Why We Do This.

Dodging elephant dung science. I love it!

Watch, UD and their ilk will now make a connection between evolution and pornography. Just watch.

I would imagine Richard, that one of the reasons is because of this:

http://www.answersingenesis.org

With ID being the latest attempt to get it into science classes. This is what over 50% of Americans (and a growing number in the UK it would seem) are demanding is taught as an alternative to conventional science. No wonder you guys do this !

Last time on The Panda's Thumb... fnxtr wrote:

"Watch, UD and their ilk will now make a connection between evolution and pornography. Just watch."

Dude... seriously. Let 'em. 'Cause then it's Open Season.

Or perhaps I should say... "let he who is without sin cast the first stone"? :-)

Don't believe those statistics: the questions asked in the surveys these guys put out are so obscure that anyone could answer affirmatively to them.

It's a wonder the creationists have so little to show for their efforts; they've been doing the rhetorical equivalent of flinging elephant dung for years.

Oh, I don't know, there are a host of reasons for "doing this stuff". One is that it can be enjoyable, sometimes through Schadenfreude, sometimes because it is interesting to discuss the nature and content of science on a more philosophical level. The best discussions we have are among ourselves.

We don't want the inheritance of the Enlightenment to fade away. We want there to be a comfortable level of secularism in this country, which is probably true for a number of religious "evolutionists" as well.

The confusion of what science is could open up funding and promotion of countless other pseudosciences. This would take monies away from worthy uses, and would lead to further degradation of intellect in this country. Fundies would not like having to pay for astrology classes, but they might very well have to do it if they can force ID into schools. Naturally, they have mostly not thought through the future possibilities.

Justice would be in jeopardy if the bases of evolutionary thought were to be scorned. Derivation is often enough at issue in the courts, from paternity suits to copyright infringement cases, and if we can't use derivation markers in biology to decide small-t "truth", how can we use them elsewhere?

Then there's the simple matter of honesty. Neither history nor biology classes ought to be places where children are told lies. I realize that she brought up this issue, but perhaps not with sufficient emphasis upon the outrage that deliberately lying to students really constitutes. If we don't resort to the evidence to determine what is true (in the lesser sense), then we are just saying that lies are as good as honesty.

Which leads up to the fact that many, if not most, other subjects rely upon science and/or processes akin to the scientific endeavor in order to exist as something other than good campfire tales. This is why general literacy is threatened by attacks upon science.

Mostly I am agreeing with her, of course, since one could consider my issues to be implied in her piece. I just thought that I could expand on her theme profitably, and show that there are more than two points in favor of defending science, once one considered the various implications.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/b8ykm

Watch, UD and their ilk will now make a connection between evolution and pornography. Just watch.

Thank you, thank you, thank you!

Your efforts on this blog site on behalf of all who can't argue the points as well as you do are appreciated far more than I can adequately express.

Thank you for both educating me and re-awakening my love of science.

Sincerely, thank you.

Watch, UD and their ilk will now make a connection between evolution and pornography. Just watch.

Donald, you forgot 'random'.

Hey donald:

ever looked at a playboy or a "naughty" video?

don't lie now...

If we allow certain special-interest religious groups to co-opt the public school science classroom, to use it as a vehicle for converting children to religious views their parents don't hold, if we allow them to spout outright lies about the nature and content of science, what do we really have left? If you can lie about science and get away with it, you can lie about anything.

I guess Princehouse lives under the delusion that the science classroom is a worldview free zone, which, of course it isn't.

I guess Princehouse lives under the delusion that the science classroom is a worldview free zone, which, of course it isn't.

Sir Toejam: I'm sure you'd love to be able to prove this, but you know you can't.

As far as I know, as a non-scientist, the only presupposition that I know science makes is that there's a natural explanation for observable phenomena. Are there any presuppositions I'm missing?

its a small step to "porn explained"

its a small step to "porn explained"

Like any other discipline, science holds certain philosophical presuppositions as essential to the practice of science.

porn hasn't been explained yet? hmmm...then I suppose it's my duty to go study some right now. As a scientist, or whatever.

donald -

thanks for showing the lurkers EXACTLY why we in fact, do this stuff.

great job!

we should pay you.

porn hasn't been explained yet? hmmm...then I suppose it's my duty to go study some right now. As a scientist, or whatever.

All done!

LOL

Conclusions:

We need a sandwich and a nap.

The funny thing is that while ID argues it replaces methodological naturalism, it's own approach fails to do so.
Probably because the assumptions used to do science have been so fabulously succesful.

What does ID have to offer? Scientifically it is truly a vacuous concept.

Donald says:
"We already have "religion explained" and "consciousness explained" and "love explained" so its a small step to "porn explained"."

Explain porn? Umm, let's see... To get intelligent animals to perform sex, it seems evolution made it rewarding (at least I know I am) instead of instinctive. Which is perhaps why some social intelligent animals perform sex as a social activity, not coupled to procreation (at least I know I do). Sex, with porn as social stimulant, is a free rewarding activity.

Sounder says:
"the only presupposition that I know science makes is that there's a natural explanation for observable phenomena."

I am not sure it does even that.

The methods of science has proven themselves by being used successfully. The only assumption is that observations are used to find phenomena.

Consequently the theories must be validated by observations. That we call these phenomena "natural" seems to me to be just a description - a name.

Well, congratulations indeed to Patricia Princehouse and her fellow Ohio Citizens.

Though "the Hugh M. Hefner First Amendment Award" does have a slight ring to it of "the Phillip E. Johnson Award for Liberty and Truth". ;-)

For example that we know scientifically (not philosophically, mind you, because this is science class after all) that everything, absolutely everything we observe in nature is the result of the blind, purposeless forces of matter and energy evolving over eons of time through the engine of chance and necessity or their combination and that any apparent design we observe in, say, biological systems can not be actual design, even in principle.

— Donald M

Gee, Donald, your motnhly drive-by is early this month.

I suppose FL and Sal will be right behind you.

But now that you're here again, Donald, let me repeat my questions for you once more, just in case you missed them the first dozen times:

What, again, did you say the scientific theory of ID is? How, again, did you say this scientific theory of ID explains these problems? What, again, did you say the designer did? What mechanisms, again, did you say it used to do whatever the heck you think it did? Where, again, did you say we can see the designer using these mechanisms to do ... well . . anything?

Or is "POOF!! God --- uh, I mean, The Unknown Intelligent Designer --- dunnit!!!!" the extent of your, uh, scientific theory of ID .... ?

How does "evolution can't explain X Y or Z, therefore goddidit" differ from plain old ordinary run-of-the-mill "god of the gaps?

Here's *another* question for you to not answer, Donald: Suppose in ten years, we DO come up with a specific mutation by mutation explanation for how X Y or Z appeared. What then? Does that mean (1) the designer USED to produce those things, but stopped all of a sudden when we came up with another mechanisms? or (2) the designer was using that mechanism the entire time, or (3) there never was any designer there to begin with.

Which is it, Donald? 1, 2 or 3?

Oh, and if ID isn't about religion, Donald, then why do you spend so much time bitching and moaning about "philosophical materialism"?

(sound of crickets chirping)

You are a liar, Donald. A bare, bald-faced, deceptive, deceitful, deliberate liar, with malice aforethought. Still.

... we ought not subject children to outright lies about the nature and content of science. For example... that everything, absolutely everything we observe in nature is the result of the blind, purposeless forces of matter and energy

All of the science texts I recall from school spent their time discussing science, not metaphysics, because--- after all--- that's what scientists are most interested in, despite the efforts of nonscientists to claim otherwise.

Agreed. I think most people have as their "working hypothesis" a general notion that it's possible to combine evolution either with atheism or with Christianity or any other religion. Richard Dawkins, William Dembski and Ken Ham may all unite (in their very different ways!) to attack that notion, but it still remains the "default setting" for most people, at least in the UK.

Certainly I'm sure that's the approach my own science teachers would have taken, if only because it's an effective means of moving the discussion away from the "evolution-v-creation" thing and back to the actual science.

Like any other discipline, science holds certain philosophical presuppositions as essential to the practice of science.

Methinks Donald and his ilk conflate the words "explain" and "excuse." Hence, if evolution "explains" a behavior (read: "vice"), it therefore "excuses" that behavior. As if understanding where something bad comes from does nothing to help us change what we want to change. Or perhaps (horror of horrors) we might realize that we should not change it. Hence the dreaded "moral relativism."

"The whole foundation of Christianity is based on the idea that intellectualism is the work of the Devil. Remember the apple on the tree? OK, it was the Tree of Knowledge. 'You eat this apple, you're going to be as smart as God. We can't have that.'"
FRANK ZAPPA (1940-1994)

Like any other discipline, science holds certain philosophical presuppositions as essential to the practice of science. Philosophical presuppositions are worldview dependent. If you think otherwise, by all means make the argument, even though you'd be at odds with virtually all of philosophy and philosophy of science.

— Donald M

Hmmmm now we find out what really turns on Donald M...Like I said months ago Don ....you need to get out more.

That's why we do this stuff.

Guts-
It was an interesting article. I'm glad you brought it to our attention. However....

Why do you think that such anti-science terrorism would be condoned by the (defenders of science) readers of Panda's Thumb? Are you just assuming that because most (not all) of us are (as far as I can determine from reading this blog for the past several months) politically to the left, we will ignore anti-science activities of the left?

I have seen several comments (not in this thread) bemoaning the anti-evolution of left-leaning activists, not just from right-leaning readers. Many of the readers and owners of this blog are active researchers in biology who might be directly affected by animal rights extremists (or activists, or terrorists, or whatever label you want). Many of us are at least aware of the benefits of animal research even though we might not like the use of these animals.

I think your bias is showing. Yes, this blog is dedicated to defending of science, but specifically to the attacks by extremists on science mostly on the basis of religious beliefs. You don't see comments on animal rights extremism, but you also don't see comments (at least, not many) on the lack of funding at the federal, state, and local level for basic research, even though in the long term that is of much greater import than the animal rights extremists. You do see comments on the anti-science activities of the current administration and in a larger sense often GOP, but that's because it's part and parcel of a larger attack on science by the religious right.

So how is it "telling" that the article you linked is not usually discussed here? What is being defended if not science in this blog?

So you're shocked and dissappointed that we don't talk about some pet topic of yours on a board specifically dedicated to stopping the spread of creationist ignorance? Are you going to bemoan our lack of posts about other political crises as well?

Up next: the economic disintigration of Zimbabwe and its effect on the African diet.

Hmmm, Sounder, I gotta learn to be more succinct

Donald M, could you point me to a few biology textbooks that emphasize for schoolkids that evolution is inherently "blind" and "purposeless"? I'm actually quite sincere about this request, because that's a claim that starts crossing the line into metaphysics, and I'm very much against any metaphysics being taught as science. I doubt you'll be able to give any impressive examples.

I would just like to say that I am dismayed and offended at the complete lack of attention that is paid on this site to the rapidly accelerating disintegration of the Zimbabwean economy. You claim to be "defending science", yet you stand by idly while the people of Zimbabwe are suffering. Why must you silence discourse on this crucial issue? Have you no heart? Have you no soul?

Donald M, could you point me to a few biology textbooks that emphasize for schoolkids that evolution is inherently "blind" and "purposeless"? I'm actually quite sincere about this request, because that's a claim that starts crossing the line into metaphysics, and I'm very much against any metaphysics being taught as science.

But, uh, Donald, who sent the asteroid?

As far as I know, as a non-scientist, the only presupposition that I know science makes is that there's a natural explanation for observable phenomena. Are there any presuppositions I'm missing?

I do feel sorry for your kids, Donald duck, but not for the reasons you think.

One is the presupposition of the uniformity of nature

AC says:

"Porn is a solution to the problem of one's frequency of desire for sexual activity being larger than the frequency of one's opportunities for sexual activity; fd > fo."

Eh? Porn is directly associated with sex. External porn is typically less frequent when the number of participants increase. But it is still there. (OTOH internal porn (watching the others performance) increase with the number of participants.)

Donald says:

"One of the great wonders of our existence and of life itself is that it has all arisen through a combination of evolutionary processes and chance events."

That last sentence is philosophical naturalism masquerading as science."

As we said earlier, the only assumption is really "observational phenomena" (Evidence matters.) There are several types of philosophical naturalism, all of them a consequence of, not a cause to, this assumption.

That design doesn't cut it is because it boils down to a supernatural (unobservable) design event and a supernatural designer. Where you there?

Donald says:

"I presume what you mean is that any observed phenomena in nature will yield to a natural cause...eventually."

Yes, the theories we base on observed phenomena is validated by new observations. The observed and validated phenomena are called natural (since they occure in nature).

"That, of course, assumes that nature is a completely closed system of natural cause and effect...i.e. philosophical naturalism."

Not at all. The idealised method taken from the methods of science are called methodological naturalism. But it is merely an observation of the methods. The methods are only assuming observations to find phenomena, and they prove themselves by their success. Methodological naturalism isn't assumed.

Likewise metaphysical naturalism, that you seem to describe, is an observation of the results of the method. It isn't assumed, and it isn't necessary; the method works anyway. But since all phenomena we can observe in nature are named natural, and the theories must be be validated by observations, we may think that metaphysical naturalism is valid.

"There are other presuppositions essential to science, though. One is the presupposition of the uniformity of nature. Another is the scientific method itself. Another is that the deliverances of our cognitive faculties are reliable. None of these are derived from science, but are essential to science."

Other general assumptions can be explained as derivative and being observations. Order instead of chaos follows in large enough mathematical or physical structures, and is observed. Universality is parsimonious, and is observed. Causality follows from order and observers proper time, and is observed. And so on and so forth.

The scientific method is in no way an assumption. It is a method, and we see that it works. How anyone can think a method is an assumption eludes me.

That repeated observations and validated theories are reliable is a consequence of order and, again, an observation of how the methods of science has behaved.

Science has no bible.

One of the most popular Biology textbooks used by public high school is the Miller-Levine textbook "Biology". My own daughter had it for her text just 3 years ago. In the chapter on evolution Miller and Levine write: "In many ways, each animal phylum represents an experiment in the design of body structures to perform the tasks necessary for survival. Of course, there has never been any kind of plan to these experiments because evolution works without either plan or purpose."

— Donald M

Another, less popular Biology textbook, "Biology Concepts and Connections" by Benjamin Cummings says: "We have documented the role of change in shaping the vast diversity of life. We have also chronicled the role of chance. Chance has affected the evolutionary process in the generation of genetic diversity through mutation. Chance has also played a role at every major milestone in the history of life. Before life began, over 3.5 billion years ago, the chance union of certain small organic molecules ignited a chain of events that led to the first genes. Much later - about 65 million years ago - a chance collision between Earth and an asteroid may have caused mass extinctions. What are the odds for or against asteroid collisions? How would the evolution of biological diversity have been different if the dinosaurs had not become extinct? One of the great wonders of our existence and of life itself is that it has all arisen through a combination of evolutionary processes and chance events." That last sentence is philosophical naturalism masquerading as science.

I presume what you mean is that any observed phenomena in nature will yield to a natural cause...eventually. That, of course, assumes that nature is a completely closed system of natural cause and effect...i.e. philosophical naturalism. That's a rather huge philosophical presupposition and not one that science can make...Princehouse's claims to the contrary notwithstanding.

There are other presuppositions essential to science, though. One is the presupposition of the uniformity of nature. Another is the scientific method itself. Another is that the deliverances of our cognitive faculties are reliable. None of these are derived from science, but are essential to science.

"Science is a model of reality, not reality itself. (Both scientists and religious nuts get this wrong.) Science believes that if the model works (ie. predicts the future), it's useful, if it does not, then it's useless. It's not a faith, it's not a religion, it is a tool. Nothing more, nothing less."

The scientific method is in no way an assumption. It is a method, and we see that it works. How anyone can think a method is an assumption eludes me.

— Torbjörn Larsson

Science sticks to naturalism because that's the only thing that works to explain the world we observe. It's easy enough to assume that there must be more to the world than that but there's absolutely no indication of what that "more" can be. You can't take the creationists or IDers word for what lies beyond nature as they're a bunch of liars and frauds. There's no way you can reconcile the supernatural beliefs of Christians, Buddhists, Jains, Sikhs, or the millions of other religions, so there's no need to take any of them seriously.
As for people saying the assumptions of science are limiting, the fact that science discovered quantum mechanics and found that the microscopic world behaves in ways completely unlike the macroscopic world shows that scince can encompass revolutionary ideas when the evidence is there.

Well there you go.... DonaldM
Science is view of the world that can be seen, a conscious "world view" if you like.
The CreIDonists have a view of a non/nil/void world, something that does not have extant, an "unworldly view" and sourced from the unconscious. A dream universe, inhabited by mythical beings. Sound familiar?
Your aboriginal fore-bearers constructed such a world to explain their consciousness thousands of years before Moses. And nothing has changed in human desires to explain consciousness since those earliest Australians carved those mythical creatures into rocks 50,000 + years ago.

Show is how to utilize non-natural causes in science, Donald.

Quit your bitching and moaning, and just show us.

An explanation for why this model is used could prove helpful.

One of the most popular Biology textbooks used by public high school is the Miller-Levine textbook "Biology". My own daughter had it for her text just 3 years ago. In the chapter on evolution Miller and Levine write: "In many ways, each animal phylum represents an experiment in the design of body structures to perform the tasks necessary for survival. Of course, there has never been any kind of plan to these experiments because evolution works without either plan or purpose."

"One of the great wonders of our existence and of life itself is that it has all arisen through a combination of evolutionary processes and chance events."

To a certain point, these examples just prove the assertion that I was trying to make--- if there's only one sentence in an entire textbook that can be interpreted as philosophical naturalism

the claim that science texts are indoctrinating our kids in atheist philosophy doesn't carry a whole lot of force.

Actually, Lenny, I think the sentences that Donald provided sound a lot more like ontological naturalism than methodological naturalism-- they've slid over the line.

The fact that we can argue about whether it's MN or ON suggests that it's a minor infraction, but I'd prefer to err on the side of being too scrupulous when it comes to keeping science and ideology-- any ideology-- separate.

Big words get people going don't they? Stop and think what the words mean in practice. Natural"ism" in reference to scientific method merely means, *in practice*, following the evidence. Finding evidence for a new type of cause would be delightful for science.

But in the meantime, let's don't be so incredibly picky. Every last time any phenomenon whatsoever is mentioned, it is not necessary to add "but maybe velvet worms are an early Raelian experiment" or "but maybe my faucet leaks because I have displeased the plumbing gremlins" or "maybe the Disco Designer did it". Until there is evidence that Rael or some other special Agent did it, chill.

But in the meantime, let's don't be so incredibly picky.

Actually, Lenny, I think the sentences that Donald provided sound a lot more like ontological naturalism than methodological naturalism--- they've slid over the line.

The fact that we can argue about whether it's MN or ON suggests that it's a minor infraction, but I'd prefer to err on the side of being too scrupulous when it comes to keeping science and ideology--- any ideology--- separate.

In Donald's ideal world, a chemist comes into work in the morning, every day, and rechecks the Periodic Table real quick, just to make sure Go-- er, The Deeziner, didn't change anything overnight.

And the business of dredging textbooks for "metaphysical" declarations about "purposeless" evolution is a red herring, and Donald knows it. The problem is a well known one: the ubiquity of teleological language when describing processes that nominally involve agents. Replicators 'strive' to increase their numbers in succeeding generations. Nature 'designs' body plans.

Donald's quibble that any attempt to disclaim this language as 'a figure of speech' amounts to sneaking metaphysics into the science classroom is just a subtler form of quote-mining.

I do think that's poorly written, and the second sentence does stray into metaphysical certainty.

If we're going to get up in arms about the precise word choice of, say, the Kansas Board of Education's definition of science, then it's only right that we be equally anal-retentive about word choice in the other direction too.

uh, this does sound just like something donald posted last month, and the month before that, and the month before that...

Oh, by the way, has anyone seen the latest pronunciomentoi from the DI Ministry of Propaganda?

Apparently we're being led by Holocaust Deniers, now.

Perhaps we should introduce Luskin to Larry. (snicker) (giggle)

No wonder nobody takes DI seriously anymore. (shrug)

If it makes [DonaldM] feel any better, science doesn't care about my religious opinions, either. Or those of my car mechanic, veterinarian, or the kid who delivers my pizzas. (shrug)

You didn't seem to mention me very much while I was on vacation, Lenny. I don't suppose Pizza Woman had anything at all to do with it, though, huh?

Actually, Lenny, I think the sentences that Donald provided sound a lot more like ontological naturalism than methodological naturalism--- they've slid over the line.

— B. Spitzer

you can be quite happy that Allah or whoever chose to act through such chance events if you like.

Donald: One of the great wonders of our existence and of life itself is that it has all arisen through a combination of evolutionary processes and chance events." That last sentence is philosophical naturalism masquerading as science.

Anton: Nope, it's methodological naturalism. Whether an event occurs by chance or is determined, given known laws of nature and initial conditions, is a scientific question.

To say that life began through some combination of evolutionary processes and chance events is to say that life itself is the end product of the blind, purposeless forces of matter and energy acting over eons of time throug chance and necessity or their combination. In other words, lfie itself got started by purely natural causes.

To say that life began through some combination of evolutionary processes and chance events is to say that life itself is the end product of the blind, purposeless forces of matter and energy acting over eons of time throug chance and necessity or their combination. In other words, lfie itself got started by purely natural causes. Now, since no one on earth has a clue how life actually got started, it is not a scientific statement, but a philosophical one...philosophical naturalism to be exact.

— Donald

Re "the idea of randomness AT ALL simply gives their worldview fits and convulsions."

Then why aren't they fussing about quantum mechanics even more than about evolution? After all, in a "solid" object, every single subatomic particle in there is making random motions all the time. Yet a solid stays solid (well, unless it gets hot enough to melt).

Re "they need to think there is a specific plan for them"

Maybe producing life through natural processes was the specific plan? Otherwise they're stuck with the notion that the specific planner specifically planned and engineered each of the various pests that eat on us, our food, and our pets.

Henry

Then why aren't they fussing about quantum mechanics even more than about evolution? After all, in a "solid" object, every single subatomic particle in there is making random motions all the time. Yet a solid stays solid (well, unless it gets hot enough to melt).

Maybe producing life through natural processes was the specific plan?

Here, Don, let me translate to everyone for you:

Everyone, what Donnie is saying is

SCIENCE IS ATHEISTIC !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Happy now, Don?

In other words, lfie itself got started by purely natural causes.

that's just it. folks like Ducky can't be happy with and can't accept that. they need to think there is a specific plan for them and all they have to do is wish hard enough and it will come true. the idea of randomness AT ALL simply gives their worldview fits and convulsions.

— Sir_Toejam

Why can't they go shout at the physicists, then?

The event in question is life itself. To say that life began through some combination of evolutionary processes and chance events is to say that life itself is the end product of the blind, purposeless forces of matter and energy acting over eons of time throug chance and necessity or their combination.

— Donald M

Posted by Troff on May 18, 2006 05:57 PM (e) Last time on The Panda's Thumb... fnxtr wrote: "Watch, UD and their ilk will now make a connection between evolution and pornography. Just watch." Dude... seriously. Let 'em. 'Cause then it's Open Season.

Sounder wrote: ... A friend who works in a university philosophy department once e-mailed me this quote:

"Science is a model of reality, not reality itself. (Both scientists and religious nuts get this wrong.) Science believes that if the model works (ie. predicts the future), it's useful, if it does not, then it's useless. It's not a faith, it's not a religion, it is a tool. Nothing more, nothing less."

Sir_Toe,
Re "haven't we already been over that?" [quantum randomness]

Yeah, I suppose that idea probably comes up sporadically, since it is a fairly obvious (to a science minded person) counterpoint to the repeated objection to randomness in biology.

Henry

Freelurcker, I surely do not care for the quote. The first senteence is fine. But with "Science believes" I am quite upset. Then it goes to imply that the only value of models is to predict the future. Very narrow minded, imho. Then other problems ...

I'll bet you can do better on your own.

Sounder says:

""Science is a model of reality, not reality itself. (Both scientists and religious nuts get this wrong.) Science believes that if the model works (ie. predicts the future), it's useful, if it does not, then it's useless. It's not a faith, it's not a religion, it is a tool. Nothing more, nothing less.""

This is an overly pessimistic philosophical view, on two counts. First, scientists are usually quite good at distinguishing between the results of a theory and reality. (Even though analogous to what B says it's hard to avoid using language that suggest reality.)

Second, there are things that are robust observations that we know are real. For example, after decades of indirect observations of atoms we can now trap individual ions and make them blink, or scan individual atoms with an AFM. They are as reliable as dogs, beatiful as cats, and real as babies.

"Torbjörn Larsson wrote:
"The scientific method is in no way an assumption. It is a method, and we see that it works. How anyone can think a method is an assumption eludes me."

An explanation for why this model is used could prove helpful."

I'm not sure what you mean. I'm discussing the idealised scientific method - every field has its realisations. It is not a model, but an attempt of loose description of a method.

It is IMHO *very* hard to model how the theory of science works, and even more so the totality of results from it. Which is BTW another reason it's so laughable when IDiots claim that it has "other presuppositions essential to science" or 'limit inquiry'. (And they have never demonstrated any ability to understand enough to be able to do theoretical or practical research. Yet they make claims on what science is.)

Idealised it is observations of phenomena, theories describing phenomena, predictions for new observations, validations (some falsifiable, some against other theories) - with iterations (and repetitions) at every step. The reason it is accepted is that it works.

Donald says:

"To say that life began through some combination of evolutionary processes and chance events is to say that life itself is the end product of the blind, purposeless forces of matter and energy acting over eons of time throug chance and necessity or their combination."

Evolution isn't exactly blind or purposeless. Natural selection is an adaption to local reproductive success (fitness landscape) - so it is not blind. Evolution is about reproductive success - so it is not purposeless.

Why evolution is possible is another question. The basic mechanisms are simple and general, even chemical or software systems can use them. The question is analogous to the cosmological question why an infinite time universe like for example the endless inflation multiverse exists. It does. And it could not. So we would not know the difference. So it is meaningless to ask the question. But it is also observer bias. So it is really a failed question.

And it has nothing to do with the fact that evolution exists and how it works.

"In other words, lfie itself got started by purely natural causes. Now, since no one on earth has a clue how life actually got started, it is not a scientific statement, but a philosophical one...philosophical naturalism to be exact."

Neither has abiogenesis to do with the fact that evolution exists and how it works.

But we know that life started, since primordial earth was lifeless and now there is life. It is an observation and thus science. The method of science will give us a natural description.

The burden of proof is on you. Why should abiogenesis be different from all other observations and need a nondescriptive religious philosophical supernatural explanation instead of a practical scientific one?

David,

Perhaps "the scientific community believes" in place of "science believes" would make it more accurate. As for ability to predict the future, yes, that's only one example.

The point of the quote was that science has a very specific purpose and context, and that we need to be very mindful of them.

What other problems are there with it?

Let me rephrase the last part:

"But we know that life started, since primordial earth was lifeless and now there is life. It is an observation and thus science. The method of science will give us a natural description, if we can find it.

The burden of proof is on you. Why should abiogenesis be different from all other observations and need a nondescriptive religious philosophical supernatural explanation which is equivalent to the default answer of "we don't know" - instead of a practical scientific one?

Sounder, it distinguishes 'belief' from 'faith', at least implictly. Now this is certainly possible, but takes quite a lengthy argument. Inappropriate for a snappy statement.
Also, as Torbjorn points out, the parenthetical remark is incorrect, regarding scientists.
While a statement that science is a 'tool' is appropriate, the quote overly emphasizes prediction as the goal of science. There are other goals, at least as important, imho.

Sounder says: ""Science is a model of reality, not reality itself. (Both scientists and religious nuts get this wrong.) Science believes that if the model works (ie. predicts the future), it's useful, if it does not, then it's useless. It's not a faith, it's not a religion, it is a tool. Nothing more, nothing less."" This is an overly pessimistic philosophical view, on two counts. First, scientists are usually quite good at distinguishing between the results of a theory and reality. (Even though analogous to what B says it's hard to avoid using language that suggest reality.)

Second, there are things that are robust observations that we know are real. For example, after decades of indirect observations of atoms we can now trap individual ions and make them blink, or scan individual atoms with an AFM. They are as reliable as dogs, beatiful as cats, and real as babies.

Gle,
Obviously I'm not a philosopher or a neuroscientist. The problems you mention isn't a scientific problem as I understand it.

Science isn't about establishing truth statements on an unobserved reality, but about establishing facts on observed phenomena. Some natural phenomena are so robust and basic that scientists can take them as real objects and come away with it. (Of course, sometimes some less substantiated phlogiston theory bites the dust.) That seems to be a good definition of reality to me.

I guess I shouldn't say "definition of reality" because then you tell me there is some 'realdealist' school of philosophy I'm discussing, and why they are philosophically wrong.

I guess even "concept of reality" is too strong here. That last sentence is unneccessary, but I like it. It is at least compatible with observations. So I will tentatively leave it. Very tentatively...

My thanks to everyone who commented on the quote provided earlier by Sounder. I like it because it asserts a primal role in science for models. This is consistent with the role of models in my own field, systems engineering, and in the field of mathematical systems theory, in particular. (To me, the lack of models in the ID approach shows its uselessness, essentially by definition.)

BTW, I think that the modeling perspective clears up a particular area of confusion that I have seen in some ID discussions, including in this thread. People on both sides of the ID issue will refer to events happening "by chance." Such statements can be read as positive assertions that there exists some cosmic random number generator. But as far as I know, there is no more evidence of such a random number generator than there is evidence of a cosmic chooser. Instead of saying "event X happens by chance" it is more precise (but admittedly awkward) to say "in the model under discussion, the occurrence of X is modeled as a random variable." Maintaining this perspective keeps the emphasis on the current state of our knowledge and leaves out unnecessary and unsupported teleological (and counter-teleological) implications.

Re ""in the model under discussion, the occurrence of X is modeled as a random variable.""

I'll second that strategy.

Henry

Donald M wrote: The event in question is life itself. To say that life began through some combination of evolutionary processes and chance events is to say that life itself is the end product of the blind, purposeless forces of matter and energy acting over eons of time throug chance and necessity or their combination.

Anton Mates: No, it really isn't. You simply reshuffled the first statement and pulled "blind, purposeless forces of matter and energy" out of nowhere. Now if you want to believe that evolutionary processes and chance events are in fact blind and purposeless, that's great. I happen to believe that myself. Of course, I'm an atheist, and I was under the impression that you weren't... "Chance" is not a theological term.

If chance and necessity are the only tools available to nature, then those tools are also blind and purposeless.

And once again, Donald shouts "SCIENCE IS ATHEISTIC !!!!!" at the top of his lungs.

(yawn)

a true atheist or philosophical naturalist,

I think the sentences that Donald provided sound a lot more like ontological naturalism than methodological naturalism--- they've slid over the line. The fact that we can argue about whether it's MN or ON suggests that it's a minor infraction, but I'd prefer to err on the side of being too scrupulous when it comes to keeping science and ideology--- any ideology--- separate.

really DM, stop already! everybody here already knows you're a complete ignoramus. no need to continue.

put down the nerf gun.

The only question is which worldview is allowed and why.

I'm not suggesting that 'chance' is a theological term. If the cosmos is in fact a closed system of natural cause and effect, which is the only option for a true atheist or philosophical naturalist, then chance and necessity or their combination are the only tools available to explain anything we observe in nature.

— Donald M

If chance and necessity are the only tools available to nature, then those tools are also blind and purposeless. Foresight and purpose come from intelligence, the one thing denied in the naturalistic worldview.

And once again, Donald shouts "SCIENCE IS ATHEISTIC !!!!"

(yawn)

Is there anyone still out there who hasn't grasped the fact that Donald thinks science is atheistic? Anyone? Come on, raise your hand if you still don't get it. . . .

(silence)

Good job, Donald. Mission accomplished. (shakes hand)

Time to move on and enlighten someone else now.

See you next month.

Re "Is there anyone still out there who hasn't grasped the fact that Donald thinks science is atheistic?"

Hmmm. Let's analyze that. First, science is in essence a study of reality. Second, if studying reality is atheistic, then reality is atheistic. Therefore, anyone claiming science to be athiestic is proclaiming that atheism is reality. Though that's probably not what they thought they were saying...

Henry

Yikes. anybody care to point out the multiple flaws in that little piece of "logic"? the way you come to conclusions never ceases to amaze. you know, Ducky, you only need to demonstrate your utter inability to expound a logical argument once a month. Your continuing demonstration here is really just overkill. do you really think that B follows from A in this statement???

Foresight and purpose come from intelligence, the one thing denied in the naturalistic worldview.

— Donald M

But what no one can say, including Princehouse, is that we know scientifically that nature is a closed system of natural cause and effect.

Yes, yes, yes, Donald --- science doesn't pay any attention to your religious opinions, and you don't like that. Right. We got it. Really. We heard you the first hundred times.

Of course, weather forecasting or accident investigation or medical practice or the rules of basketball also don't pay any attention to your religious opinions, do they.

If it makes you feel any better, Donald, none of them pay any attention to MY religious opinions either. Of course, I don't throw tantrums over it, like you do. (shrug)

I think that we should save the pandas for a good cause. i am a middle school student, but i have been researching on pandas. what we have been doing to them is why they are endangered becoming enstinc. i cant really spell, but i am doing a panda report and we need to save the pandas!

i am happy mostly - though terribly sick at times - the medicine is not a perfect fix - i think some weed would help but caant find any - Kant find any...