Skiff studies plasma physics. I wonder if he's open to the idea that tiny little Jesuses hold together subatomic particles. That's how rediculous ID sounds to a biologist.
Missouri beat you to it. Faculty from all the 4-yr state Universities signed a statement 2 yrs ago. http://web.missouri.edu/~esiwww/.../
evolution.html Which is one of the few times MO has been ahead of Iowa on anything that mattered ;>
Frank
Tara: "But they realize God just ain't something you can investigate scientifically."
Can you prove this "realization", Tara?
You're making a definite assertion here. Definite assertions require proof (as opposed, for example, to a demand that somebody else prove the assertion false.)
Just curious.
Neurode:
"Tara: "But they realize God just ain't something you can investigate scientifically."
Can you prove this "realization", Tara?"
I think Tara is showing respect for other people's spirituality by not insisting on cramming anyone else's concept of God into the set of things which can be physically measured, and are thus amenable to scientific investigation.
But if you want to limit your concept of God to only one which can be physically measured, then sure, in that case you can investigate him scientifically to your heart's content, and you should feel free to have at it. That's kind of a Procrustean bed for other people's more expansive concept of God, though.
Well neurode, science is about formulating and testing natural explanations to explain natural phenomena. Since God as I understand that entity is by definition outside nature, he is by definition outside our ability to investigate with science.
Now if you or Dr. Skiff would not agee with that definition, then by all means show us how you can use the data to investigate God (or a god or gods). Feel free to use whatever limitations you wish (or none at all), but do realize your hypotheses must flow from your theory and must be subject to test. You do agee it must be subject to testing, don't you?
Perhaps you can find one of Dr. Skiffs physics papers where he explicitly uses a non-materialistic methodology. Surely he's not just blowing smoke, but is practicing what he preaches to other scientists. And if every paper of Dr. Skiff's uses materialism, I'd want to know how he justifies this. Wouldn't you?
Scientists have rejected non-material causation, not because it doesn't exist, but because its not amenable to testing. But if you know different, then tell us how to test this way. I for one would love to hear it.
I asked my Ouija board what it thought of Dr. Skiff and it came back with I.D.I.O.T.
The supernatural speaks.
Gonzalez said Avalos and a few other intelligent design critics have created a hostile environment for him at ISU by circulating the statement and speaking out in the media. But Gonzalez said he thinks many ISU faculty silently support teaching intelligent design as science.
The real irony is that it was Gonzalez (or at least the people he associates with) who started the ball rolling by circulating petitions and speaking out in the media. But apparently when people oppose them by doing the same thing, it suddenly becomes "hostile". What a bunch of goobers these guys are.
RavenT: It is one thing to confine God to the physically measurable; it is quite another to confine God to scientific irrelevance by denying that He can influence nature in any measurable way. Try not to confuse "respecting other people's spirituality" with disrespectfully assuming that the spiritual is irrelevant to nature, and thus that the spiritual beliefs of billions of people are deluded.
Dave S.: That's a definition, not a proof. Worse, it's a very poor definition that renders God unable to influence nature in any intelligible way, and with which no major western religion agrees. (Major western religions say that God can intelligibly influence, and in fact was responsible for creating, the natural world.)
I suggest that you let Tara answer for herself.
Neurode:
"RavenT: It is one thing to confine God to the physically measurable; it is quite another to confine God to scientific irrelevance by denying that He can influence nature in any measurable way."
If God is omnipotent, then he can do anything, or he can do its opposite, or he can do both. There is no scientific test which suffices to distinguish his influences under those conditions. The only way a test could suffice to measure God's influence is if God is constrained to only that which science is able to measure--and that would mean he is not omnipotent.
"Try not to confuse 'respecting other people's spirituality' with disrespectfully assuming that the spiritual is irrelevant to nature, and thus that the spiritual beliefs of billions of people are deluded."
On the contrary, I am not being disrespectful--I think billions of people believe in God's omnipotence, and pointing out the threat to that belief in omnipotence that results from trying to constrain God's effects to only that which is measureable is anything *but* assuming they are deluded. I don't see any reason they should settle for trying to constrain their concept of God that narrowly.
You seem determined to prove Tara's point for her, RavenT.
Very well, then. What you need to establish is that nature contains no information about God. To do this, you'll need to show not only that God is omnipotent and therefore subject to no external constraints in the way He created the universe, but that God is not subject to self-imposed constraints either...i.e., that given the universe we see before us, the way God constructed any one part or aspect of it is totally unconstrained by the way He constructed any other part or aspect of it.
If you can't prove that - and you certainly can't - then there exists the possibility, if not the certainty, that the information implicit in such self-imposed constraints can be scientifically exploited in order to learn something about God and His relationship with nature.
Again, I suggest that you let Tara answer for herself.
"You seem determined to prove Tara's point for her, RavenT."
No, I speak only for myself. You bring up questions that get at the heart of spirituality and epistemology, and for that reason, I am interested in the discussion.
"If you can't prove that - and you certainly can't - then there exists the possibility, if not the certainty, that the information implicit in such self-imposed constraints can be scientifically exploited in order to learn something about God and His relationship with nature."
No one has any way to know whether God has consistent self-imposed contraints or not that would hold for all experimental conditions; he never addresses that question. And in fact, the Bible does have examples of where he does opposite things, such as first sending the Flood, and then vowing not to do that again. So we don't have any access to knowledge about any potential self-imposed constraints, but we do have examples of doing something and then doing its opposite, which implies the absence of such contraints.
And even if you *could* establish that, all you would have in the best case is an unknown possibility that you *might* be able to study it--how would you establish alpha, beta, and p, and distinguish between a Type I and a Type II error in that case? You're still a long way from a methodology, and since God has demonstrated he can do opposite things, there's no way to tell a valid experimental result from a Type I error from a Type II error. Science just isn't capable of investigating something whose degree of constraint to that which can be measured is indeterminable--it's not the right tool for the job.
"Again, I suggest that you let Tara answer for herself."
I assume that she permits comments on her blog because she wants to promote discussion. So, we're discussing the points you brought up. You're talking about spirituality, and I'm interested in participating in the discussion. Of course, if Tara thinks I'm out of line in responding to the points you bring up, I'll certainly cede to her judgment on her blog.
I don't really understand why more scientists aren't willing to simply accept that science undermines religion. It always has and always will, and this is all for the better. Religion is by definition superstition, belief in the supernatural, a "higher" power, a power beyond investigation, an explanation for the inexplicable; it is by definition anti-science. Once we can explain things scientifically, we have no need for religion. When we discovered where lightening comes from, we had no need to postulate a god throwing down thunderbolts; when we discovered what natural processes are responsible for the tides, the seasons, the rising and setting of the sun--there was no need for god to explain these processes. When we came to understand evolution, there was no need for god to explain the creation of humans. Yes, many scientists still believe in god, but this involves an inconsistency in their own belief structure. Science is materialist. Let us have the courage to fight for both science and materialism.
RavenT: "No one has any way to know whether God has consistent self-imposed contraints or not that would hold for all experimental conditions."
The mere possibility of performing replicable experiments in different locations and at different times implies a degree of spatiotemporal coherence and homogeneity that is vanishingly improbable under the assumption that nature is not held together by a coherent network of constraints.
The very fact that identical laws can be formulated for physical events occurring on the sun and on Alpha Centauri scientifically confirms that some distributed agency is enforcing a substantial degree of logical and empirical consistency over vast spatial and temporal distances. This raises a scientific question: what is the nature of this agency and the mechanism by which it functions?
If you wish to definitely assert that this agency cannot possibly possess any set of observable attributes that might justify the acceptance or rejection of a reasonable natural theology, then the burden of proof rests entirely on you (and Tara, if she wants to let you argue her case for her).
Regarding your Biblical examples, it is impermissible to make blanket statements regarding theology on the strength of scriptural contradictions. Even if the Bible was dictated by God, it was transcribed by fallible humans under the influence of a particular combination of language, culture, politics, historical tradition, and prior belief.
I would just like to say you are the hottest scientist I ever saw.
Okay bye.
Joe:
"Religion is by definition superstition, belief in the supernatural, a "higher" power, a power beyond investigation, an explanation for the inexplicable; it is by definition anti-science."
If it is "beyond investigation", hown can you say anything about its nature, up to and including "anti-science"? You don't have enough information to do so; the strongest you can say about something that can't be investigated scientifically is that it is "non-science".
Neurode:
"If you wish to definitely assert that this agency cannot possibly possess any set of observable attributes that might justify the acceptance or rejection of a reasonable natural theology, then the burden of proof rests entirely on you (and Tara, if she wants to let you argue her case for her)."
Not asserting that it cannot possibly possess; I'm saying we cannot possibly know *what* it possesses--different locus of what cannot be possible. To assert that we can know enough to establish a methodology--the values of the variables I mentioned earlier, for example--is a false precision.
"Regarding your Biblical examples, it is impermissible to make blanket statements regarding theology on the strength of scriptural contradictions. Even if the Bible was dictated by God, it was transcribed by fallible humans under the influence of a particular combination of language, culture, politics, historical tradition, and prior belief."
But if that's all the information we have about God, then, as contradictory as it is, that's still all we can work with. To assert without evidence that seeing coherence in nature means we have more information about God's self-imposed constraints than just the Bible, and that because we see coherence in nature then means God has self-imposed constraints, is not even circular reasoning; it's simply asserting what you're trying to prove.
Some things are inherently unknowable and outside of science, which is why they are properly the domain of faith. Pushing them into the wrong bin diminishes both domains and generates error. Where you make the Type I error of saying the unknowable *must* be God, Joe makes the Type II error of saying it *cannot* be God. Science cannot establish it one way or another--it is simply non-science, which does not make it non-significant or non-meaningful--just non-science.
Poor Tara. The things she must endure from the pervayer of non-science.
I think the real problem is that 1)most people do not know enough about the teachings of their own faith, so they conflate what can empirically be known with what can only be known in one's heart; 2) they misunderstand the what their faith teaches about Ultimate Reality; 3)and, finally, they forget that science and religion are two different systems of knowledge.
In essence peoples' religious beliefs ten to be adolescent. And as such, they need time for their faith to mature.
Peace & love,
GE
Neurode
No. It confirms no such thing. That is your assumption.
Dave S.: That's a definition, not a proof. Worse, it's a very poor definition that renders God unable to influence nature in any intelligible way, and with which no major western religion agrees.
I thought we were talking about science, not religion. Do notice the phrase "investigate scientifically".
And the practice of doing science does nothing for or against God. Many scientists see science as a way of opening the creation to our understanding. That's a personal metaphysic, not a statement on the practical methodology of science.
(Major western religions say that God can intelligibly influence, and in fact was responsible for creating, the natural world.)
Whoa there neurode....who says the supernatural causative agent must be God? Where's your scientific "proof" for that? How do you know the supernatural being isn't all-evil and not all-good?
That's why science can't investigate the supernatural. Because that would rely on a being completely subjective in nature and totally unbounded by any physical laws. Such a being could do anything at any time. Since such explanations are useless in any practical sense, they are ignored.
But here's the beauty thing neurode. You don't have to ignore them if you don't want to. All you have to do is to show us how you can advance our knowledge of the natural world while using such a being in your methodology. Can you show me any of Dr. Skiff's papers, or anyone else's, that explicitly uses supernatual causation to found some novel conclusion about nature? What would be the positive test?
I suggest that you let Tara answer for herself.
Yeaaah, my posting neither prevents Tara from answering nor compels you to reply.
Thanks for the suggestion though.
I see that we may have a bit of confusion here, RavenT. Thus far, you've merely compounded Tara's original assertion with additional unproven epistemological assertions regarding what can and cannot be known given various assumptions about the Bible and so on.
As you'll recall, Tara made a definite assertion to the effect that God cannot be scientifically investigated. With all due respect, anyone's personal reasons for thinking that this might (or might not) be so are incapable of satisfying Tara's burden of proof. For that, we'd need something ironclad, not just a body of opinion.
I do appreciate hearing your thoughts on the matter, but I just wanted to know if Tara stood ready to put her money where her mouth is. I think I've got the answer to that now. Have a good day.
"As you'll recall, Tara made a definite assertion to the effect that God cannot be scientifically investigated. With all due respect, anyone's personal reasons for thinking that this might (or might not) be so are incapable of satisfying Tara's burden of proof. For that, we'd need something ironclad, not just a body of opinion."
Oh? But religion is a body of opinion, to begin with, Neurode. Besides, God, who is by definition supernatural, is not amenable to empirical inquiry because science has no practical way to know whether He, She, or It exists in the first place. And anyone's experience of God is purely subjective, hence the body of opinion.
"I do appreciate hearing your thoughts on the matter, but I just wanted to know if Tara stood ready to put her money where her mouth is. I think I've got the answer to that now. Have a good day."
When will you put your wher your mouth is? You sound as if you already had an answer to your question from the get go.
The December issue of Harper's Magazine has an interesting article asserting that what ID proponents are doing is coopting liberal academia relativism. I can't do it justice right now, but if you get a chance, track down the article and see if you don't agree with the author that just because a position has a constituancy doesn't mean they have a case, nor a claim to intellectual respect.
And excellent reason science might not be able to detect a god is that there isn't one. I mean--that would explain it, wouldn't it?
Science says nothing one way or the other as far as God (or any other supernatural entitity or entities you might envision) is concerned Greg. Its not that it tries to detect God but fails ... it doesn't even try. That's because there is no objective empirical test you could do to distinguish 'god' from 'not-god'.
Anyone who disagrees can simply present such a test. Many disagree, but for some reason none of those have actually presented a test. Of course not doing so themselves does not stop them from complaining that materialist-evolutionist-Darwinist scientists don't do so.
Holy cow. I go away for 24 hours and come back to all this?
First, neurode, I apologize for not being around sooner. I'm out of town and staying with my in-laws (shudder) in the boonies of rural Ohio with no 'net access. I'm currently at the local public library with limited time, so:
...I just wanted to know if Tara stood ready to put her money where her mouth is. I think I've got the answer to that now. Have a good day.
This is quite a bit premature. I'd suggest a bit of patience.
The original challenge was:
You're making a definite assertion here. Definite assertions require proof (as opposed, for example, to a demand that somebody else prove the assertion false.)
First, "proof" is not something that's found in science. You're thinking mathematics. Science deals with evidence. The observable, the testable. We don't deal in "proof." IMO therefore, your entire question is a strawman. I can, however, provide evidence, in the form of every scientific advancement ever known, that science deals with the material, and I'll throw in as additional evidence the lack of any testable model of god to boot.
And as others mentioned, while this is my blog, I value the comments of others as well. So while you're certainly within your rights to wait around for comment by me, please don't discourage others from piping up as well. If I wanted a one-on-one conversation, I'd disable comments and just have people email me.
Well, Tara, one suspects that neurode's goal all along was to leave in a superior huff. It's a recurring theme when dealing with people who love being indignant.
When you get a logical structure like the following:
1. There is a "culture war" underway.
2. Their side is losing.
3. Therefore, as they represent the side of good, they now have the moral license to cheat, steal, and lie in order to win.
I've often thought that points 1 and 2 were created to justify point 3. It's interesting how often fanatics will position themselves on the losing sides of issues in order to exploit the opportunity for self-aggrandizing martyrdom.
Please note that while the phrase 'culture war' belongs to the hard-right wing in this country, the tactic spans all political divides.
Yeah, Alex. I know there's a "culture war" going on; and I wish the combatants would just declare victory their respective sides and call it a day.
The problem is, one side (The Right) of the fight practices "The Paranoid Style" of politics. And their attendant religious constructs teach them that they live in a dark, evil world in which everbody and everything is out to destroy their faith and their way of life.
The Left practices the politics of a somewhat naive idealism whereby they want to change some things; but they are little tone deaf to peoples' fears. They misunderstand human nature, which has not progressed very far from "Lothar of the Hill People." They fail to take into account that Lothar doesn't understand great many things having to do with the way other chose to live. And Lothar doesn't understand he fears. New ideas threaten him.
When your only tool is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.
Peace & love,
GE
Tara: "First, proof is not something that's found in science."
But you weren't making a scientific assertion, Tara. Your assertion was epistemological, being about the supposed theological limitations of science rather than empirical data or inductive inference from observation.
The validity of non-empirical assertions can be established in only one way: by logical deduction. In particular, if you want to definitely assert that something cannot be scientifically investigated, then you need to show how this can be logically deduced from self-evident principles.
Despite the unscientific nature of your assertion, you nevertheless offer two pieces of supposed "evidence" for it: (1) that no scientific advance has ever involved anything of a non-material nature, and (2) that there exists no testable model of god. Yet many important scientific advances, e.g. General Relativity, have dealt with immaterial entities, e.g. space and time, and nobody is currently in a position to assert the impossibility of a testable model of God.
In other words, you really had no business presenting your assertion as fact. Regardless of how many self-righteous ivory tower muttonheads sanctimoniously sign off on this kind of assertion, it remains nothing more than an opinion, and worse, an opinion which could discourage the scientific investigation of something that (for all any of you know) could be both scientifically accessible and crucial to the welfare of mankind.
Of course, you may not have meant to present your assertion as a fact. You might merely have intended to register a strong opinion, and gone a little overboard in your wording. But in any case, I'm sure you'll agree that your readers have the right to request clarification.
But you weren't making a scientific assertion, Tara. Your assertion was epistemological, being about the supposed theological limitations of science rather than empirical data or inductive inference from observation.
Making an assertion about the limitations of science is making a scientific assertion. The limitations aren't supposed, they are a recognition of how science is done.
The validity of non-empirical assertions can be established in only one way: by logical deduction. In particular, if you want to definitely assert that something cannot be scientifically investigated, then you need to show how this can be logically deduced from self-evident principles.
But science is a human invention or tool. It does not exist independently of people. Tara is exactly right that this tool is found to be useful only when it uses natural observations and formulates natural explanations. If you disagree, then show how it could be made a better tool in advancing our knowledge of nature. Why do you refuse to do this?
Yet many important scientific advances, e.g. General Relativity, have dealt with immaterial entities, e.g. space and time, and nobody is currently in a position to assert the impossibility of a testable model of God.
General relativity makes testable empirical predictions, tests which have been confirmed. The GPS satellite system would be useless if GR were incorrect.
God (or god or gods, there is no scientific reason to accept your concept of God over another) makes no such testable predictions. Not only have no predictions been made, none can be since any observation is compatible with some concept of a god. Again, if you think differently, show us how it's done. Until you can do that, maybe we should stick to the horse that has shown itself a winner repeatedly.
In other words, you really had no business presenting your assertion as fact.
But it is a fact.
Regardless of how many self-righteous ivory tower muttonheads sanctimoniously sign off on this kind of assertion, it remains nothing more than an opinion....
No anti-intellectual bias to see here folks. 
... , and worse, an opinion which could discourage the scientific investigation of something that (for all any of you know) could be both scientifically accessible and crucial to the welfare of mankind.
But neurode, nothing is stopping YOU (and like minded thinkers) from going ahead and studying nature using whatever model you please. Please, I'd love for you to show us all how you can find, say, medical cures using a non-material approach to disease. That would be a good place to start. Let's see the data.
Of course, you may not have meant to present your assertion as a fact. You might merely have intended to register a strong opinion, and gone a little overboard in your wording. But in any case, I'm sure you'll agree that your readers have the right to request clarification.
I'm sure she w
Must have hit a character limit.
To finish that sentence...
I'm sure she would agree with that (I suspect, although of course I can't speak for her), although I do know that some bloggers delete comments not favourably disposed to them.
neurode: "In other words, you really had no business presenting your assertion as fact."
Dave S.: "But it is a fact."
Then prove it using logical deduction. Otherwise, your various erroneous and/or irrelevant comments add up to this hilarious faux-empirical nonsequitur:
"That scientists have not yet seen evidence of God proves that God does not exist."
This is wrong on three counts. (1) Because science lacks a comprehensive model of natural causation, and evidence of causation exists only relative to a causal model, scientists cannot know that they have not in fact seen ample evidence of God. (2) As Tara has already observed, science is incapable of proof. (3) Even if science were to possess an absolute model of causation and were able to utilize mathematical methods of proof, non-observation does not prove nonexistence.
It follows directly that your "support" for Tara's assertion can be nothing more than an embarrassment to her.
[Lest there be any misunderstanding, you may replace
"The fact that scientists have not yet seen God proves that God does not exist"
with
"The fact that scientists have not yet seen God proves that God does not exist within the materialistic framework of methodological naturalism."
The rest of the post can be consistently interpreted with respect to the extension.]
Who's trying to prove the non-existence of God? Certainly not me, and not any scientist I know. As I mentioned, many scientists indeed believe in God, which was what started this whole tangent off. I'm also of the "let's see the data" mindset. If you can think of a way to bring God into the scientific realm, I'm all ears.
" Who's trying to prove the non-existence of God? Certainly not me, and not any scientist I know."
Scientists are way too busy doing real research to waste their time with such nonsense. Besides, you cannot prove a negative.
"As I mentioned, many scientists indeed believe in God, which was what started this whole tangent off."
And many know the difference between faith and empiricism.
"If you can think of a way to bring God into the scientific realm, I'm all ears."
I wouldn't hold my breath on that score, Tara. I don't think they have one. Besides, belief in a God/Ultimate is way too much of a abstraction to be amenable to empirical analysis.
GE
Oh, come on now, Tara. You've clearly asserted that God is excluded from science, i.e., that God does not exist within the scope of the materialistic framework of methodological naturalism, and you can't even begin to prove it.
To grant the "existence" of God, but only outside the domain of science, is to grant nothing of material importance. Your position renders God scientifically irrelevant, and in fact irrelevant to anything in or about the natural world. In order to assert this as a fact, you need to prove it by logical deduction. You haven't yet done that.
Even if you're not going to retract or modify your assertion, please grant your readers the courtesy of not insulting their intelligence.
It may be a hilarious nonsequitur, but it is your hilarious nonsequitur neurode, not mine. It's telling that you feel the need to put words in my mouth and ignore most of my post.
My statements actually add up to "Scientists have not seen God (using science) because science does not address that question". That science ignores the supernatural no more disproves the supernatural than that plumbing ignores the supernatural. In fact a personal belief in God is totally consistant with the acceptance of science as a method to formulate natural explanations for natural phenomena.
Again, show us the beef. There's a reason supernatural models of disease have been abandoned for instance, and all of us, even you neurode, enjoy the benefits of a purely materialistic medicine. Unless you're the type that really sticks to your principles that is, and have rejected modern medicine. If so, I salute you.
If not ... why not?
I've not insulted anyone's intelligence, but it would appear that you've insulted the religion of many by claiming that keeping God separate from science is "granting nothing of material importance." You're also beating a strawman by saying that by rendering God scientifically irrelevant, God is thus irrelevant to anything in or about the natural world. That's not my position at all, and I'm tired of you mischaracterizing it. I don't know whether God intervenes in everyday affairs, or sits on high throwing down flagella and blood-clotting systems, or simply set this whole universe in motion, or if one even exists at all, and not surprisingly, you've not shown how I could test any of those in a scientific manner. God may very well be behind all of this, but smarter minds than you or I haven't figured out ways to test that. I welcome the challenge, but until then, MN has been the only method that's given results. As GE said, I ain't holdin' my breath.
Dave S.: "Scientists have not seen God (using science) because science does not address that question".
No, Dave. You seconded Tara's original assertion, calling it a "fact". Thus, your post adds up to exactly what I said it does.
On the other hand, if you now wish to retract your original support for Tara's assertion, then you've rendered your own input irrelevant to the satisfaction of her burden of proof.
Unfortunately, that's not a proof of your original assertion, Tara.
Either you can prove that assertion or you can't. I guess you can't.
Thanks for answering my question.
I've already explained to you about "proof," neurode. At least I attempted to reason with you, while you've not answered any of the questions posed to you. Sadly, I find that's typical.
Oh, come on now, Tara. You've clearly asserted that God is excluded from science, i.e., that God does not exist within the scope of the materialistic framework of methodological naturalism, and you can't even begin to prove it.
What's to prove?
Science deals with, as you say, the "materialistic framework of methodological naturalism". Since God is not material (I assume so, although you haven't yet defined what you mean by "God" so we can't be certain) and works via unknowable mechanisms, He can't be so examined. It's true by definition. Now you might wish to change the definition. O.K. fine, .... show us how this new definition of science gives us superior explanations of natural phenomena. No-one is stopping you from using your own model. Go right ahead. Show us a better way.
To grant the "existence" of God, but only outside the domain of science, is to grant nothing of material importance. Your position renders God scientifically irrelevant, and in fact irrelevant to anything in or about the natural world. In order to assert this as a fact, you need to prove it by logical deduction. You haven't yet done that.
I'm sorry you feel that way, but God is not scientifically testable. God is scientifically irrelevant, as irrelevant as Zeus or the Invisible Pink Unicern or any other deity or group of deities, no more useful to the pracice of science as He is to the practice of plumbing. If you feel so strongly, please show us the tests.
Oh, and please show that the Moon exists using logical deduction. This will show us exactly the kind of logic you're looking for. That's the only way we can accept that as a fact, right? Remember, any physical observation to which you may refer (including looking at it) could be easily faked by some supernatural non-material being not bounded natural laws and using unknowable methodology. No ignoring supernatural causation now!
Even if you're not going to retract or modify your assertion, please grant your readers the courtesy of not insulting their intelligence.
There's no need to retract anything. And if you feel insulted that someone doesn't agree with you, that's a shame.
Maybe if you were to show us how science could be improved by the addition of this entity.
Otherwise, scientists are fully justified in ignoring supernatural explanations becuase they are useless in science. Note I said useless, not false. I cannot evaluate truth or falsity using science.
Tara: "I've already explained to you about 'proof,' neurode."
Thank you, Tara, but that wasn't the explanation I was looking for.
Given that there's no proof in science, scientific assertions that do not directly describe observational data cannot be presented as definite facts. Instead, they are meaningful only with respect to the operative theory and model, i.e., the theory and model through which the associated inferences are obtained.
On the other hand, meta-scientific assertions which purport to describe factual, model-independent limitations on science must be deductively supported.
I'm sure you understand that when people publicly throw their "scientific authority" behind anti-ID petitions and so on, they and their readers need to be aware of its limitations.
Again, thanks for answering my question!
No, Dave. You seconded Tara's original assertion, calling it a "fact". Thus, your post adds up to exactly what I said it does.
And I second that second, it is a fact.
And it does not end up as you said it does.
Or as you would say....prove it. Show using logical deduction that my posts must add up to exactly what you claim. Otherwise, I'd be happy to see your retraction. Surely you'd be more than happy to do the very thing you claim is being avoided here. Please either retract or show your logical deductions...I don't care a whit for anything else.
I await your logic.
On the other hand, if you now wish to retract your original support for Tara's assertion, then you've rendered your own input irrelevant to the satisfaction of her burden of proof.
I see no reason to retract anything I've written.
I'm sure you understand that when people publicly throw their "scientific authority" behind anti-ID petitions and so on, they and their readers need to be aware of its limitations.
Science does have limitations. That's the whole point neurode. Glad you recognize it. Those very limitations are what makes science useful. Part of the definition and indeed the fact of what science is. The lack of such not only makes ID not scientific, even worse, it makes it useless for anything but limp theology.
I liken it to a chain on a bicycle sprocket. Taking the chain off makes for easier peddling, but you don't get anywhere.
Again, thanks for answering my question!
And thanks for avoiding all the questions put to you.
You know, guys, after reading all of neurode's posts, I still don't know what the hell he's babbling about. And I suspect that he doesn't know either. I don't understand what his beef is.
GE
What I've been talking about, Eddie, is pretty standard fare in the mainstream philosophy of science. It's grounded in those areas of mathematical logic dealing with models and formalized theories.
If there are any serious doubts about that, it should be possible for Tara or someone else with an academic affiliation to get somebody competent in the field over here to defend her viewpoint. However, since the situation is really quite unequivocal, you should be forewarned that anyone who actually knows what he's doing will probably decline to argue Tara's case after reading the thread.
I suspect from reading some of Tara's material that she may be quite competent in her field. Unfortunately, she's gone outside of it. When it comes to criticizing ID theory, many scientists - especially biologists - have gotten into the bad habit of making confrontational assertions that they are unqualified to make by either talent or training.
Despite what anyone might think, that's neither good science, nor good for science. I'm merely doing my part to discourage it.
Is there really such a thing as a scientific "ID theory" neurode?
If you agree, please state what that theory is. What are some predictions that flow from this theory? How can we test them?
I'm sure your answers will shed lots of light.
"What I've been talking about, Eddie, is pretty standard fare in the mainstream philosophy of science. It's grounded in those areas of mathematical logic dealing with models and formalized theories."
It doesn't like mainstream philosophy of science. It sounds more like pure philosophy and mathematics to me. And in those two fields you have the luxury of being able to define the universe you're operating in, and consequently, rigorously prove whatever assertion or thoerem you wish. However, science does not deal with that kind of proof. It deals with empirical analysis in which you can only deal with things that are observable and testable. Whatever math is used is almost exclusively probabalistic in nature.
"If there are any serious doubts about that, it should be possible for Tara or someone else with an academic affiliation to get somebody competent in the field over here to defend her viewpoint. However, since the situation is really quite unequivocal, you should be forewarned that anyone who actually knows what he's doing will probably decline to argue Tara's case after reading the thread."
Baloney.
Tara's remarks were within the epistemology of science. She was merely remarking on the what every competent scientist knows - that there is no practical way to empirically study God/Ultimate Reality. That fact is not in dispute. I know it angers those who are devoted to their Cosmic Muffin, but, that's a personal problem.
"I suspect from reading some of Tara's material that she may be quite competent in her field. Unfortunately, she's gone outside of it."
Nonsense.
For one thing Intelligent Design (ID)is not a field of study. There is no theory and ID makes no testable hypothesis. It is merely a negative argument to evolution created by (shall we say) a group of Latter Day Peter Pans who have decided to remain in their adolescent spiritual world.
Tara, therefore, has gone beyond her field. There is no ID field!
"When it comes to criticizing ID theory, many scientists - especially biologists - have gotten into the bad habit of making confrontational assertions that they are unqualified to make by either talent or training."
You mean that scientist are unqualified to speak on the epistemology of science. LOL!
"Despite what anyone might think, that's neither good science, nor good for science. I'm merely doing my part to discourage it."
It sounds more like you are barking up the wrong tree.
GE
Good grief.
1. In her capacity as a scientist, Tara made a definite assertion: "God just ain't something you can investigate scientifically".
2. The factuality of an assertion can be established only in one of the following ways: direct observation, logical deduction, or a combination of the two.
3. That something has not yet been observed in a given open context does not equate to an observation of same, and does not establish that it is absent from the context in question. Thus, the non-observation of God in a given scientific context does not imply that God is excluded from that context.
4. Hence, Tara has only one possible way of establishing the factuality of her assertion: logical deduction (from self-evident principles, as opposed to actual observations).
5. Since Tara is unable to do that, she had no business presenting her assertion as anything more than her own personal opinion.
6. Tara nevertheless expressed her opinion in such a way that it can easily be mistaken, by those who don't know better, for a "scientific fact" known beyond doubt by legions of real live scientists, herself included.
7. This was misleading of Tara. Furthermore, it is not only diametrically opposed to truth, justice, and the American Way, but contrary to the spirit of Mom and apple pie to boot (which should be of concern to Tara, since she says she's a mom).
If you still don't understand any of this, please address your remarks to 1-7 above.
As a mom, Tara has sick kids to deal with and a Thanskgiving dinner to begin at the moment--hence, no posts today. And neurode, even my philosopher of science friends don't agree on this topic, so I could indeed invite several--and get several different viewpoints. I don't see what good that would do any of us. But please, feel free to continue with your incredibly amusing hyperbole in your point #7--you'll have a few days without me here to spout off.
Fair enough, although my point is sufficiently unequivocal that any dissenting philosopher of science would be risking his reputation by arguing about it.
Happy Thanksgiving, and let's not forget to Whom thanks are to be addressed.
Tara,
Happy Thanksgiving. I hope your kids will get well soon.
Peace & love,
GE
"Fair enough, although my point is sufficiently unequivocal that any dissenting philosopher of science would be risking his reputation by arguing about it."
Yeah right, Neurode.
"Happy Thanksgiving, and let's not forget to Whom thanks are to be addressed."
And whom would that be?
Happy Thanksgiving, neurode.
GE
Happy Kill-your-family-and-take-your-land Day neurode!
Tara, have a wonderful holiday. Don't waste your time on this blog.
"God just ain't something you can investigate scientifically".
Tara's sentence has sent Neurode into a tither, demanding how it could possibly be true.
Of course, it's true by definition.
zoloft side effect zoloft side effect zoloft side effect // insurance adjuster jobs insurance adjuster jobs insurance adjuster jobs
Commenting by HaloScan
