Hello from snowy Canada.
I signed up because I need some assistance.
I have a blog. I posted an entry where I argued that methodological naturalism probably explains how there can be scientists who are religious - being that the Pew Forum on Religion found that 51% of American scientists believe in god or some higher power. It made sense to me. If you make the assumption that science can only study the physical then it can't say anything about the non-physical (assuming it exists) and that leaves room for scientists to believe in the non-physical.
My understanding of metaphysical naturalism is that it's the belief that only the physical exists, and if it can't be measured then we can't say that it exists or it doesn't exist. My understanding of methodological naturalism is that it's the belief that science can only study the physical so we shouldn't try and apply it to the non-physical (assuming it exists). Of course I picked up the terms from a theist so that might have been my first mistake.
I got this response from a reader.
QuoteI thought scientist don't hold to metaphysical naturalism because it would have been falsified with the first naturalistic hypothesis presented under methodological naturalism, and was falsified. One example would be the aether hypothesis, amongst many falsified hypothesis that have sprung from science under methodological naturalism. If metaphysical naturalism then methodological naturalism. If methodological naturalism then aether hypothesis. If metaphysical naturalism then aether hypothesis. Not aether hypothesis. Therefore, not metaphysical naturalism.
I asked him to clarify what he meant by the "first naturalistic hypothesis." He said it's simple. The aether hypothesis is an example of it. My problem is I know nothing about physics and I don't know what the heck the aether hypothesis is and how it would falsify the notion that everything that exists is physical. I have a feeling a) I adopted creationist terminology unwittingly or b) he's being deliberately obscure and may not in fact be saying anything.
I believe 1) science can't study the non-physical 2) but we should demand that people who claim the non-physical exists should provide evidence that we can understand, even where I acknowledge that evidence can't exist.
Maybe I'm mistaken and have no idea what he's saying (a very real possibility) but *maybe* he's trying to claim that one false idea presented by/under methodological naturalism would falsify not only the idea itself but also both methodological naturalism and metaphysical naturalism.
On the other hand he could simply have slipped and banged his head against the keyboard resulting in the above text purely based on the arbitrary shape of his forehead.
The aether hypothesis was basically that there was a substance occupying what we now know to be the vacuum of space. It's what they thought transmitted the light and heat from the sun.
As to that person's response, my head hurts from trying to decipher it. Seemed like he was using some formal logic or something, making "if P, then Q..." type statements to try to disprove something. I couldn't really follow it, though.
I would argue that scientists who still hold some belief in any sort of supernatural critters like a deity are not properly applying methodological naturalism. I wouldn't say they aren't really scientists, just that there is a part of their life and belief system where they are failing to apply the methodological naturalism that makes science good at telling us how the universe works.
QuoteI thought scientist don't hold to metaphysical naturalism because it would have been falsified with the first naturalistic hypothesis presented under methodological naturalism, and was falsified. One example would be the aether hypothesis, amongst many falsified hypothesis that have sprung from science under methodological naturalism.
P1. An obsolete scientific theory (//http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superseded_scientific_theories)
P2 ??
C ???
*shrugs*
QuoteIf metaphysical naturalism then methodological naturalism.
Correct.
QuoteIf methodological naturalism then aether hypothesis.
Does not follow.
QuoteNot aether hypothesis. Therefore, not metaphysical naturalism.
If P then Q, not Q, not P. It's modus tollens. It's logically valid. But since P doesn't actually imply Q, it's nonsense. I might as well say:
If the Earth is 4.5 billion years old then the Braves will win this year's World Series.
The Braves didn't this year's World Series.
Therefore the Earth isn't 4.5 billion years old.
Valid? Yes. Sound? No.
QuoteI asked him to clarify what he meant by the "first naturalistic hypothesis." He said it's simple. The aether hypothesis is an example of it. My problem is I know nothing about physics and I don't know what the heck the aether hypothesis is and how it would falsify the notion that everything that exists is physical. I have a feeling a) I adopted creationist terminology unwittingly or b) he's being deliberately obscure and may not in fact be saying anything.
It's b. Plus, aether hypothesis doesn't falsify the notion that everything that exists is physical. So...yeah.
QuoteI believe 1) science can't study the non-physical
By definition. Hence methodological naturalism.
Quote2) but we should demand that people who claim the non-physical exists should provide evidence that we can understand, even where I acknowledge that evidence can't exist.
Hey, the people who believe they can levitate coins with their minds or talk to the dead or cure cancer have to either put up or shut up. Them's the rules. Do you know the difference between a legit claim sans evidence and a fake sans evidence? Me neither.
Quote from: "qwerty1"Hello from snowy Canada.
I signed up because I need some assistance.
I have a blog. I posted an entry where I argued that methodological naturalism probably explains how there can be scientists who are religious - being that the Pew Forum on Religion found that 51% of American scientists believe in god or some higher power. It made sense to me.
I know a lot of scientists and none of them are religious.
The National academy of science members were surveyed they came in at 7% with a personal belief in god back in 1998 and a total of 93% atheist/agnostic
Try google for "national academy of science 93% atheist" and see what you get.
Here is one link with survey results going back to 1914
//http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html
Got a link for your pew results?
Quote from: "qwerty1"Hello from snowy Canada.
I signed up because I need some assistance.
Are we getting paid for this?
A. Many people fear death
B. Some people use religion to calm this fear
C. Some of those people are scientists.
Conclusion. Some scientists fear death and use religion to calm that fear.
Some scientists are religious. It's a faith thing apparently.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/23/natio ... d=all&_r=0 (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/23/national/23believers.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0)
And other Googable articles might help.
QuoteMaybe I'm mistaken and have no idea what he's saying (a very real possibility) but *maybe* he's trying to claim that one false idea presented by/under methodological naturalism would falsify not only the idea itself but also both methodological naturalism and metaphysical naturalism.
Thanks, I get it now. I think. A bad theory does not discredit the scientific method it strengthens it. Therefore, premise 2 isn't accurate. An uncharitable interpretation would be that he was trying to dazzle me with obscure, to me, terminology. I thought he was saying there's some specific aspect of the aether hypothesis that discredits scientific methodology. Or maybe I just need more sleep.
Jason78:
You'll receive a debt of gratitude at the end of next week.
baronvonrort:
http://www.pewforum.org/Science-and-Bio ... elief.aspx (http://www.pewforum.org/Science-and-Bioethics/Scientists-and-Belief.aspx)
I gather their may be some methodological issues as they add the caveat it may not be representative.
(//http://www.pewforum.org/uploadedimages/Topics/Issues/Science_and_Bioethics/Scientists%20and%20Belief%201.gif)
(//http://www.pewforum.org/uploadedimages/Topics/Issues/Science_and_Bioethics/Scientists%20and%20Belief%203.gif)
What Hydra said........
:-D
Gerard
What is interesting to me is that second graph shows that higher levels of atheism correlates with age, but in a reverse relationship than I would have guessed. It appears the older scientists are more likely to not believe than younger ones.
Quote from: "qwerty1"Thanks, I get it now. I think. A bad theory does not discredit the scientific method it strengthens it.
Yep. Scientific theories are tentative and replaceable as new data comes in. This allows for a progressively more correct understanding of the world. Without it, we'd be lost. We'd only entertain ideas that are intuitive or fashionable, not ideas that are jarring but borne out by rigorous examination. In short, we'd be religious people.
I would like to know who they actually polled for this. The page says the American Association for the Advancement of Science is where they were polling from, I'm not really familiar with them though. Probably because I'm not American.
You could also look at it another way.
The tenets of christianity (i.e. judaism) were wrong as well according to jebus and his followers. So christianity can't be true right?
I like cutting to the chase and skipping elaborate bullshit. Science and religion ARE NOT compatible. Never have been and never will be. Scientists CAN be religious, but the ethical ones who are KEEP THEIR RELIGION OUT OF THE LAB. Any "scientist" who tries to prop up an invisible friend should NOT be taken seriously.
I would highly recommend two books by Victor Stenger. "God The Failed Hypothesis" and more importantly "The New Atheism". These books address WHY interjecting god into science is not only excess baggage, but complete and utter bias. Victor does say science does have something to say about god claims, but only in the fact that when applied it negates such claims, thus cannot nor should be taken seriously.
As far as the psychology of why god claims persist in our species "The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins, and "Why People Believe Weird Things" by Micheal Shermer.
The reason to reject all forms of god claims is simple. There is no evidence of thoughts existing outside biological evolution. Thoughts require a material process just like a car requires and engine and wheels to speed. Speed is not a thing itself, it is the manifestation of the car in motion. We (are our brains in motion).
Another good book, older, harder to read, but available for free now...
"Memoirs of Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds" by Charles MacKay. Although it doesn't specifically deal with Christianity, it does cover a bit of why people believe things we know are dumb.
Welcome ! Religion is bullshit .