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

Jim B.
Posts:1445
Joined:Fri Aug 23, 2013 2:36 am
Re: skeptical has a hard time with concepts

Post by Jim B. » 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.

The Pixie
Posts:852
Joined:Thu Apr 28, 2016 12:54 pm

Re: skeptical has a hard time with concepts

Post by The Pixie » 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.

User avatar
Metacrock
Posts:10046
Joined:Tue Jan 22, 2008 8:03 am
Location:Dallas
Contact:

Re: skeptical has a hard time with concepts

Post by Metacrock » 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

JBSptfn
Posts:90
Joined:Tue Dec 03, 2013 2:45 pm

Re: skeptical has a hard time with concepts

Post by JBSptfn » 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.

Post Reply