At 11:44 AM 06/05/2000, you wrote:
>Richard Wein wrote:
> >
> > I hope you realize that IDers will use these as examples of how the
> > scientific consensus was proven wrong. And if it was wrong so many times
>in
> > the past, perhaps it's wrong again!
>
>
>I agree with IDers about some things. Along with IDers, I think that
>the current "scientific consensus" is wrong on two *philosophical*
>points.
>
>1) Many scientists today are philosophical naturalists. I think they
>are wrong about that.
>
>2) A majority of scientists believe that methodological naturalism is a
>ground-rule for science, a strong line of demarcation. They believe
>that any hypothesis about physical events or historical developments
>which include the possibility of extra-natural causation must
>_a_priori_ be rejected as unworthy of "scientific" consideration.
Chris
As has been pointed out before on this list, non-naturalistic hypotheses
are always less parsimonious than an otherwise identical but *naturalistic*
hypothesis, so the relative burden of proof for a non-naturalistic
hypothesis is therefore *always* greater than that of its naturalistic
equivalent. Put bluntly, non-naturalism has *nothing* to offer science.
*Absolutely* nothing. This is one reason why scientists don't bother with
non-naturalistic theories.
Another problem is that many non-naturalistic theories provide no basis
whatever for empirically testable implications. Given the ID hypothesis,
for example, *absolutely* nothing can be predicted, because the alleged
designer is defined in such a way that there is no *conceivable* empirical
fact that could contradict it. It implies no empirical facts whatever, and
therefore is incapable of empirical testing. Put bluntly: ID theory is not
even nominally a scientific theory, and it won't be until some
more-specific *claims* about the designer are made that have empirical
significance. Until then, it is as the examples of Steve Jones and Phillip
Johnson so blatantly show, nothing more than propaganda, hot air, and
*religion*.
Since *nothing* at all of a non-naturalistic nature has ever been shown to
exist (and it is not even logically possible to do so by empirical means,
even if by chance something non-naturalistic *does* exist), since
non-naturalism is absolutely useless as part of scientific theories, and
since it would always have the higher burden of proof as compared to an
otherwise equivalent naturalistic theory, is it any wonder that scientists
don't generally try to offer non-naturalistic "scientific" theories?
<snip>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jun 08 2000 - 22:46:51 EDT