Is science starting to misrepresent itself?

[Sherlock Holmes]

Over the past thirty, perhaps even forty years, it's become increasingly clear to me how what is sometimes presented as "god vs science" or "creationism vs science" and so on, is actually the root of many of the perceived problems with these two areas of human thought. Because these are presented as contrasting, as alternative ways of interpreting the world, many people just assume that there is an underlying incompatibility.

But there is no incompatibility at all, there never was and the false implication that there is arose quite recently in fact. The vast majority of those who contributed to what we today call the scientific revolution and later the enlightenment, were not atheists - this might surprise some but it is true and should be carefully noted.

The growth of militant atheism (recently spearheaded by the likes of Richard Dawkins and the late Christopher Hitchens) has seen increasing effort placed on attacking "religion" and discrediting those who might regard "god" and "creation" as intellectually legitimate ideas, by implying that the layman must choose one or the other, you're either an atheist (for science) or a theist (a science "denier").

It is my position that there is no conflict whatsoever, for example God (an intelligent agency not subject to laws) gave rise to the universe (a sophisticated amalgam of material and laws) and we - also intelligent agencies - are gifted by being able to explore, unravel and utilize that creation.

There is nothing that can disprove this view, there is no reason to imply that those who adopt it are deluded, incompetent, poorly educated or any of that, that attitude is a lie and its reinforced at every opportunity in this and many other forums.

[Sherlock Holmes]

Well why assume they are connected at all?

I would assume they are connected if a certain way of connecting them makes a lot of sense.

But in my example we can connect the dots in a multitude of ways, we can see whatever we want to see in the data.

what does "best" mean please, where you say "best fit" what must we assume first in order to evaluate what is "best"?

"Best" in the case of dots means using all the dots with straight lines and making a picture that resembles something. I have to assume there is a pattern to the dots to evaluate this.

Yes and I can see a car or a house or a boat, all of these fit the dots in one way or another, there is no "best" is there?

You need to define "best" and "making sense" creationists like me think that best includes a way of resolving missing data like Cambrian precursors and making sense is exactly what a supernatural intelligent agent is when we confront the otherwise chaotic fossil record.

Is your idea of "best" better than my idea of "best"? which best is best?

First of all to be even considered for "best" in the case of scientific endeavor means falsifiable, testable, repeatable, verifiable.

So how does that help us decide if the dots represent a car and not a house?

"Best" means not contradicted by any observation; making predictions that matches closely with observations, the more precise, the better; explaining/accounting for more kinds of observations; explaining/accounting for observations that was not explained/accounted for by existing models; has fewer unknowns, more parsimonious.

What if we do discover contradictions then? what if we do encounter observations that do not fit empirical expectations? can we dismiss the interpretation?

I think this "best" is better than your "best," but that's neither here or there; suffice to say that this "best" is the scientific "best."

I never defined "my best" (I did say that for me best must include a way to resolve missing yet expected data).

I see so being a creationist is not the issue for you, it is proposing a supernatural cause. Well accepting the reality of supernatural causes is what creationists do, so your contradicting yourself.

You seemed to have missed the all important "in a scientific context" caveat. Being a creationist in a scientific field is not the issue for me, it is proposing a supernatural cause in a scientific context. Not all creationists do that, so there is no contradiction.

Only if one understands "scientific context" to mean materialism rather than a systematic mode of inquiry. Of course if you personally understand science to be materialism then you'll object to the supernatural for obvious reasons, all of the many seminal scientists I listed earlier were not materialists, so for them the scientific context was not one that prohibited the supernatural from consideration. As I showed Faraday felt that electricity and magnetism were intertwined because of his theistic views - and his suspicions were correct.

Creationists - like me - believe that God is the reason there's a universe, that God is the reason we can even do "science", that God is the reason the universe is structured and mathematically describable, none of these things can (even in principle) be explained "naturally".

I've gathered that much already, but have you ever invoked the supernatural as a scientific explanation? If you can set those beliefs aside when you are writing your papers, you would not be called a pseudoscientist.

I'm not a pseudoscientist any more than Faraday. You need to define "scientific explanation", I define it as an explanation (theory, a reductionist model) that assumes the prior presence of laws and material quantities that are subject to those laws. So I have never advocated the supernatural as being a scientific explanation. What I do say is that science - as a mode of inquiry - can be used to infer the supernatural (as Faraday did with his conviction that electricity and magnetism were somehow intertwined) that is if one can infer the supernatural by the pursuit of science then we should not make up rules denying this or prohibiting such conclusions (which is exactly what the AAAS inserted clause does).

Good, we are in agreement - being a creationist does not hinder one's ability to do scientific research and "pseudoscience" is nothing whatsoever to do with being a creationist, glad we cleared this up.

It's cool we have some common ground, so back to my question, what's wrong with adding "seeking natural explanations" to explicitly ruling out supernatural causes in a scientific context as pseudoscience?

It presupposes the impossibility of the supernatural, something that none of the hundreds of scientists (Faraday et-al) ever had imposed upon them, and it serves no purpose other than to provide a means to label some "pseudoscientists" and thereby discredit them and their claims.

I'll explain then.

Natural means something arising from laws and initial conditions, where we can predict a future state from a current state - because of these laws (like differential equations for example where time is a variable).

Seems overly narrow, can you predict the time a particular radioactive atom would decay?

No, not any more than I can predict to the microsecond when an egg will hatch.

I can predict though that some % of eggs will have hatched within some interval and we can do a similar thing with radioactive decay, the half life.

Supernatural means something not arising from laws, not governed and foreseeable from laws, like the existence of the laws of physics, we cannot attribute these to other laws else we get infinite regress, far better - I and many others think - to postulate an intelligent agent with a will, an ability to create laws.

The latter is an entirely rational thing to postulate, this is why almost all of the noted scientists for the past few centuries were successful, being creationist is fully rational and in keeping with being a scientist.[/quote]

Okay, that seems to be answering a different question, so you'd rather appeal to a supernatural entity to ground reality, rather than appeal to infinite regression; not seeing how that means an empirically demonstrable entity shouldn't be classified as natural.

Well I'm personally happy to classify God as natural it is materialists and atheists who object because in their view natural things cannot create, cannot possess intent, do not have a will, cannot incorporate intelligence and design, these are prohibited ideas by such people, taboo, Spanish inquisition and all that.

[Sherlock Holmes]

[Replying to Sherlock Holmes in post #175]

Creationists - like me - believe that God is the reason there's a universe, that God is the reason we can even do "science", that God is the reason the universe is structured and mathematically describable, none of these things can (even in principle) be explained "naturally".

This is just god of the gaps reasoning, and the reason gods were invented in the first place by earlier humans.

No, you are relying on science of the gaps reasoning. That every "gap" (unexplained phenomenon) can only have a material explanation - we don't know this, we can't prove this, so why insist upon it?

They could not understand how the sun could move across the sky, how the earth could shake with such force, what caused thunderstorms, etc. so they invented gods as the source behind them. Science has progressively explained most of these natural phenomena and the corresponding gods mostly disappeared.

This is misleading, all scientific explanations just move the ball, once the light flash during a storm was due to "God" now it is due to the high temperature of the air through which huge electric currents flow, these flow because of electric charge, electric charge exists because of --- "God" - see? God is still there. No scientific explanation ever eliminates God, is just reveals other incredible things between God and what we are explaining.

All you are doing is making claims that things you don't understand must be caused by a god being because you can't fathom how they could occur naturally.

Where did I say that? what did I say that you are interpreting that way?

It simply is not true that "none of these things can (even in principle) be explained "naturally"." You've made this claim many times but have yet to make any rational arguments as to why it is true. It is a baseless claim that is simply asserted over and over.

No god being has ever been demonstrated to exist, so resorting to using gods as explanations for anything is premature (and certainly has no place in science).

Can a thing be used to explain why that thing exists?

[Jose Fly]

You'd not fare well in a referred one-on-one in person debate with me Jose, constantly retreating into ad-hominem, you'd never get away with it.

What is it with creationists and trash talking? Again, I'm reminded of the kid at the playground, yelling at the people on the basketball court "I can kick y'all's butt with one hand behind my back! You can't handle my game!" But when it's time for next game, suddenly the kid isn't wearing the right shoes, his mom is calling, he's hungry, the other players would just cheat anyways.....

Grow up SH. Please.

I mean really....if you're really this confident in your position, why are you restricting it to anonymous postings on an obscure Christian message board? Write it all up into a manuscript and submit it to a relevant journal. Anything less than that and you're no different than the trash talking kid at the playground.

More ad hominem.

Please answer.

If you're really this confident in your position, why are you restricting it to anonymous postings on an obscure Christian message board? Why haven't you written it all up into a manuscript and submitted it to a relevant journal?

[Jose Fly]

More ad hominem.

That's because you haven't actually made an argumentum, ad which we can direct our replies.

We've been asking you to support any of your theses since you joined the forum and all you've given us thus far is a misrepresentation of the one book you claim to have read. Rather than provide any other justification for your claims, you've instead told us all about yourself. You've told us what a staunch and informed atheist you were, how you know all of our tricks, that you know both the science and religion much better than the rest of us, and why you'd never let us get away with anything in some other forum. You haven't even supported those claims, to be honest, either explicitly or implicitly, but until you've provided something of substance to address, I don't suppose it matters which of your unsupported claims we pick on, now does it?

And all the while lamenting how no one will discuss science....apparently without any sense of irony.

[Sherlock Holmes]

You'd not fare well in a referred one-on-one in person debate with me Jose, constantly retreating into ad-hominem, you'd never get away with it.

What is it with creationists and trash talking? Again, I'm reminded of the kid at the playground, yelling at the people on the basketball court "I can kick y'all's butt with one hand behind my back! You can't handle my game!" But when it's time for next game, suddenly the kid isn't wearing the right shoes, his mom is calling, he's hungry, the other players would just cheat anyways.....

Grow up SH. Please.

I mean really....if you're really this confident in your position, why are you restricting it to anonymous postings on an obscure Christian message board? Write it all up into a manuscript and submit it to a relevant journal. Anything less than that and you're no different than the trash talking kid at the playground.

More ad hominem.

Please answer.

If you're really this confident in your position, why are you restricting it to anonymous postings on an obscure Christian message board? Why haven't you written it all up into a manuscript and submitted it to a relevant journal?

Please confine your remarks to the subject matter raised in the OP if you can't do that then perhaps you're not well suited to debating science.

[Jose Fly]

Please confine your remarks to the subject matter raised in the OP.

LOL....another dodge. Again, your schtick has gotten boring.

If you ever want to discuss actual science, I'll be here.

[Bust Nak]

But in my example we can connect the dots in a multitude of ways, we can see whatever we want to see in the data...

Sure, but some ways of connecting the dots would have better resemblance than others. You can make a car or a house or a boat, we can rank the different ways in accordance to how nice of a car/house/boat to determine "best."

So how does that help us decide if the dots represent a car and not a house?

That just rules out certain ways of connecting the dots, for example, if you can only make a car by using curves, then we rule it out.

What if we do discover contradictions then?

Then we can discard a model.

what if we do encounter observations that do not fit empirical expectations? can we dismiss the interpretation?

I don't really understand what that means, what empirical expectation? Can I just say if there is a mismatch between empirical observation and one's expectation, then change your expectations, would that answer your question?

I never defined "my best" (I did say that for me best must include a way to resolve missing yet expected data).

You also said something about a supernatural intelligent agent, that alone is enough for me to rate my "best" over yours.

Only if one understands "scientific context" to mean materialism rather than a systematic mode of inquiry.

What do you mean "rather?" Materialism is a systematic mode of inquiry, one based on observation, testing of falsifiable hypothesis and repeatability.

all of the many seminal scientists I listed earlier were not materialists, so for them the scientific context was not one that prohibited the supernatural from consideration.

Looks like a non sequitur. How do you get from "not materialist" to "to them, scientific context allows taking supernatural into consideration?"

As I showed Faraday felt that electricity and magnetism were intertwined because of his theistic views - and his suspicions were correct.

Correct you say, weren't you the one who told me that with different knowledge, different assumptions someone can reaches a different rational conclusion and there no sound argument to show them incorrect?

I'm not a pseudoscientist any more than Faraday. You need to define "scientific explanation", I define it as an explanation (theory, a reductionist model) that assumes the prior presence of laws and material quantities that are subject to those laws. So I have never advocated the supernatural as being a scientific explanation.

Never advocate is one thing, but here you've got the assumption of "laws and material quantities" built in the very definition of "scientific explanation," doesn't that force you to go beyond merely not advocating, but into prohibiting the supernatural? After all, you said the supernatural doesn't arise from, is not governed by laws.

What I do say is that science - as a mode of inquiry - can be used to infer the supernatural (as Faraday did with his conviction that electricity and magnetism were somehow intertwined)...

How is this an example of science inferring the supernatural? What I see, is an example of the supernatural inspiring a scientist.

It presupposes the impossibility of the supernatural...

You keep insisting on that, but how exactly does "supernatural therefore pseudoscience" presuppose the impossibility of the supernatural?

No, not any more than I can predict to the microsecond when an egg will hatch.

I can predict though that some % of eggs will have hatched within some interval and we can do a similar thing with radioactive decay, the half life.

So that's stopping you from making predictions in a similar way, about a so called "supernatural" entity (and thereby making it fit your definition of "natural")?

Well I'm personally happy to classify God as natural it is materialists and atheists who object because in their view natural things cannot create, cannot possess intent, do not have a will, cannot incorporate intelligence and design, these are prohibited ideas by such people.

Since when? I can create, possess intent, have a will, can incorporate intelligence and design. Find me one materialist or an atheist who would not classify me as "natural."

[William]

[Replying to Bust Nak in post #187]

A creative mind behind the formation of this Universe, does not equate to the mind being 'supernatural'.

I think it has been a theological mistake to label "Spirit" as being supernatural, because this implies a separation between creator and creation.

[Sherlock Holmes]

But in my example we can connect the dots in a multitude of ways, we can see whatever we want to see in the data...

Sure, but some ways of connecting the dots would have better resemblance than others. You can make a car or a house or a boat, we can rank the different ways in accordance to how nice of a car/house/boat to determine "best."

Not at all, take the image, print it and you can connect some of the dots in a multitude of ways outlining all sorts of shapes.

So how does that help us decide if the dots represent a car and not a house?

That just rules out certain ways of connecting the dots, for example, if you can only make a car by using curves, then we rule it out.

There are no rules other than those you invent or choose to apply, the data is the dots, the scattered dots and the hypothesis is that these dots represent surviving trace remnants of some image, the dots are all that are left. Any curve can have a set of points placed upon it, then the cure removed, all you'll see are the remaining dots.

What if we do discover contradictions then?

Then we can discard a model.

Right which is what I, Berlinski and numerous others have done with evolution. But when we do that the emotional outrage expressed, the vitriol, the accusations of "pseudoscience" all soon follow.

what if we do encounter observations that do not fit empirical expectations? can we dismiss the interpretation?

I don't really understand what that means, what empirical expectation? Can I just say if there is a mismatch between empirical observation and one's expectation, then change your expectations, would that answer your question?

Yes.

I never defined "my best" (I did say that for me best must include a way to resolve missing yet expected data).

You also said something about a supernatural intelligent agent, that alone is enough for me to rate my "best" over yours.

So did Faraday, Newton, Maxwell, Sedgwick, Joule, Lister, von Braun and many many more, seems I'm in good company.

Only if one understands "scientific context" to mean materialism rather than a systematic mode of inquiry.

What do you mean "rather?" Materialism is a systematic mode of inquiry, one based on observation, testing of falsifiable hypothesis and repeatability.

Materialism is not defined that way though, look:

Materialism is a form of philosophical monism which holds matter to be the fundamental substance in nature, and all things, including mental states and consciousness, are results of material interactions.

or

Materialism asserts that everything is or can be explained in relation to matter.

One might choose to adopt materialism based on inquiry, observation etc but that inquisitive process is distinct from the inferences one makes from the process, likewise one can equally choose to adopt dualism after following that same inquisitive process.

all of the many seminal scientists I listed earlier were not materialists, so for them the scientific context was not one that prohibited the supernatural from consideration.

Looks like a non sequitur. How do you get from "not materialist" to "to them, scientific context allows taking supernatural into consideration?"

Had they been materialists they'd be unable to consider supernatural factors as a possibility. So their context was not one (e.g. materialism) that prohibited the supernatural.

As I showed Faraday felt that electricity and magnetism were intertwined because of his theistic views - and his suspicions were correct.

Correct you say, weren't you the one who told me that with different knowledge, different assumptions someone can reaches a different rational conclusion and there no sound argument to show them incorrect?

I did say that, what of it? Do you think I am not able to use the term "correct" because of this?

I'm not a pseudoscientist any more than Faraday. You need to define "scientific explanation", I define it as an explanation (theory, a reductionist model) that assumes the prior presence of laws and material quantities that are subject to those laws. So I have never advocated the supernatural as being a scientific explanation.

Never advocate is one thing, but here you've got "laws and material quantities" in the very definition of "scientific explanation," doesn't that force you to go beyond merely not advocating, but into prohibiting the supernatural? After all, you said the supernatural doesn't arise from, is not governed by laws.

Not prohibiting, more inapplicable I'd say.

What I do say is that science - as a mode of inquiry - can be used to infer the supernatural (as Faraday did with his conviction that electricity and magnetism were somehow intertwined)...

How is this an example of science inferring the supernatural?

Your quite correct, I was wrong to say he inferred the supernatural from that, it was a poor example.

It presupposes the impossibility of the supernatural...

You keep insisting on that, but how exactly does "supernatural therefore pseudoscience" presuppose the impossibility of the supernatural?

This is what I wrote:

It presupposes the impossibility of the supernatural, something that none of the hundreds of scientists (Faraday et-al) ever had imposed upon them, and it serves no purpose other than to provide a means to label some "pseudoscientists" and thereby discredit them and their claims.

If to attribute some observable thing to the supernatural is deemed by all as "not doing science" then that leads rather quickly to labelling such a person a pseudoscientist.

By the AAAS definition we'd have to regard Lemaître (the man who first proposed the "Bag Bang" theory after studying Einstein's new theory) as a pseudoscientists because:

The young Lemaître was already beginning to think deeply about the beginning of the universe, in the context of his Christian faith. On May 28th, 1917, he wrote to his friend van Severen from the trenches: “I have understood the ‘Fiat Lux’ [Latin for “let there be light”] as the reason of the universe.”[2] An unpublished document from the early years after the war (God’s First Three Declarations, also translated sometimes as The First Three Words of God, written around 1921) shows him taking great pains to establish an elaborate concordism around the idea of light at the origin of the universe inspired in Genesis 1:3.[3]

See here.

Here he clearly associates the Genesis creation story with the reason the universe exists, ergo he must be a pseudoscientist because he fails to adhere to the AAAS rule "seeking natural explanations".

Do you regard Lemaître as a pseudoscientist?

No, not any more than I can predict to the microsecond when an egg will hatch.

I can predict though that some % of eggs will have hatched within some interval and we can do a similar thing with radioactive decay, the half life.

So that's stopping you from making predictions in a similar way, about a so called "supernatural" entity (and thereby making it fit your definition of "natural")?

I don't understand your point.

Well I'm personally happy to classify God as natural it is materialists and atheists who object because in their view natural things cannot create, cannot possess intent, do not have a will, cannot incorporate intelligence and design, these are prohibited ideas by such people.

Since when? I can create, possess intent, have a will, can incorporate intelligence and design. Find me one materialist or an atheist who would not classify me as "natural."

Yes, those attributes when embodied in a living organism are indeed referred to (by some people) as natural, I was referring to the case where these attributes are claimed to play a role in situations that exclude living organisms, find me a materialist who would classify such an explanation as "natural".

[William]

[Replying to Sherlock Holmes in post #189]

One might choose to adopt materialism based on inquiry, observation etc but that inquisitive process is distinct from the inferences one makes from the process, likewise one can equally choose to adopt dualism after following that same inquisitive process.

The problem with this - as I have noted before and will continue to note - is that swapping positions doesn't equate to getting any better answers, because BOTH positions share the same problem, which is that they do not have all the best answers one way or the other.

Therefore, they cancel one another out, and other options have to be explored re finding the real answers.

This is not to suggest that either position doesn't have its relative points - but more a case of recognizing those relative points an seeing how these can be dove-tailed together so that the dots connect/ they phase in harmony together.

This cannot be made possible until the "We are right and they are wrong" battlements are withdrawn, and time/energy is invested in better things than warfare...even if that warfare is simply 'harmless' stuff argued about, on a small internet forum.