn’t make nuclear weapons. Are you saying that scientists are amoral?

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Which is totally subjective. And without science it is impossible to make informed decisions.

By the way, it was not the scientists who suggested to make nuclear weapons - it was the politicians.

Peter has answered your first point. This below answers your second: Go and learn some history.

pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/primary-resources/truman-ein39/

 

[CrossofChrist]

“Beauty” is a concept and it expresses one’s **personal appreciation **of something physical. It does not exist as an objective, ontological object.

Or is beauty rather something that exists objectively that we become conscious of by encountering it in the world? Which would mean that the beauty we encounter in physical entities is a reflection of the Beautiful (God) behind it.

 

[Hee_Zen]

True, but the politicians couldn’t make nuclear weapons. Are you saying that scientists are amoral?

No, scientists all come in all “flavors”. Science itself is amoral. Nuclear energy can be used for good and bad purposes. Exactly like a hammer, which can be used on nails, but also on the head of other people. It is always the user’s responsibility, not the one’s who developed the new “gadget” - contrary to what Charlemagne said.

 

[Hee_Zen]

Which, ironically, is also a “totally subjective” opinion that cannot and is not, itself, proved by science.

Opinions are not subject to “proof”. But this one is simply obvious: an ignorant person cannot make informed decisions. And knowledge of the objective reality can only be gained from observing that reality and studying its workings - which is exactly what science does.

I would suggest that you read what I actually wrote. I do not assert that “everything” must be scientifically “proven”, and I never heard of any materialist who would make such a nonsensical assertion (logical positivism is long dead). It is only the blind assertion of some theists, who do not like to engage in real conversation, and instead throw out such platitudes (like “scientism”). I am sad to point out that you are one of these people. I spent a considerable amount of time to honestly answer your incorrect observation about “equivocation”.

 

[Hee_Zen]

Or is beauty rather something that exists objectively that we become conscious of by encountering it in the world? Which would mean that the beauty we encounter in physical entities is a reflection of the Beautiful (God) behind it.

Sorry, I am only familiar with horses pulling the carts, and not of carts pushing the horses.

 

[tdgesq]

It is always the user’s responsibility, not the one’s who developed the new “gadget” - contrary to what Charlemagne said.

Did you come to that conclusion through use of the scientific method?

 

[Al_Moritz]

A “worldview” is just another phrase for philosophy. Of course naturalism is a philosophical stance - to be more precise: “a metaphysical stance”.

Good that you agree that naturalism is philosophy, or metaphysics.

But didn’t you assert a while ago that philosophy was mere speculation? Would that not make your naturalism mere speculation, extrapolations from what we see around us and your favorite interpretation of Occam’s razor (a topic for another debate) notwithstanding?

 

[CHRISTINE77]

No, scientists all come in all “flavors”. Science itself is amoral. Nuclear energy can be used for good and bad purposes. Exactly like a hammer, which can be used on nails, but also on the head of other people. It is always the user’s responsibility, not the one’s who developed the new “gadget” - contrary to what Charlemagne said.

Oh ,I so disagree with you on this. The guy that develops the new “gadget” is totally responsible for his creation. Look at Henry Ford. What a blight the automobile has been on this world!!!

 

[Charlemagne_III]

No, scientists all come in all “flavors”. Science itself is amoral. Nuclear energy can be used for good and bad purposes. Exactly like a hammer, which can be used on nails, but also on the head of other people. It is always the user’s responsibility, not the one’s who developed the new “gadget” - contrary to what Charlemagne said.

I prefer to be referred to directly rather than in the third person.

At any rate, you said the initiator of nuclear weapons was political, whereas the letter from Einstein to FDR proves that it was not a politician who first suggested nuclear weapons, though most assuredly a politician agreed to the scientist’s suggestion.

Scientists have a moral responsibility as well as politicians. To argue that scientists just live in a moral vacuum is to argue a vacuous morality.

Ever since Mary Shelly wrote her book about Frankenstein there has been a general social consciousness that scientists are complicit in the morality of their creations. Do you believe that scientists exist in a moral vacuum, that whatever they do is protected by the sacred cow of scientism?

 

[Hee_Zen]

Good that you agree that naturalism is philosophy, or metaphysics.

Yes, I agree. I prefer to use the narrow term of “metaphysics”, since “philosophy” is comprised of several sub-disciplines, namely: metaphysics, epistemology and ethics and (maybe aesthetics). Of these epistemology is the important part. Without a proper epistemological method the question: “what exists” (metaphysics) is truly nothing but a belly-button-contemplating empty speculation.

But didn’t you assert a while ago that philosophy was mere speculation? Would that not make your naturalism mere speculation, extrapolations from what we see around us and your favorite interpretation of Occam’s razor (a topic for another debate) notwithstanding?

Again, to be precise, metaphysics can be classified as speculation. The naturalistic metaphysics rests on the observed physical universe, so in that respect it is simply a trivial observation and not a speculation. Now, the extended view that the physical world is “all there is” is a speculation. But that speculation is very well established, since nothing outside the physical world has ever been observed, or substantiated, even though it is widely assumed that the non-physical entities are physically active and interfere with the physical realm and as such they can be subject of scientific examination.

To label everything with the common term: “speculation” attempts to overlook the differences between the different “levels” of speculation. I recall the assertion of someone who was asked: “what is the probability of winning the jackpot on Powerball?” and he answered: “it is 50%… you either win it, or you don’t” - which is sheer nonsense. Just like some apologists who like to muddy the waters by calling everything a “faith” unless you have absolute, 100% Cartesian certainty - which is very rare indeed. So, let’s be precise… the speculation of “all there is ‘is’ the physical universe” and the other speculation of “immaterial, but physically active entities exist” are worlds apart.

 

[Hee_Zen]

Oh ,I so disagree with you on this. The guy that develops the new “gadget” is totally responsible for his creation. Look at Henry Ford. What a blight the automobile has been on this world!!!

Not for the USAGE of his creation. Are you about to blame the inventor of the “hammer” because someone used it to kill someone by a blow on the head? Technology or science are all morally neutral, however their USAGE is not necessarily so.

 

[Al_Moritz]

The apparent “fine-tuning” is hogwash. Someone picked a few arbitrary constants and declared that they could have been different. Then he gave some arbitrary limits and said that the probability of having the actual values is just too low. Sheer nonsense, without any justification.

Hogwash. The apparent fine-tuning of the universe is affirmed by all leading atheistic and agnostic cosmologists who have studied the issue (even though of course their philosophical interpretation of it differs from that of theists).

But you wouldn’t know that, and you wouldn’t know the details of apparent fine-tuning, because just like creationists/Intelligent Design proponents you are not interested in established mainstream science that raises difficulties for your worldview. You are only interested in science that supports it.

So much for your allegedly openminded ‘scientific’ worldview.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Which is totally subjective. And without science it is impossible to make informed decisions.

Let me approach this one again, since you claim I didn’t understand what you are, in fact, claiming.

I get the distinction between “informed” decisions and those that are “uninformed,” which goes to your claim that decisions must utilize science in order to get the “information” or relevant “facts” required to make good or “informed” decisions.

The problem here is that you assume all facts are naturalistic or factual in the sense of observable. Ergo, you conclude science is necessary to feed those facts or “information” into the decision-making process.

Unfortunately, it is precisely with that claim that I dispute. Decisions are not always ABOUT external or observable objects or matters.

I lead what I suppose to be a “rich” interior life. What this means is that I assess my motives, emotional states, sincerity and other “facts” about my person or interior landscape that are not accessible as objective or observable facts. These still inform my decisions with regard to at least some of my choices.

I do not require science to make those decisions. Sincerity, integrity, reflection upon the choices and thinking recursively are required and, in fact, govern and inform these types of choices. Granted, some, and even many, of those choices still pertain to the external world, but not all do.

Now you may say these are totally subjective and such decisions are completely subjective. Perhaps, but there are still a few of those which require me to be “informed” about my subjective states alone, ergo science is not required to make those kinds of informed decisions.

You claimed science was required for ALL informed decisions, I consider your view incorrect, since informed decisions are possible with regard to decisions that pertain solely to internal states.

If you counter by claiming you think I am wrong, THAT objection would, itself, be a subjective claim no more or less scientifically defensible than my subjective claim. Ergo, your insistence that you think all your decisions as determined within your subjective psyche/will - and, therefore, inaccessible to others - must be “informed” by science is, in itself, a subjective claim about the way in which you go about deciding things as a subjective decision maker.

Therefore, “without science it is impossible to make informed decisions” is in itself a subjective claim or “decision” about the way in which you use science to make YOUR decisions. I make the opposite claim that at least some of my subjective decisions, in particular those that are specifically about the way in which I decide or determine some things about myself and my internal options do not require any information from science, merely reflection on the internal states existing within my “interior landscape.”

Science, itself, cannot determine which of us is correct or, even, that you consistently make ALL of your decisions requiring at least some crucial information provided by science. Therefore, your claim that science is REQUIRED for ALL informed decisions is not one determinable by science and your statement is, itself, self-refuting because science is not at all helpful in determining or making an “informed” decision with regard to your very claim that it is.

There are no bits of “factual information” that science could provide that would be helpful in making an “informed” decision as to whether it is, indeed, “impossible” to make informed decisions without science.