Interbane wrote:

Get real here. You can not be a troubadour and a naturalist in your metaphorical "heart"

Get real? Are you saying love isn't real? What I feel towards my children is just make-believe?

The greatest troubadours are naturalists.

The deepest poetry describes reality. Supernatural imagery is allegory for real natural observation.

Feelings can be analysed as natural phenomena, encountered in experience. Suggesting that love has a metaphysical basis in some transcendental imaginary God defaults on the logical analysis of love as real spiritual experience.

The scientific worldview can accommodate the analysis of spiritual phenomena. The difference of method between science and religion is that science sees only so much truth as can be logically explained on the basis of factual observation, whereas traditional religion takes its metaphors for facts as the basis to build an imaginary story with no real foundations. By seeing spiritual ideas and symbols and myths as often being metaphors for an actual scientific truth, we can approach a deeper reverence and awe for the natural order and purpose and meaning of the universe. We can also start to understand how the conventional idea of a transcendental God evolved to explain spiritual concepts through themes such as love, grace and faith.

Robert Tulip: "The alternative to regarding logic and evidence as the primary criteria for accepting the truth of a claim is to use sentimental emotion, faith, authority and wishful thinking. Religion has shown the great benefits of these non-scientific methods over the centuries with all the numerous technological and economic advances it has produced by miraculous magic in flagrant disregard of evidence and logic. Has not religion solved world poverty and conflict? Yes, creationism is obviously better than the scientific worldview, and more ethical and correct to boot."

Interesting. But there you (affected member of the subject group) go again. The Venn diagram allusion is pretty handy and valid for this situation. You are one of many who still think it's "science versus religion," but it is religion (philosophical naturalism expressed in scientific-sounding rhetoric) versus religion (that does not violate any empirical information). Of course, the unique empirical information is represented by the overlapping areas of the Venn diagram. "Religious/Philosophical/Mythical Science [what you seem to endorse, perhaps without noticing it]" (left side Venn) and "Religion [what I endorse, provisionally]" (right side Venn) create rationales to support their particular biases. A reasonable example of actual, ideal SCIENCE may be seen in things that philosophical naturalists and philosophical creationists (what the hay; let's call both groups scientists) agree on, such as the nuclear processes that occur inside the unseen center of the sun. We are confident of these processes due to dependable indirect information. Your (religious/philosophical) "science" goes way outside of such dependable indirect information, so that makes it at least as bad as what you call (classic) "religion." Another interesting element of this debate, especially when we consider the masses, is that when the world hears "science," they are thinking "empiricism," which presents a grand ol' opportunity expressing sarcasm and such. Regarding the idea of solving poverty and conflict, biblical "religion" informs us that such things will exist until the future 1000-year reign of Christ on the earth. We oughta have some fun with that comment, hugh?


Robert Tulip: "As our new member r-Oz explains, it can be hard to tell the difference between gibberish and science. Logically, that means science is gibberish.
I just came across a similar piece of scintillating logic from none other than Dante, in the Paradise, our current book selection. Dante says "Agapetus, the blessed, who was Pope, pointed me to the true faith, by his words. I believed him, and now I see the content of his faith, as clearly as you see that in every contradictory pair, if one statement is false, the other is true."

And then to continue the pattern, I suppose that in light of your response there, we're to take it that "science" really hasn't degenerated into what I'm describing. Well, that's good to know. The knowledge will save us a lot of time.

Robert Tulip: "If Dante could mock religious logic 700 years ago so derisively, in a work dedicated to piety, it does seem surprising that so many people in the subsequent centuries of cultural advance have failed to see the obtuseness of much religious reasoning."

Don't forget: What "science" has become is every bit as obtuse and religious as the robes and candles enthusiasts.

Don't forget: What "science" has become is every bit as obtuse and religious as the robes and candles enthusiasts.

The sort of strawman science view that's perpetuated in creationist circles is definitely portrayed as a religion. The motive is obvious. Yet the difference between the two is the elephant in the room. While bias cannot be fully eliminated, it can be minimized. The end on effect results are the technologies you see all around you. There are filters within science that aren't found in any other enterprise. Hermeneutics gives you any answer you seek, while the scientific method will slap your pre-existing beliefs in the face and tell you to try again.

What I value isn't some abstract 'scientific worldview', but is rather more detailed. I value the process(the method), specifically due to how it's designed. It is a method that excels at sussing out the secrets of our universe. I wouldn't value the process unless I had a bone to pick with human nature. People are flawed when it comes to discovering the world around us. We have as much fiction(intended to be true) as we do fact. Intentional fiction is even more plentiful. Facts are the minority, so we desperately need a process such as that found in science. To point out it's faults is to ignore that it's the best system we have at acquiring knowledge. If science has great faults, other systems that lack the bias filters necessarily have even greater faults.

A reasonable example of actual, ideal SCIENCE may be seen in things that philosophical naturalists and philosophical creationists (what the hay; let's call both groups scientists) agree on, such as the nuclear processes that occur inside the unseen center of the sun.

You claim scientists are guilty of clever wordsmithing to push their worldview. But here you are attempting to redefine necessary distinctions to the point they are indistinct. A person can be both a philosopher and a scientist, but the conceptual definitions of both types of specialty are not equal. Even more unequal is a naturalist versus a creationist. If the philosophical creationists are selective in what they agree with actual scientists on, the selection process is directed exclusively by pre-existing beliefs. There is no "filter" such as the one I mention above. It is whimsical and leads to false conclusions.

Nuclear processes involve quantum physics, which we understand in less certain terms than evolution. But in your mind, it is the evidence for evolution that isn't dependable. It seems you pick and choose what level of certainty to apply to what knowledge, depending on what you already believe. (I say 'you', but such ideas belong more to a denomination than an individual.)

Interbane wrote:

I know what philosophies I ascribe to, but I'm at a loss as to what my beliefs would look like as a scientific world view. Do you have examples? Not of the people, but of the views that are held. What is a 'scientific worldview'?

Maybe you can lead the book discussion? One of the non fiction books here on BT is about cultivating a scientific worldview.
I think that might be right up your alley, even though you're feigning ignorance here.

"Finding Truth and Meaning in a Scientific Worldview"

Maybe you can lead the book discussion?

It's a recommended book, but there's no discussion being had. Robert answered in place of r-Oz as well. I'd like to see what philosophy r-Oz is actually talking about.

A scientific worldview can be a number of different philosophies. Scientism, which I think isn't defensible, and is what r-Oz is talking about. If people refer to a 'scientific worldview', it's most often scientism. But there's also materialism, which is more defensible, and closer in line to what Robert is talking about. I'm more of a philosophical naturalist, which some people consider a scientific worldview, although it's actually philosophy.

Attacking the pitfalls of scientism under the umbrella of a 'scientific worldview' does nothing to address the issues in philosophical naturalism. It's not too much asking for clarity.

Interbane: "The sort of strawman science view that's perpetuated in creationist circles is definitely portrayed as a religion. The motive is obvious. Yet the difference between the two is the elephant in the room. While bias cannot be fully eliminated, it can be minimized. The end on effect results are the technologies you see all around you. There are filters within science that aren't found in any other enterprise."

The minimized biases forms of scientific advancement that have yielded the technologies (etc.) did not emerge from the side of "science" that I'm addressing. You can claim the strawman principle against what I'm saying (and, given your apparent allegience to your worldview, how could you do anything but that?), but my "obvious motive" for identifying the religious (belief-based) nature of what is called science today relates to the corner of the elephant room that mainline "science" has painted itself into. In principle, the scientific method is to be honored, but this principle must be scrutinized when the direction it takes causes a debate about what science really is. That question doesn't get asked in so many of the practical realms of science, the realms that are occupied by many productive scientists who are personally naturalist and creationist. Some people have this idea that science should be approached in a similar way as a detective follows the evidence in order to solve problems (crimes). The detective does not start the investigation with an assumption that certain theoretical possibilities of where that evidence could lead are unacceptable, carefully steering around anything that smacks of those unacceptable theoretical conclusions.
I'll call that "assumptive detective work." (Yes, some types of assumption are necessary, but that's not the point--I'll give you credit for understanding that I understand that.) My prediction: "You will not concede that empirically-related things such as 'information theory,' 'the laws of probability,' etc., provide legitimate scientists with a rational (material) basis for seriously considering the possibility of Intelligent Design." "Science," in "light" of its present definition, is incapable of this theoretical acceptance on a meaningful level--rendering the parallel to the above-discussed assumptive detective.

Interbane: "Hermeneutics gives you any answer you seek, while the scientific method will slap your pre-existing beliefs in the face and tell you to try again."

Beyond the practical forms of the scientific method I alluded to, "science" (cosmology, origin of life, etc.) has become every bit as hermeneutical as what is popularly thought of as religous--inferior, assumptive "science."

Interbane: "What I value isn't some abstract 'scientific worldview', but is rather more detailed. I value the process(the method), specifically due to how it's designed. It is a method that excels at sussing out the secrets of our universe. I wouldn't value the process unless I had a bone to pick with human nature. People are flawed when it comes to discovering the world around us. We have as much fiction(intended to be true) as we do fact. Intentional fiction is even more plentiful. Facts are the minority, so we desperately need a process such as that found in science. To point out it's faults is to ignore that it's the best system we have at acquiring knowledge. If science has great faults, other systems that lack the bias filters necessarily have even greater faults."

I point out the faults of "science," not in order to reject science, but to sensitize people to relevant distinctions that could assist in avoiding the error of relegating non-empirical philosophy within the classification of what is touted to be an empirical construct.

Interbane: "You claim scientists are guilty of clever wordsmithing to push their worldview. But here you are attempting to redefine necessary distinctions to the point they are indistinct. A person can be both a philosopher and a scientist, but the conceptual definitions of both types of specialty are not equal. Even more unequal is a naturalist versus a creationist. If the philosophical creationists are selective in what they agree with actual scientists on, the selection process is directed exclusively by pre-existing beliefs. There is no "filter" such as the one I mention above. It is whimsical and leads to false conclusions."

I will gladly give you an additional response to this section, but when I reread it, it seemed to me that my previous ideas actually conveyed an adequate answer.

Interbane: "Nuclear processes involve quantum physics, which we understand in less certain terms than evolution. But in your mind, it is the evidence for evolution that isn't dependable. It seems you pick and choose what level of certainty to apply to what knowledge, depending on what you already believe. (I say 'you', but such ideas belong more to a denomination than an individual.)"

You're being quintessentially "scientific" here (according to the definition for science that uses the "assumptive detective" approach I outlined above) in saying that we understand evolution in any sort of "certain terms." How about, "The primary reason you believe in evolution is because it is the only one your philosophical worldview is willing to tolerate (regardless of the facts)."

The minimized biases forms of scientific advancement that have yielded the technologies (etc.) did not emerge from the side of "science" that I'm addressing. You can claim the strawman principle against what I'm saying (and, given your apparent allegience to your worldview, how could you do anything but that?)

I saw no strawman here. You’re not ascribing views to me, are you? Yet I believe you’re wrong about the emergence of the scientific method. It is used in pure sciences as well as applied sciences. The difference is that in the pure sciences, theory-laden models are created to provide a framework for understanding.

The minimization of bias that’s found in the scientific method applies to both pure and applied sciences. But experiment/hypothesis selection in the pure sciences is where a great deal of the bias is located. The technologies of the applied sciences are not the only end-on-effect results. Such results are found in the pure sciences as well, and they are manifold.

If you have an issue with the portions of science that have more bias, then the issue is with those items in particular. Going from “there is bias here” to “therefore it’s a religion” is nonsequitur. Of course, it entirely depends on your conceptual definition of religion.

In principle, the scientific method is to be honored, but this principle must be scrutinized when the direction it takes causes a debate about what science really is.

I’ve followed the philosophy of science rather closely, and am familiar with a good deal of the issues of demarcation. The infringement of pseudo-science does not make me suspect of the scientific method. It makes me suspect of pseudo-science. Are you making the claim that the enterprise of science has deviated into pseudo-science? Not the theory-laden portions, but the scientific method itself? Read your sentence above very closely, it seems that's what you're saying.

The detective does not start the investigation with an assumption that certain theoretical possibilities of where that evidence could lead are unacceptable, carefully steering around anything that smacks of those unacceptable theoretical conclusions.

On the other hand, these detectives will avoid hypotheses that are impossible to test. No detective would claim that George Zimmerman was brainwashed by aliens to kill Trayvon Martin. There are hypothetical avenues that are ruled out because they fall outside the scope of what is possible to know.

My prediction: "You will not concede that empirically-related things such as 'information theory,' 'the laws of probability,' etc., provide legitimate scientists with a rational (material) basis for seriously considering the possibility of Intelligent Design."

The issue is that ID cannot be tested. It is outside the scope of possible observation, and in its present form is not a viable avenue. That is not to say new evidence couldn’t manifest that would make it a viable hypothesis. This is also true of the countless other possible explanations here. Transpermia/alien dream/alien video game/carbon copy universe/etc. Focusing on 'possibilities' is a task of infinite regress. Which is why evidence is such a critical component. We need feedback from reality to determine the direction of our investigations.

Beyond the practical forms of the scientific method I alluded to, "science" (cosmology, origin of life, etc.) has become every bit as hermeneutical as what is popularly thought of as religous--inferior, assumptive "science."

The comparison wasn’t between science and science. If levels of interpretation(whatever their magnitude) are the same within fields of science as you claim, that doesn’t mean they are the same between science and religion. In science, interpretations are discarded in light of new contrary evidence. It is a feedback system that’s missing from religious hermeneutics.

I point out the faults of "science," not in order to reject science, but to sensitize people to relevant distinctions that could assist in avoiding the error of relegating non-empirical philosophy within the classification of what is touted to be an empirical construct.

How else could we form a worldview, if we didn’t use philosophy? Of course philosophy is a critical component in forming conclusions about the world. The faults of science do not mean that it is an error to consider the results of science in a philosophical light. It also doesn’t mean we aren’t justified in forming philosophical conclusions drawn from scientific information.
Or are you saying that there are people who mistakenly believe their philosophy is instead science? A classification issue. Even then, pointing out the faults in science does nothing to attenuate such errors. Those errors would be philosophical errors, not scientific errors.

You're being quintessentially "scientific" here (according to the definition for science that uses the "assumptive detective" approach I outlined above) in saying that we understand evolution in any sort of "certain terms."

I avoid “certain terms”, certainty is foolish. What I meant to express is that one field is further away from ‘certainty’ on the confidence spectrum. You drew an example between nuclear processes and evolution, with greater uncertainty found in evolution rather than nuclear processes. What method are you using to place these ideas on the confidence spectrum?

How about, "The primary reason you believe in evolution is because it is the only one your philosophical worldview is willing to tolerate (regardless of the facts)."

An essential component of my worldview is to not disregard facts. It is a byproduct of the value I place on proper process. I believe that it’s only through proper process that we can gain knowledge of the world. Not only the scientific method, but also sensitivity to cognitive bias, and comprehensive utilization of formal and informal logic. Ignoring facts is not found anywhere in these processes or schools of thought.

The primary reason I believe evolution is because it passes the test of process. Naturally you come to different conclusions from the same evidence, so we must have a different understanding of what constitutes proper process. Or you believe I’m guilty of systematic errors where I deviate from process.

"I’ve followed the philosophy of science rather closely, and am familiar with a good deal of the issues of demarcation"


yes. it was actually hilarious the way you denounced falsification as no longer applicable in science and referred us all to the Stanford Encyc as your evidence for it.

And the findings of the court in that case is an outdated appeal to the process of science.

laughable

yes. it was actually hilarious the way you denounced falsification as no longer applicable in science and referred us all to the Stanford Encyc as your evidence for it.

I did use the word "discarded", which is entirely too strong. You're right. Falsification is still a criteria in the demarcation of science, in a modified form. As Kuhn pointed out, the problems are with naive falsification. If you don't know the difference, you're apt to misuse the concept.

Do you have a better philosophy reference than the SEP? Anything more modern? Anything more thorough? Please share.

I didnt need the Stanford E to know that it was not a discarded criteria.
If you were well versed in POS as youve claimed here, you wouldnt have even bothered to do the fishing you did just to refute my claim.

Demarcation is more of a pheripheral consideration. There are philisophical considerations wihin Science itself. Im sure you know that as well. I touched very briefly on some i think in this topic.