At 10:01 PM 4/12/96 EDT, Steve wrote:
>Brian
>
>On Thu, 4 Apr 1996 20:12:13 -0500 you wrote:
>
>[...]
>
>>BH>One of us surely is. I hope to show it is you :). The point I
>>think that you are evading is that science cannot address the
>>supernatural.
>
>>SJ>No. I am not evading that "science cannot address the supernatural".
>>I already have responded to that (see below):
>
>BH>But your response was an evasion. You did not specify how science
>>could go about investigating the supernaturalistic origin of
>>life.
>>
>>I don't know why this is so hard to understand. Supernaturalistic
>>explanations are not ruled out a-priori they're ruled out for
>>very good reasons. The methods of science cannot address the
>>supernatural. Your responses in this thread have been ample
>>evidence of this.
>
>This is no reason. It is just defining to exclude. Johnson says:
>
No it isn't defining to exclude it is recognizing limitations.
I hope to make some comments in reply to Loren's post on
science and the supernatural. Here I'll just make two brief
comments. First, my previous statement:
"The methods of science cannot address the supernatural.
Your responses in this thread have been ample evidence
of this."
still holds. You still haven't identified what scientific
methods would be used to identify the supernatural origin
of life. You gave a nice quote from Johnson, but I didn't
see where he offered any suggestions on how this could be
done either.
Let's try an example. Earlier I mentioned to you that
information theory could not address the meaning of of
a message. At first you had a rather negative reaction
to this but then seemed to accept it once I explained
why. This is a limitation of information theory but it
certainly isn't a limitation on messages. Suppose an
information theorist were to analyze the statistical
structure and information content of _Reason in the Balance_
and conclude that since (s)he can do this without addressing
"meaning" in any way that the book therefore contains no
meaningful message, that it is just a string of characters
with a particular set of statistical features and that's all.
[...]
BH:========>>
>>Scientific investigation into the origin of life has barely
>>begun. Many new ideas are being generated all the time.
>>These ideas should be followed up. Research should continue
>>for as long as someone wants to try and can generate the
>>funds required.
>
SJ:===
>Thanks. :-)
>
>When they got to a point when *no one* "wants to try" and *no one*
>wants to "generate the funds required", does that then not mean that
>no naturalistic solution to the origin of life will ever be found?
>
Most likely. It does not, however, mean that there is no
naturalistic solution.
>[...]
>
>>SJ>Naturalism has a monopoly of the scientific resources of the
>>State at its disposal and denies that there even "a
>>supernaturalistic origins of life" can be a subject for "scientific
>>research".
>
>>BH>I also deny it yet I am not a Naturalist.
>
>SJ>You presumably are not a metaphysical naturalist? Johnson would
>>probably classify you as a "theistic naturalist":
>
>BH>Perhaps, why should I care? I mentioned previously the debates
>>that went on here before you signed on. Several people gave
>>reasoned "pleas" with Phil that the "theistic naturalist"
>>label distorts their view. Phil apparantly doesn't care.
>>He wants to win by marginalizing his opponents with word
>>games. Exactly what he "complains" about naturalists doing.
>
SJ:===
>You are a theist who defends naturalism over against supernaturalism.
>That sounds an apt description to me. What would you call yourself?
>
This has been discussed here so many times that its really hard
for me to believe [;-)] that this is not a deliberate distortion.
I am not "a theist who defends naturalism over against
supernaturalism". I am merely trying to explain what seems to
me to be a rudimentary point, i.e. that the methods of science
can deal only with natural phenomena.
I'll tell you what Steve, you go right ahead and call me what
ever you want. From now on I'll refer to you as a progressive
prestidigitationist, OK?
>>SJ>So are you as a theist, who presumably believes that in fact God
>>did create the first life, believe that it is OK if science goes on
>>wasting taxpayers money for another "2000 years" trying to prove what
>>you believe didn't happen?
>
>BH>You claim the taxpayers money is being wasted. I'm sure you
>>wouldn't claim this without some evidence. Why don't you share that
>with us?
>
SJ:===
>It is a deduction. *If* God created the first life, then taxpayers
>money is being wasted trying to prove it arose spontaneously.
>
First of all, you have provided absolutely no scientific evidence
for a superanatural origin of life, so this is a mighty big if.
Second, you are again guilty of arguing from the false alternative,
i.e. you have not presented two mutually exclusive alternatives.
God could have created life by selecting natural laws that allow
life to arise spontaneously.
>BH>a) please outline (roughly) the history of the scientific
>>investigation into life's origin. What are the successes and
>>failures? What has been learned?
>
SJ:===
>I didn't say that it was a *total* waste. No doubt some good comes out
>of even fruitfless scientific research.
>
This seems to me to be a contradiction. If some good comes out of
it then it is not fruitless. Anyway, you claim that taxpayers
money is being wasted so you must have a rough estimate of the
value of the beneficial by products of the research versus the
total amount spent. I kind of doubt that you do, however, since
you keep claiming there are only two alternatives chance and
intelligent design, indicating that you don't know what scientists
have been doing in the field in the last three decades.
[...]
>[...]
>
>>BH>Let's discuss the argument from the false alternative a little.
>>First let me submit the following definition that I dug up:
>>>
>>> Fallacy of limited (or false) alternatives:
>>> The error of insisting without full inquiry or evidence that
>>> the alternatives to a course of action have been exhausted
>>> and/or are mutually exclusive.
>>
>>SH>No. We can discuss this point when you have *first* answered my
>>original question:
>
>BH>OK, your turn.
>
SJ:============
>I think my original point was that if all plausible naturalistic
>explanations failed, that is good evidence for a supernaturalistic
>explanation. Hodge says:
>
You are not addressing the issue. You have committed a logical
fallacy and it doesn't help your case to quote someone else
who commits the same fallacy.
[...]
Steve quoting Hodge:
>Besides, it is to be considered that the nature of
>the event is not the only criterion by which we are to determine its
>character. To prove an event in the external world to be miraculous,
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>we have only to prove that it is not the effect of any natural cause,
>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>and that it is to be referred to the immediate agency of God.
OK, I'll buy this. The problem is that you cannot prove that
something is not the effect of any natural cause.
[...]
>>SJ:===
>>Brian, we are never going to get anywhere if you don't deal with
>>what I say, but slide off on tangents! :-)
>
>BH>Good grief Steve. You are the one trying to slip out of a noose.
>>You claimed that there were only two alternatives, chance and
>>intelligent design. You forgot about physical law. If you
>>don't like my example, so what, its just an example. The point
>>is that I have shown your claim to be false.
>
SJ:===
>I am not trying to "slip out of a noose". I still maintain that
>"there were only two alternatives, chance and intelligent design".
>Physical law does not apply to unique events, such as the origin of
>life. And even if it did, it would be part of "intelligent design"
>
A couple of points here. First, the role that laymen might play
in science has been discussed recently in another thread and
some in this thread as well. My own view is that anyone can
participate in science and in discussions about science. However,
they cannot use their laymanship as a crutch or as an excuse
for faulty arguments or ignorance, i.e. if you want to play
you better be prepared, know your stuff, and when someone
attacks your position, no whining.
Above you claim there are only two alternatives, chance and
intelligent design. You are apparently unaware that the
chance scenario for the origin of life was discarded about
three decades ago. Not only are you guilty of arguing from
the false alternative, you select as the opposition an
alternative scientists working in the field already consider
false. How convenient. Meanwhile, researchers contiue to
pursue the other alternatives of which you are apparently
unaware. Your own words prove that you don't know anything
about the field.
Secondly, your statement that physical law doesn't apply
to unique events is simply false. A very simple example is
the so-called double pendulum, sketched below:
================== Fixed support
======= O ========
*
* link 1
*
*
*
* ***
**O** mass 1
***
*
*
*
* link 2
*
*
*
***
***** mass 2
***
Each pendulum consists of a light link or rod attached to a mass.
The first pendulum is pinned to the rigid support (O's are pin
connections) and the second pendulum is pinned to the mass of
the first. The pins permit free rotation of the links.
Now we perform experiments by releasing this system from rest
in some initial starting position, defined say by the initial
angles of the two linkages relative to the horizontal. I
contend that every experiment thus performed will be unique
and totally unpredictable yet the behavior is deterministic,
governed by physical law.
[...]
>
>BH>I take it then that we'll here no more insinuations about cover-ups
>>or conspiracies?
>
>I have *never ever* said anything about "conspiracies". This is your
>own word which perhaps reflects your own jaundiced view of me. And my
>"cover-up" remark was on a spectrum from "paradigm blindness" to
>"cover up" as a worst-case scenario. Moreover, it was based on a
>misunderstanding, for which I have apologised.
>
You may not actually say the word "conspiracy" yet your posts are
full of unfounded insinuations of such, for example you recently
wrote in another thread [How the Leopard...? (was Brian Goodwin
on the web), April 12]:
The point is that "a scientist" would not be prevented
from arguing "his own case in court". He might lose
his case, but he would still be allowed to argue it.
What the rulers of science are trying to do is, as it
were, stop the case from being heard at all, on the
grounds that only scientists (who share the same
philosophical commitment to the "fact" of evolution)
can judge whether that same "evolution" is true. This
is caesar judging caesar, and it is a hot topic down
here in Australia, with demand by the public to gain
access to these cozy self-regulatory clubs, like doctors
judging doctors, lawyers judging lawyers and police
judging police. This is why Phil is arguing that in the
absence of an official "opposition party" someone from
outside of science should be allowed to "audit the books":
So, I'll ask again:
I take it then that we'll here no more insinuations about
cover-ups or conspiracies?
========================
Brian Harper |
Associate Professor | "It is not certain that all is uncertain,
Applied Mechanics | to the glory of skepticism" -- Pascal
Ohio State University |
========================