skeptical has a hard time with concepts

Discuss arguments for existence of God and faith in general. Any aspect of any orientation toward religion/spirituality, as long as it is based upon a positive open to other people attitude.

Moderator: Metacrock

Re: skeptical has a hard time with concepts

Postby The Pixie on Sun Jul 02, 2017 2:54 pm

Jim B. wrote:So you're saying that the two are the same?

Seriously?

I spent most of my last but one post pointing out that I do not thnk they are the same.
MN is a methodological approach, it's not about ontology or what really is.

Well done, Jim, loks like you have learnt something.
It's about what scientists have to assume for the sake of doing their research.

Very good!
Physicalism is a metaphysical thesis. It's about what really is (purportedly), the actual nature of reality in its entirety.

Very clever, Jim. See, you can get this stuff.

Now if you can just get your head around the fact that I do not think they are the same thing, we will have achieved something.
In that sense it's more akin to metaphysical naturalism, not methodological naturalism.

Correct! In fact, I would say for our discussion physicalism is near enough the same as metaphysical naturalism (or philosophical naluralism).
Let's say you're a geologist who's also a Christian who believes in immaterial souls. To do your geological research, you'd have to be a methodological naturalist, while at the same time you are NOT a physicalist because you do not subscribe to the thesis that all of reality is physical or supervenes on the physical. Your metaphysical worldview does not have to impinge on your activity as a scientist.

Again, very good.
Maybe you're saying that science is restricted to investigating physical things.

Or things that supervene on the physical.
I would agree with that but that's not physicalism.

No, it is not.

Which brings us back to JBSptfn's claim that IMS "is stuck in the science=physicalism only program". See, the truth is that IMS believes science uses MN. Because it does. But JBSptfn has presented this straw man. And given he has now abandoned this thread, I think it is clear he knew it was a straw man.
restricting your field of study to physical things does not necessitate a metaphysical thesis.

No. But no one said it did - apart from JBSptfn's straw man.
Agreed. So why do you keep saying that science is r4estricted to physicalism? Why not say it's restricted to MN?

Because JBSptfn made that straw man about physicalism. There is a relationship between science and physicalism, and I was trying to show that. Here is how I finished my last post on the first page:

That does not mean physicalism is necessarily true, only that science is restricted to it. This is generally called methodological naturalism.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/naturalism/#MetNat
The Pixie
 
Posts: 852
Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2016 12:54 pm

Re: skeptical has a hard time with concepts

Postby Jim B. on Sun Jul 02, 2017 8:39 pm

The Pixie wrote:
Jim B. wrote:So you're saying that the two are the same?

Seriously?


I'll make this as simple as I can. Here is what I wrote:

Jim: The bit where you write that science is restricted to physicalism. Can you explain what you mean? How is science restricted to physicalism?

Note that I wrote nothing whatever about MN. I was asking you a specific question that had nothing to do MN. So here is your response to the above quote:

Pix: It is called methodological naturalism. Seriously, look it up. I gave the lonk (sic) above.

What does "It" refer to in your response? Setting aside that your 'response' did not respond to my question, what would most English speakers think that "It" referred to in your quote? I ask you again, and I will keep asking until you stop weaseling and give some kind of answer: How is science restricted to physicalism?


Well done, Jim, loks like you have learnt something.


:lol: I knew it all along. You're only vaguely getting that idea now through the muddle of your so-called thought processes.


Very clever, Jim. See, you can get this stuff.


I'm glad you're finally seeing that fact. wish I could say the same.


Which brings us back to JBSptfn's claim that IMS "is stuck in the science=physicalism only program". See, the truth is that IMS believes science uses MN. Because it does. But JBSptfn has presented this straw man. And given he has now abandoned this thread, I think it is clear he knew it was a straw man.


Those two things are not mutually exclusive, as I hope you know. believing that science uses MN is uncontroversial and doesn't preclude the possibility that he does equate sicence with physicalism.

Because JBSptfn made that straw man about physicalism. There is a relationship between science and physicalism, and I was trying to show that. Here is how I finished my last post on the first page:

That does not mean physicalism is necessarily true, only that science is restricted to it. This is generally called methodological naturalism.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/naturalism/#MetNat


WHAT DOES THIS QUOTE MEAN? WHAT DOES IT MEAN TO SAY THAT SCIENCE IS RESTRICTED TO PHYSICALISM? AND WHAT DOES THE WORD "THIS" REFER TO? TO SCIENCE, PHYSICALISM, OR THEIR ENTAILMENT? WHAT IS THE NATURE OF THE ENTAILMENT? NO MORE WEASELING OR BACK PEDALING. JUST ANSWER THE QUESTION DIRECTLY WITHOUT DEFLECTION ONTO IMS OR JBS OR ANYONE ELSE.
Jim B.
 
Posts: 1413
Joined: Fri Aug 23, 2013 2:36 am

Re: skeptical has a hard time with concepts

Postby The Pixie on Mon Jul 03, 2017 2:07 am

Jim B. wrote:
The Pixie wrote:
Jim B. wrote:So you're saying that the two are the same?

Seriously?


I'll make this as simple as I can. Here is what I wrote:

Jim: The bit where you write that science is restricted to physicalism. Can you explain what you mean? How is science restricted to physicalism?

Note that I wrote nothing whatever about MN. I was asking you a specific question that had nothing to do MN. So here is your response to the above quote:

Pix: It is called methodological naturalism. Seriously, look it up. I gave the lonk (sic) above.

What does "It" refer to in your response? Setting aside that your 'response' did not respond to my question, what would most English speakers think that "It" referred to in your quote? I ask you again, and I will keep asking until you stop weaseling and give some kind of answer: How is science restricted to physicalism?

"It" is how science is restricted to physicalism.

The way science is restricted to physicalism is called methodological naturalism.

What bit of that are you not getting? What bit of that is "weaseling"? I thought last time you were getting it, and now we seem to be back to square one. Go read about methodological naturalism. It seemed to work last time. For a few hours anyway.
Those two things are not mutually exclusive, as I hope you know. believing that science uses MN is uncontroversial and doesn't preclude the possibility that he does equate sicence with physicalism.

So? Are you agreeing with JBSptfn's claim that IMS "is stuck in the science=physicalism only program"

Or not? Or is this you weaseling?
That does not mean physicalism is necessarily true, only that science is restricted to it. This is generally called methodological naturalism.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/naturalism/#MetNat


WHAT DOES THIS QUOTE MEAN? WHAT DOES IT MEAN TO SAY THAT SCIENCE IS RESTRICTED TO PHYSICALISM? AND WHAT DOES THE WORD "THIS" REFER TO? TO SCIENCE, PHYSICALISM, OR THEIR ENTAILMENT? WHAT IS THE NATURE OF THE ENTAILMENT? NO MORE WEASELING OR BACK PEDALING. JUST ANSWER THE QUESTION DIRECTLY WITHOUT DEFLECTION ONTO IMS OR JBS OR ANYONE ELSE. [/quote]
"this" refers to the nature of the restriction. Did you really think it might mean science or physicalism?

The nature of the restriction is generally called methodological naturalism.

Methodological naturalism is how science is restricted to physicalism.
The Pixie
 
Posts: 852
Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2016 12:54 pm

Re: skeptical has a hard time with concepts

Postby Jim B. on Tue Jul 04, 2017 2:04 pm

The Pixie wrote:"It" is how science is restricted to physicalism.

The way science is restricted to physicalism is called methodological naturalism.

What bit of that are you not getting? What bit of that is "weaseling"? I thought last time you were getting it, and now we seem to be back to square one. Go read about methodological naturalism. It seemed to work last time. For a few hours anyway.


Here's the first sentence of the SEP article on MN you linked to:
In what follows, “methodological naturalism” will be understood as a view about philosophical practice.
(emphasis added).

The part I'm not getting is that you seem to be conflating two different kinds of things. One is a metaphysical thesis and the other is a thesis about practice. The thesis about practice (aka MN) could not "restrict" science to a thesis about metaphysics, as I've already pointed out. One need not be a physicalist or subscribe to any particular comprehensive metaphysical thesis in order to subscribe to a thesis about practice. Not to mention the fact that it's difficult to see how "science" this immensely messy, sprawling family of activities, could be restricted to a metaphysical thesis, since "science" is an abstraction and does not hold any beliefs at all. It makes more sense to say that to conduct science, it requires holding a thesis about practice, since science is a set or practices. It's not in the "comprehensive metaphysical thesis" business. I could be wrong. Could you direct me to where what you claim, that MN restricts science to physicalism, is written in the article? If you can't, why don't we move on to something else?
So? Are you agreeing with JBSptfn's claim that IMS "is stuck in the science=physicalism only program"

Or not? Or is this you weaseling?


Once again, my responses to your posts on this thread have never been about JBS or IMS. I don't know, and don;t care to know, enough about IMS or his thinking to say whether he believes that or not. My responses to you have been about what YOU have written. If you feel uncomfortable coming out from hiding behind them, then let's consign this "disagreement" to all the other "disagreements" we've had, ie the "black box" the "smallpox""scientism" etc discussions, hours of my life I will never see again but so fruitfully spent.


"this" refers to the nature of the restriction. Did you really think it might mean science or physicalism?

The nature of the restriction is generally called methodological naturalism.

Methodological naturalism is how science is restricted to physicalism.


Just repeating something again doesn't amount to an explanation or a defense. What do you mean? As I've said, a scientist has to be a methodological naturalist but does NOT have to be a physicalist. So for that scientist who believes in the supernatural and who's a geologist, how does MN restrict science to physicalism? Draw out a Venn diagram.
Jim B.
 
Posts: 1413
Joined: Fri Aug 23, 2013 2:36 am

Re: skeptical has a hard time with concepts

Postby The Pixie on Wed Jul 05, 2017 2:32 am

Jim B. wrote:Here's the first sentence of the SEP article on MN you linked to:
In what follows, “methodological naturalism” will be understood as a view about philosophical practice.
(emphasis added).

The part I'm not getting is that you seem to be conflating two different kinds of things. One is a metaphysical thesis and the other is a thesis about practice. The thesis about practice (aka MN) could not "restrict" science to a thesis about metaphysics, as I've already pointed out. One need not be a physicalist or subscribe to any particular comprehensive metaphysical thesis in order to subscribe to a thesis about practice. Not to mention the fact that it's difficult to see how "science" this immensely messy, sprawling family of activities, could be restricted to a metaphysical thesis, since "science" is an abstraction and does not hold any beliefs at all. It makes more sense to say that to conduct science, it requires holding a thesis about practice, since science is a set or practices. It's not in the "comprehensive metaphysical thesis" business. I could be wrong. Could you direct me to where what you claim, that MN restricts science to physicalism, is written in the article? If you can't, why don't we move on to something else?

I am going to have to admit I had not read the article properly, and it does not say what I thought it did. I am talking about methodological naturalism as used by science, while that seems to be talking about methodological naturalism as used by philosophy.

http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/ ... ralism.htm
http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/11003/1/metnat3.pdf
http://theness.com/neurologicablog/inde ... aturalism/

By way of contrast, here is Plantinga arguing against it, but using the same definition:

http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/11003/1/metnat3.pdf

I had not come across this philosophical sense of methodological naturalism, and I apologise for any confusion that has caused.
Just repeating something again doesn't amount to an explanation or a defense. What do you mean? As I've said, a scientist has to be a methodological naturalist but does NOT have to be a physicalist. So for that scientist who believes in the supernatural and who's a geologist, how does MN restrict science to physicalism? Draw out a Venn diagram.

A Christian scientist is restricted to studying the natural world whilst doing science. MN restricts his science, but not his beliefs.
The Pixie
 
Posts: 852
Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2016 12:54 pm

Re: skeptical has a hard time with concepts

Postby Metacrock on Sat Jul 22, 2017 5:35 am

A Christian scientist is restricted to studying the natural world whilst doing science. MN restricts his science, but not his beliefs.


that's always been our assumption.
Have Theology, Will argue: wire Metacrock
Buy My book: The Trace of God: Warrant for belief
User avatar
Metacrock
 
Posts: 9923
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2008 8:03 am
Location: Dallas

Re: skeptical has a hard time with concepts

Postby JBSptfn on Tue Aug 08, 2017 9:37 am

Looks like skep is being a purveyor of scientism again (in the comments):

https://metacrock.blogspot.com/2017/07/ ... verse.html

He claims that science has disproved God.
JBSptfn
 
Posts: 85
Joined: Tue Dec 03, 2013 2:45 pm

Previous

Return to Adventure of Faith (Religion/Spirituality)

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests

cron