Open Thread: Bears

This entry was posted on Saturday, January 10th, 2009 at 6:29 pm and is filed under Random Stuff. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.

72 Responses to “Open Thread: Bears”

Bradford Says:
January 11th, 2009 at 12:31 am
Viewpoint has an article about manipulating the media. It makes you wonder how many "scenes" are genuine. RLC quoting a source:

The U.S. has supplied Israel with just about every smart bomb in the American arsenal. Not just to help out an ally, but so that American and Israeli air force planners can compare notes after this is all over.

RLC: And most importantly, we should point out, so that Israel can wage a more just war by pinpointing their targets and reducing the harm done to innocent lives and property.

Comment by Bradford — January 11, 2009 @ 12:31 am

Bradford Says:
January 11th, 2009 at 10:51 am
These are consequences of unrestrained entitlements- what Americans wrongly label "rights."

Comment by Bradford — January 11, 2009 @ 10:51 am

Todd Berkebile Says:
January 11th, 2009 at 12:15 pm
I don't think the disciplining of children in school has anything to do with entitlements; at least not how that term is normally used. I don't think parents consider children to be entitled to behave however they want. I think it has more to do with the extreme sexual repression of our society and the abhorrent behaviors that leads to. Parents are terrified that their teachers are raping their children. Unfortunately they aren't completely unjustified in that fear. Without a trust relationship between parents and teachers there cannot be an effective educational environment. Add to this a legal system gone wild where dreams of getting rich through lawsuits are many poor peoples only dream of escaping their caste and things get stupid.

Comment by Todd Berkebile — January 11, 2009 @ 12:15 pm

Joy Says:
January 11th, 2009 at 12:44 pm
Bradford:

These are consequences of unrestrained entitlements- what Americans wrongly label "rights."

Entitlements? These are torts and remedies by adjudication, Bradford. That's a whole other beastie that has nothing to do with "rights."

Will engages quite a bit of hyperbole himself, so it sounds like this article is less of book review than an opinion piece. But I particularly liked this:

"A nation in which the proportion of lawyers in the work force almost doubled between 1970 and 2000 has become ludicrously dense with laws."

Now, if he'd said "lawsuits" or "rules committees" or "corporate legal staffs" or "contract law firms" or "public defense attorneys" (for those millions who make the US #1 among nations for incarcerating more of its citizens than anyone else) he might have had a point. But the actual fact of the matter is that the number of laws enacted have nothing whatsoever to do with the number of lawyers in the population.

Laws aren't made by lawyers, they're made by politicians. Who are often lawyers, but need not be. The number of politicians hasn't increased per capita, because not a single state government has changed its constitutional form (and the national government hasn't either) since 1970. Members added to legislative bodies – those that actually DO make laws – were added to account for population growth when new representational districts were added. Thus every single year these legislators spend their time thinking up new laws, drafting them, debating them, voting on them.

So while I am certainly no fan of lawyers, Will is just blowing smoke blaming the number of lawyers licensed to practice law for the number of laws to be practiced. That reveals either a big dumb streak in a supposedly smart pundit, or a penchant for twisting the truth to serve a particular agenda. Something, come to think of it, lawyers do so often that it makes them the least popular profession with the public they mostly don't serve. Hmmm….

§;o)

Comment by Joy — January 11, 2009 @ 12:44 pm

Bradford Says:
January 11th, 2009 at 1:23 pm
Joy:

Entitlements? These are torts and remedies by adjudication, Bradford. That's a whole other beastie that has nothing to do with "rights."

There are torts of course but what they remedy is another story. Like most concepts the tort system, when utilized judiciously, can be a source of legitimate reddress. Unfortunately unjust rulings and the economic incentives to settle out of court have led to rulings that have a chilling effect on the formulation of sound public policies. "Rights" lead to a sense of entitlement. If you have a right to x one denies you x at his own legal peril. A consensus on rights has been central to gauging public policy since this nation was founded.

Comment by Bradford — January 11, 2009 @ 1:23 pm

Bradford Says:
January 11th, 2009 at 1:36 pm
Here's a take on a possible future healthcare legislation:

The Obama Health Care Plan: A Closer Look at Cost and Coverage

Comment by Bradford — January 11, 2009 @ 1:36 pm

Todd Berkebile Says:
January 11th, 2009 at 1:47 pm
Perhaps we should discuss the ethics of blog posters who realizing they have nothing to say instead simply throw in a childish last word by insulting the posters and then lock them from the thread. Apparently chunkdz's continuous refusal to address questions posed to him is a fault of the other posters and not his own fault. I understand the need to have more contributors around here, but the quality has certainly taken a nose dive since Mike left. Oh well, it’s your pipe so you’re free to flush whatever you want down it.

Comment by Todd Berkebile — January 11, 2009 @ 1:47 pm

Joy Says:
January 11th, 2009 at 2:53 pm
Bradford:

Like most concepts the tort system, when utilized judiciously, can be a source of legitimate reddress. Unfortunately unjust rulings and the economic incentives to settle out of court have led to rulings that have a chilling effect on the formulation of sound public policies.

Last I checked, all states have strict rules against "frivolous lawsuits," and overworked judges tend to be very cranky with lawyers who try to bring them. In every tort case allowed, the plaintiffs must demonstrate harm, that the harm has monetary value for which they seek compensation, and that the harm resulted from wrongdoing or negligence by the parties of defense. In professional malpractice cases most states do not allow punitive damages at all, no matter how egregious the wrongdoing or negligence. In cases establishing precedents (such as McDonald's superheating their coffee), punitives are generally assessed against the profits of the corporation found in the wrong. And in all cases brought on issues of civil rights, there must be a clear violation of law or regulation in addition to demonstrable harm done "under color of law" or the extension of said laws to the defendants (employment rights, etc.). Where administrative remedy is prescribed, lawsuits are not allowed. Where sovereign immunity pertains, individuals must sue individuals (like DAs, governors, police chiefs/departments, etc.) instead of governments of its agencies.

Nobody gets rich off lawsuits except lawyers. People harmed often go through a decade or more of serious stress, expense and frustration just to make a point and right a grotesque wrong. That's rather courageous (nobody likes lawyers being in the middle of their lives). Worthy of praise more often than derision.

Apologists for blanket deregulation whine a lot about how the people they harm should not be able to seek redress for being harmed by policies that led directly to the harm done. They want to be placed "above the law" to do any damn thing they please. If coal plants aren't required to secure and monitor their ash ponds, then they shouldn't be held accountable for the damage done when their ash ponds dump millions or billions of gallons of toxic sludge onto communities and into water supplies. Just a recent for instance, in anticipation of the class action that is bound to be brought against TVA for the Kingston spill.

No one in that class action if it is ever filed is ever going to be compensated for what the spill cost them in property, health or anything else. The lawyers will make a mint. But it may lead to re-regulating the management of coal wastes, which will help prevent further harm from further spills in the future. Insert hog farm open cesspools, beef feedlot runoff, use of raw sewage on fresh vegetables, allowing deadly contamination of food and feed products from a "Most Favored Nation" supplier that puts melamine in everything, gladly putting meat from a sick or contaminated cow into the bazillion-pound hamburger batch supplying school lunches, etc., etc., etc. If left to their own devices, both government and the corporations that own it would be immune from any damned scheme, and when those go bad, expect prompt bailout for stupidity and illegal acts by the taxpayers "under color of law."

There is no litigation crisis in this country. That's a 'talking point' from those who deregulated things down to the point that we are now utterly impoverished as a nation. They're scared to death they might have to be responsible for their criminal and grossly negligent actions in the future.

Comment by Joy — January 11, 2009 @ 2:53 pm

Bradford Says:
January 11th, 2009 at 4:08 pm
Joy: Last I checked, all states have strict rules against "frivolous lawsuits," and overworked judges tend to be very cranky with lawyers who try to bring them. In every tort case allowed, the plaintiffs must demonstrate harm, that the harm has monetary value for which they seek compensation, and that the harm resulted from wrongdoing or negligence by the parties of defense. In professional malpractice cases most states do not allow punitive damages at all, no matter how egregious the wrongdoing or negligence. In cases establishing precedents (such as McDonald's superheating their coffee), punitives are generally assessed against the profits of the corporation found in the wrong.

That's an interesting case because many think the woman made wealthy as a consequence of the judgement brought about her own misfortune by her incredibly stupid behavior. In theory the plaintiff's own contributory negligence should have been taken into account. The jury might claim it was but she managed to accomplish what could not have occurred if she was even partially thoughful. So a corporation (actually it's shareholders- which these days consists in part of invested pension plans of ordinary Americans) absorbs the costs of the "negligence." There really is no free lunch here.

And in all cases brought on issues of civil rights, there must be a clear violation of law or regulation in addition to demonstrable harm done "under color of law" or the extension of said laws to the defendants (employment rights, etc.).

Let me show what this means as a practical matter since I have been at both ends of the litigation process. I know you've shared your personal experiences and here is mine. I was once sued for damages (a frivilous claim in my view). It is difficult to establish frivolity however. Usually these things are played out. My lawyers investigated the plaintiff and found he had a history of filing claims. I don't recall the exact number but he had sued about a half-dozen times previously and was not yet thirty years of age. Fortunately for me he was dumber than a turkey but that did not stop the accumulating legal expenses. I studied the cirumstances of the case well. My love for debates and my tenacity worked in my favor when I testified. I ripped his claims to pieces by pointing out physical and logical inconsistencies and was congratulated by my attorney. The plaintiff dropped his claim but not before a substantial legal bill was built up. My circumstances were not all that unique. Most honest people lack the disposition or the monetary resources needed to do what we were able to do.

Apologists for blanket deregulation whine a lot about how the people they harm should not be able to seek redress for being harmed by policies that led directly to the harm done.

I know of some reformists but none who want to throw the baby out with the bathwater. So here's the other end of my experience with the tort system. My wife was operated on several years ago. The surgeon negligently left what are called surgical clips in her body. Surgeons tell you this is no big deal. Many of us function with foreign objects in our bodies my wife was told. It's a consequence many war and accident victims have to face. What they do not explain is that surgical clips in soft tissue tend to migrate and when they do incidental nerve inflammation is inevitable. Pain can be considerable and often occurs unexpectedly. The surgery took place more than seven years ago. A claim has been sitting in a court docket system for years. Not even at the deposition stage. Reforms are needed in multiple areas.

There is no litigation crisis in this country. That's a 'talking point' from those who deregulated things down to the point that we are now utterly impoverished as a nation. They're scared to death they might have to be responsible for their criminal and grossly negligent actions in the future.

There are such people of course. But they cannot be allowed to polarize the discussion. There need not be a choice between no change and removal of the right to sue. There is a responsible middle ground and my hope is that most Americans will find it in the end.

Comment by Bradford — January 11, 2009 @ 4:08 pm

Joy Says:
January 11th, 2009 at 5:45 pm
Bradford:

That's an interesting case because many think the woman made wealthy as a consequence of the judgement brought about her own misfortune by her incredibly stupid behavior. In theory the plaintiff's own contributory negligence should have been taken into account. The jury might claim it was but she managed to accomplish what could not have occurred if she was even partially thoughful. So a corporation (actually it's shareholders- which these days consists in part of invested pension plans of ordinary Americans) absorbs the costs of the "negligence." There really is no free lunch here.

If it were really an interesting case to you and not just another twisted 'talking point', you could have found out the facts of the matter with very little trouble, Bradford. Why, even Wikipedia has them on offer, and that page comes up prominently on page 1 of any search. Those facts, as listed in the FindLaw archives are:

1. McDonald's knew for years their coffee was at least 20º hotter than necessary, served at between 180 and 190ºF. They'd had more than 700 claims for scalds, collective settlements over the years for more than $500,000. At this temperature, the liquid causes third degree burns (those that require skin grafts) in 12-15 seconds.

2. The 79-year old woman spent 7 days in the hospital and another 3 weeks in home care, then was hospitalized again for skin grafts. She lost 30 pounds she couldn't afford through this ordeal. She originally offered to settle for $20,000 to cover her costs, McDonald's offered $800 so she got a lawyer and sued.

3. A McDonald's QC manager testified that the company knew of burn risks from its coffee and refused to turn it down or warn the customers. The jury found the woman 20% responsible for her own injuries.

4. A judge later reduced the punitive damage award from 2.7 million (two days' worth of coffee sales) to $640,000, three times compensatory damages. How much of that do you think the lawyer got?

5. Three years later a 73-year old woman suffered second and third degree burns similar to the plaintiff's from McDonald's coffee, still served at high-risk temperature.

There is no record of McDonald's employees who have suffered serious burns from coffee over the years, but I once worked at the franchise when it was young. Coffee burns were a regular way of life (though hands are tougher than abdomen/groin/thighs). Employees are quite used to providing ice to customers who order coffee so it can be made drinkable.

McDonald's didn't lose even those two days' worth of coffee sales in punitives, and if its stock went down it's because people who buy stock were disgusted and chose not to buy it. You'll have this with bad corporate citizens. Personal responsibility counts, even when the 'person' is a corporation.

So. Don't leave out the pertinent details, Bradford. They tell a story that does not resemble the carefully crafted 'talking point' you wish us to absorb as some sort of received wisdom. It's not.

Comment by Joy — January 11, 2009 @ 5:45 pm

Bradford Says:
January 11th, 2009 at 6:31 pm
You're right Joy. All the facts should be reported. Including this:

She placed the coffee cup between her knees and pulled the far side of the lid toward her to remove it. In the process, she spilled the entire cup of coffee on her lap.

How incredibly stupid does one have to be to place a scalding cup of coffee between one's knees and then attempt to remove the lid. Any IDiot could predict the likely result. She must be a critic.

Comment by Bradford — January 11, 2009 @ 6:31 pm

Alan Fox Says:
January 11th, 2009 at 7:07 pm
Cup with a lid? Why? Never mind, I have never been inside a Macdonald's so I don't have the right to inquire.

Have to agree with Todd upthread. Precious little about ID development here lately, and Chunkdz is a great ambassador for ID public relations.

I am still hoping for great things from Nullasalus.

Comment by Alan Fox — January 11, 2009 @ 7:07 pm

Bradford Says:
January 11th, 2009 at 7:20 pm
Alan Fox: Cup with a lid? Why?

I believe the cups are styrofoam and lids plastic. It's the fast food American mentality.

Comment by Bradford — January 11, 2009 @ 7:20 pm

Bradford Says:
January 11th, 2009 at 7:57 pm
Alan Fox wrote:

Chunkdz is a great ambassador for ID public relations.

Just a reminder Alan. I can take a tour of blogs that could be described as mainstream or counter-teleological and find comments and even blog entries loaded with invective, hostility and insults. It's standard fare. I keep that in mind when people point the finger at IDists.

Comment by Bradford — January 11, 2009 @ 7:57 pm

Joy Says:
January 11th, 2009 at 8:42 pm
Bradford:

How incredibly stupid does one have to be to place a scalding cup of coffee between one's knees and then attempt to remove the lid. Any IDiot could predict the likely result.

Some of us don't drink our coffee black and unsweetened, Bradford. In order to add sugar and cream to a cup of McDonald's superheated coffee, one MUST remove the lid. McDonald's knows this and has always known this.

She must be a critic.

Of McDonald's? No doubt. Of course, she was in her 80s when the case went through court in the early 1990s. If she's still alive, she probably doesn't get out much, and probably doesn't drink superheated coffee anymore anyway.

Comment by Joy — January 11, 2009 @ 8:42 pm

Bradford Says:
January 11th, 2009 at 8:54 pm
Joy: Some of us don't drink our coffee black and unsweetened, Bradford. In order to add sugar and cream to a cup of McDonald's superheated coffee, one MUST remove the lid. McDonald's knows this and has always known this.

I'm not interested in being an apologist for McDonald's. They formulate their company polices and live with the results. However, when I go into a public facility to get take out coffee I add milk inside the facility where they have tables or flat surfaces. Makes sense to me. But what makes even more sense is securing the coffee in the car. Putting it between the legs is not an option.

Comment by Bradford — January 11, 2009 @ 8:54 pm

Joy Says:
January 12th, 2009 at 12:00 am
Bradford:

However, when I go into a public facility to get take out coffee I add milk inside the facility where they have tables or flat surfaces. Makes sense to me. But what makes even more sense is securing the coffee in the car. Putting it between the legs is not an option.

You apparently don't much use drive-up windows, but I'm glad you're smarter than this 79-year old in 1994 who just wanted a cup of coffee and ended up in the hospital with third degree burns and had to undergo skin grafts. I'm sure you'd tell my friend's 7-year old that he was incredibly stupid to have run from those bullies into the street, so it's his own fault his leg was broken nearly off. I'm pretty sure he already knows that and will be standing up to them on the sidewalk from now on. Soon as he's standing up, that is.

A jury of peers heard the evidence and testimony, reached a verdict, assessed damages – later lowered to less than 3/4 million by the judge. Why your right-wing sources want to use it as a test case for "tort reform" that would indeed remove the right to sue for grievance is standard operating procedure. I don't know why you'd buy it if you're as smart as you claim to be, but then again, I also know you don't expect me to buy it.

This is only a test. If it were a real emergency, you would be tuned in to…

Comment by Joy — January 12, 2009 @ 12:00 am

Todd Berkebile Says:
January 12th, 2009 at 1:53 am
Bradford: I can take a tour of blogs that could be described as mainstream or counter-teleological and find comments and even blog entries loaded with invective, hostility and insults. It's standard fare. I keep that in mind when people point the finger at IDists.

Ah, so when in Rome you must act like the Romans, eh? I guess I didn't realize you were a moral relativist. No wonder you fear liberalism so much, you might become liberal just by having them around with that attitude. To be clear, I don't mind insults at all. In fact let me know if you're going to let the posters insult people too now that the contributors feel free to throw insults.

Comment by Todd Berkebile — January 12, 2009 @ 1:53 am

Raevmo Says:
January 12th, 2009 at 4:45 am
Alan:

Cup with a lid? Why? Never mind, I have never been inside a Macdonald's so I don't have the right to inquire.

You live in France don't you? In my experience France appears to have the greatest per capita number of "Mac D'eau"s in Europe.

Precious little about ID development here lately

Could it be there isn't much development lately? Dembski seems to be happy rehashing his old stuff in new books for the rubes. No news from the Front Loading front either. Let's hope it's just the silence before the storm.

Comment by Raevmo — January 12, 2009 @ 4:45 am

Bradford Says:
January 12th, 2009 at 7:26 am
Joy: I'm sure you'd tell my friend's 7-year old that he was incredibly stupid to have run from those bullies into the street, so it's his own fault his leg was broken nearly off. I'm pretty sure he already knows that and will be standing up to them on the sidewalk from now on. Soon as he's standing up, that is.

I think it would be very smart to run from bullies. I don't think this is analogous to placing a hot cup of coffee between one's knees and then pulling the lid toward yourself.

Why your right-wing sources want to use it as a test case for "tort reform" that would indeed remove the right to sue for grievance is standard operating procedure.

The perceived threat to the right to sue doesn't strike my heart with abject, debilitating terror. Why tolerate threatiness with tort reform? Where is the evidence that removal of the right to sue is intended? Mainstream conservatives do not wish this and neither do I. One of the reforms I already alluded to would benefit plaintiffs. In some states you have to wait years before your case comes to court. That type of delayed justice is injustice. If anyone is interested in real positions then view this article at the nation's most influential conservative think tank.

Comment by Bradford — January 12, 2009 @ 7:26 am

Bradford Says:
January 12th, 2009 at 7:33 am
Todd:

To be clear, I don't mind insults at all.

I don't believe that Todd.

In fact let me know if you're going to let the posters insult people too now that the contributors feel free to throw insults.

I try to keep insults to a minimum in the threads I'm responsible for. If you compare my threads to internet sites, that some TT critics hang out at, they compare favorably on the insult issue. BTW Todd, was this comment of yours intended to insult?

Do you always become a shrink whenever a response fails to generate some cheap culture war assault? If you have nothing to say you might consider saying nothing.

Comment by Bradford — January 12, 2009 @ 7:33 am

Todd Berkebile Says:
January 12th, 2009 at 10:47 am
Bradford:

If you compare my threads to internet sites, that some TT critics hang out at, they compare favorably on the insult issue.

I know you try to keep things civil, which is why I thought you'd prefer the other contributors around here to do likewise.

BTW Todd, was this comment of yours intended to insult?

It was a question and a suggestion. I assumed when he asked me those three questions, questions which I answered in a straightforward manner, that he was going somewhere with it. His response suggests he was merely phishing for culture war ammo instead. So while that's a bad example I don't deny that I often scoff at the other posters. As I said, I don't mind insults but simply try to stay within the rules for this forum. But now that is hard since the rules apparently vary wildly between threads. Bradford's rule seems to be that insults must be veiled (my favorite kind anyway ). Chunkdz's rule seems to be that you can't point out when he has nothing to say, or perhaps that you can't disagree with him too many times.

Comment by Todd Berkebile — January 12, 2009 @ 10:47 am

don provan Says:
January 12th, 2009 at 1:35 pm
Perhaps we should discuss the ethics of blog posters who realizing they have nothing to say instead simply throw in a childish last word by insulting the posters and then lock them from the thread. Apparently chunkdz's continuous refusal to address questions posed to him is a fault of the other posters and not his own fault.

Yeah, chunkdz did the same thing to me in that thread. Poor guy: couldn't show that there actually was a problem to begin with, and unable or unwilling to admit that his purpose in bringing up the issue was to "sling poo" at the science eduction establishment by suggesting they're all racists.

Comment by don provan — January 12, 2009 @ 1:35 pm

chunkdz Says:
January 12th, 2009 at 1:50 pm
Chunkdz's rule seems to be that you can't point out when he has nothing to say, or perhaps that you can't disagree with him too many times.

There's no rule, but if commenters become painfully boring I feel I owe it to the readers to end it. Insults are fine. Boring, repetitive, and argumentative will get you tossed. It just makes for unpleasant reading.

As for disagreement, it comes with the territory, and in critical thinking it should be welcomed. But obtuse confrontationalism is not honest disagreement. Where you crossed the line, Todd, was your suggestion that the textbook writers simply made a "grammatical" error by asserting that
a picture of a guy with black skin and big lips was representative of a particular evolved race of humans.

"Grammer"?!? Good Lord, Todd. What's your next defense? The publisher was having a "bad day"?!?

And of course, by having to explain why you are so boring, repetitive, and unreasonably argumentative, I too have become boring. So don't take it too personally in the future and don't expect lengthy explanations about why you're being tossed. Just quit whining and move on to the next thread.

And of course, if TT'ers want to establish a set of rules for such action I'm willing to go along.

Comment by chunkdz — January 12, 2009 @ 1:50 pm

chunkdz Says:
January 12th, 2009 at 1:55 pm
Alan,

Chunkdz is a great ambassador for ID public relations.

Can I quotemine you on this, Alan?

Comment by chunkdz — January 12, 2009 @ 1:55 pm

Alan Fox Says:
January 12th, 2009 at 2:14 pm
Sure.

You approach the all-time favourite of mine, Salvador T. Cordova, and that is no mean feat!

Comment by Alan Fox — January 12, 2009 @ 2:14 pm

GringoRoyale Says:
January 12th, 2009 at 2:16 pm
Does anyone have a link or know the name to the ID research blog with Doug Axe and others?
Thanks.

Comment by GringoRoyale — January 12, 2009 @ 2:16 pm

Zachriel Says:
January 12th, 2009 at 2:19 pm
GringoRoyale: Does anyone have a link or know the name to the ID research blog with Doug Axe and others?

You're probably thinking of the Biologic Institute.

Comment by Zachriel — January 12, 2009 @ 2:19 pm

GringoRoyale Says:
January 12th, 2009 at 2:20 pm
Thanks Zach.
Couldn't think of the name of it.
And I thought it used to be linked on TTs mainpage.

Kind of light on the material over there.

Comment by GringoRoyale — January 12, 2009 @ 2:20 pm

Alan Fox Says:
January 12th, 2009 at 2:38 pm
Raevmo:

You live in France don't you? In my experience France appears to have the greatest per capita number of "Mac D'eau"s in Europe.

Oh, they're here all right. There's one right on the main island at my nearest town. I just have never been in. I have been through the drive-by in the UK many times to pick up chicken(?) "mcnuggets" for my daughter who was a McDo addict in her early teens, but she is now a vegetarian! Never felt the urge to try their products myself. It never looks busy. I am amazed they survive. I did hear that a few uneconomic branches have closed in France recently.

Comment by Alan Fox — January 12, 2009 @ 2:38 pm

don provan Says:
January 12th, 2009 at 3:18 pm
"Grammer"?!? Good Lord, Todd. What's your next defense? The publisher was having a "bad day"?!?

So what's your explanation, chunkdz? Why can't you come out and say it?

Comment by don provan — January 12, 2009 @ 3:18 pm

GringoRoyale Says:
January 12th, 2009 at 3:59 pm
Hey Gang,
Check out Dr. Behe's Amazon blog. Recently post from him is now on there.

Comment by GringoRoyale — January 12, 2009 @ 3:59 pm

Zachriel Says:
January 12th, 2009 at 4:52 pm
Michael Behe's Amazon Blog: Miller vs. Luskin, Part 1

(comment disabled)

Comment by Zachriel — January 12, 2009 @ 4:52 pm

Todd Berkebile Says:
January 12th, 2009 at 5:07 pm
Chunkdz:

My topic in this thread was how your childish behavior reflects poorly on this blog, not your failed attempt to imply the NCSE is racist. If you want to continue the other topic then unlock the other thread.

Comment by Todd Berkebile — January 12, 2009 @ 5:07 pm

Raevmo Says:
January 12th, 2009 at 8:45 pm
Alan:

Oh, they're here all right. There's one right on the main island at my nearest town. I just have never been in. I have been through the drive-by in the UK many times to pick up chicken(?) "mcnuggets" for my daughter who was a McDo addict in her early teens, but she is now a vegetarian! Never felt the urge to try their products myself. It never looks busy. I am amazed they survive. I did hear that a few uneconomic branches have closed in France recently.

I used to live in Montpellier, and the McDo at the Place de la Comedie was usually packed. Myself, I prefer "un Americain", a baguette with French fries.

Comment by Raevmo — January 12, 2009 @ 8:45 pm

fifth monarchy man Says:
January 13th, 2009 at 7:40 pm
Has anyone been keeping up with Steve Fuller's posts at UD?

I would be very interested in folk’s impressions of his argument. I think he maybe on to something profound

peace

Comment by fifth monarchy man — January 13, 2009 @ 7:40 pm

Todd Berkebile Says:
January 13th, 2009 at 8:07 pm
FMM:

When you add more God to ID you end up with Creationism, which is exactly where they started. So this sounds like an admission of defeat to me. There is, however, a certain honesty in admitting it was all about God all this time which I appreciate.

Comment by Todd Berkebile — January 13, 2009 @ 8:07 pm

fifth monarchy man Says:
January 13th, 2009 at 8:30 pm
Todd

When you add more God to ID you end up with Creationism,

I always thought that in order to have Creationism you need to base your theory on special revelation like a sacred text. If you’re a creationist simply because you think about the nature of the designer then Einstein was a Creationist.

So this sounds like an admission of defeat to me. There is, however, a certain honesty in admitting it was all about God all this time which I appreciate.

I’m not sure about everyone else but I’ve always believed that ID (like MET) was simply an interesting idea about how God might have accomplished his purposes.

But a theodicy is not adding God to ID it's only recognizing that you can’t infer design with out inferring something about the designer.

peace

Comment by fifth monarchy man — January 13, 2009 @ 8:30 pm

Todd Berkebile Says:
January 13th, 2009 at 8:35 pm
fmm:

But a theodicy is not adding God to ID it's only recognizing that you can’t infer design with out inferring something about the designer.

Well this is certainly true, critics have been pointing this out from the begining, so I still guess it sounds like an improvement.

Comment by Todd Berkebile — January 13, 2009 @ 8:35 pm

fifth monarchy man Says:
January 13th, 2009 at 8:58 pm
From the link:

Quote:

Scientific and religious beliefs rise and fall together because, in the end, they are all about the same reality.

End quote:

I think the enlightenment attempt to separate religion from science has tended to corrupt science and religion.

peace

Comment by fifth monarchy man — January 13, 2009 @ 8:58 pm

Todd Berkebile Says:
January 13th, 2009 at 9:21 pm
Scientific and religious beliefs rise and fall together because, in the end, they are all about the same reality.

I would have said that one is about this reality and the other is about people's impressions of this reality, but that's just me.

I think the enlightenment attempt to separate religion from science has tended to corrupt science and religion.

I think this separation has lead to the explosive growth of science and the slow decay of religion; I consider both of these good things. I don't think the idea of science is corrupt although I would agree that there is corruption (political and ideological) among scientists and the grant giving process. We are billions of human lives beyond the pre-enlightenment population capacity of our planet thanks to the science that resulted from abandoning teleology.

Comment by Todd Berkebile — January 13, 2009 @ 9:21 pm

fifth monarchy man Says:
January 13th, 2009 at 9:34 pm
I would have said that one is about this reality and the other is about people's impressions of this reality, but that's just me.

this is exactly the corruption I was talking about

I consider both of these good things

Yet you call Fuller’s idea to combine them “an improvement” ???????

Is today national inconsistency day or what?

peace

Comment by fifth monarchy man — January 13, 2009 @ 9:34 pm

GringoRoyale Says:
January 14th, 2009 at 8:18 pm
There's a follow up from Dr. Behe on his amazon blog.
Interesting stuff.

Comment by GringoRoyale — January 14, 2009 @ 8:18 pm

Vividbleau Says:
January 14th, 2009 at 10:03 pm
I think this separation has lead to the explosive growth of science and the slow decay of religion:I consider both of these good things

.

Surprise surprise. How many times have we read from ID critics how bad it was when religious metaphysics controlled science, think Catholic Church. Of course now that it is their metaphysics that controls the enterprise of science it is all of a sudden a good thing. Doncha just love the hypocrisy.

I don't think the idea of science is corrupt althoug

No the idea of science is not corrupt what is corrupt is the pawning off of philosophical naturalism as science.

Vivid

Comment by Vividbleau — January 14, 2009 @ 10:03 pm

Todd Berkebile Says:
January 14th, 2009 at 10:21 pm
fmm: Yet you call Fuller’s idea to combine them “an improvement” ???????
Is today national inconsistency day or what?

…? It's so hard to figure out what you're saying sometimes that I often think attributing meaning to your words is just like seeing faces in the clouds. Fuller's idea is that ID should admit that its really creationism. I'm not suggesting science change, and I think very little of ID. If ID changed to be more honest I would still consider it useless garbage, but at least it would be garbage that doesn't stick as badly. So please, explain to me how that is inconsistent with anything I have said?

Vivid: How many times have we read from ID critics how bad it was when religious metaphysics controlled science, think Catholic Church.

Obviously not enough to understand the wisdom of it.

Vivid: Of course now that it is their metaphysics that controls the enterprise of science it is all of a sudden a good thing. Doncha just love the hypocrisy.

How exactly does accepting the idea that empirical observation leads to knowledge (i.e. naturalism) taint science with metaphysics? You seem to be suggesting that the very axiom on which all of science is based (the validity of empirical observation) is an unjust metaphysical bias in science? Do you deny the validity of empirical observation?

Comment by Todd Berkebile — January 14, 2009 @ 10:21 pm

Vividbleau Says:
January 14th, 2009 at 10:52 pm
Obviously not enough to understand the wisdom of it.

Wisdom of what?

How exactly does accepting the idea that empirical observation leads to knowledge (i.e. naturalism) taint science with metaphysics?

LOL thanks for making my point:roll: I could not ask for a better example. Empirical observation indeed leads to knowledge but empirical observation is not naturalism, nor is knowledge naturalism, naturalism is a metaphysical position.

Todd you are so steeped in your metaphysics that your blind to it, case in point your comment about science and knowledge equating the both of them to metaphysics.

Vivid

Comment by Vividbleau — January 14, 2009 @ 10:52 pm

Todd Berkebile Says:
January 14th, 2009 at 11:43 pm
Vivid: naturalism is a metaphysical position.

Methodological naturalism is the foundation of science, ontological naturalism is a metaphysical position which states methodological naturalism can explain all of reality. Science IS methodological naturalism. If you could read, you will see that I provided a definition of naturalism specifically to clear up this possible ambiguity:

naturalism: the idea that empirical observation leads to knowledge

You are so desperate to try and make some sort of point that I guess you missed this. You want to try and place teleology and theism and science all on a level field by claiming they are all just metaphysics, but you are clearly wrong. I bet you would hyperventilate trying to wind your watch.

Comment by Todd Berkebile — January 14, 2009 @ 11:43 pm

Vividbleau Says:
January 15th, 2009 at 12:08 am
Methodological naturalism is the foundation of science,

Methodological naturalism is itself a metaphysical position and no it has nothing to do with doing science. Science was being done long before the enlightenment just ask Newton. Methodological naturalism is nothing but the assumption that philosophical naturalism is true.

Science IS methodological naturalism.

It was the credo of the enlightenment whereby science was enslaved to naturalism, one need not be a methodological naturalist to do science. Furthermore if MN is science then the proposition can be empirically verified

If you could read, you will see that I provided a definition of naturalism specifically to clear up this possible ambiguity:

I can read just fine thank you, keep digging the hole it just gets bigger and better.

"I bet you would hyperventilate trying to wind your watch."

Oh my what were you saying about insults to Bradford?

You want to try and place teleology and theism and science all on a level field by claiming they are all just metaphysics

No theism is metahysics as is PN and MN science needs no metaphysical constraints in order for science to be done either by religion, atheists or theists.

Vivid

Comment by Vividbleau — January 15, 2009 @ 12:08 am

Todd Berkebile Says:
January 15th, 2009 at 12:27 am
Methodological naturalism is itself a metaphysical position and no it has nothing to do with doing science.

Do you have any references to back up your claim? I offer the following Wikipedia page which says, "methodological naturalism, is the epistemology and methodological principle which forms the foundation for the scientific method."

From Merriam-Webster via wikipedia, the word methodology is defined as:
1) the analysis of the principles of methods, rules, and postulates employed by a discipline
2) the systematic study of methods that are, can be, or have been applied within a discipline
3) a particular procedure or set of procedures.

The whole point of using this word is to separate the methodological from the metaphysical. Only Alvin Plantinga asserts that methodological naturalism and ontological naturalism are the same. Well, he doesn't so much assert this as simply confuse the definitions, much as you insist on doing.

Comment by Todd Berkebile — January 15, 2009 @ 12:27 am

Vividbleau Says:
January 15th, 2009 at 12:32 am
Do you have any references to back up your claim?

If its not metaphysical then empirically verify it

I offer the following Wikipedia page which says, "methodological naturalism, is the epistemology and methodological principle which forms the foundation for the scientific method."

And I offer the following 1)Isaac Newton and2) If its not metaphysical then empirically verify it . Maybe you should ask the wikipedians to empiricaly verify the proposition.

Only Alvin Plantinga asserts that methodological naturalism and ontological naturalism are the same. Well, he doesn't so much assert this as simply confuse the definitions, much as you insist on doing.

I did not say they were the same I said they both are metaphysical positions. Atheism and theism are not the same but both are metaphysical positions. See thats not so hard to understand is it?

Vivid

Comment by Vividbleau — January 15, 2009 @ 12:32 am

Todd Berkebile Says:
January 15th, 2009 at 12:36 am
Vivid: Oh my what were you saying about insults to Bradford?

I said that they should be properly veiled.

Comment by Todd Berkebile — January 15, 2009 @ 12:36 am

Todd Berkebile Says:
January 15th, 2009 at 12:57 am
Vivid: If its not metaphysical then empirically verify it

Implied in this is the claim there are only two things, empiricism and metaphysics. So by your implied claim that means empiricism must be the only form of epistemology. So only empiricism (and thus naturalism) can yield knowledge, everything else is just metaphysics. Hey, you said it, not me.

But seriously, an intelligent person would realize that things which are true by definition don't need to be weighed or measured to verify their truth. I believe I have provided a suitably documented definition of methodological naturalism to prove my previous statements accurate.

Comment by Todd Berkebile — January 15, 2009 @ 12:57 am

Vividbleau Says:
January 15th, 2009 at 1:37 am
Implied in this is the claim there are only two things, empiricism and metaphysics.

I take that as a no I cannot empirically verify the proposition and yes Vivid you are right MN is a metaphysical position and I was wrong.

So by your implied claim that means empiricism must be the only form of epistemology

.

Strawman alert, stawman alert. How my claim that MN is a metaphysical position means that empiricism is the only form of epistimology escapes me.

So only empiricism (and thus naturalism) can yield knowledge, everything else is just metaphysics. Hey, you said it, not me.

Thats your position not mine that only empiricism can yield knowledge and you said it or at least strognly implied it. Because you said it means I said it too?

But seriously, an intelligent person would realize that things which are true by definition don't need to be weighed or measured to verify their truth.

That would be true if MN is 1) the foundation of science and 2) that MN is neccessary to do science neither one is true. The foundation of science is the inductive or Baconian method. Since you like wiki so much here is what they have to say about Francis Bacon

His works established and popularized an inductive methodology for scientific inquiry, often called the Baconian method or simply, the scientific method. His demand for a planned procedure of investigating all things natural marked a new turn in the rhetorical and theoretical framework for science, much of which still surrounds conceptions of proper methodology today.

Francis Bacon was neither a PN nor did he subscribe to MN to do science. One does not have to adopt PN , MN, nor any other ism to do science.

I believe I have provided a suitably documented definition of methodological naturalism to prove my previous statements accurate.

What you believe is irrelevant I would rather stick with facts.

Off to bed.

Vivid

Comment by Vividbleau — January 15, 2009 @ 1:37 am

Zachriel Says:
January 15th, 2009 at 9:18 am
Vividbleau: I take that as a no I cannot empirically verify the proposition and yes Vivid you are right MN is a metaphysical position and I was wrong.

Methodological naturalism is not a claim, and so not subject to verification. It's just a description or definition of a procedure.

Comment by Zachriel — January 15, 2009 @ 9:18 am

GringoRoyale Says:
January 15th, 2009 at 10:02 am
Methodological naturalism is not a claim

No, this is short-sighted. It certainly entails a claim. And the entailment of that claim is very much intentional.

Whenever you proceed in a particular manner with respects to understanding something which currently is not well understood…. the manner in which you proceed elucidates assumptions you have about the nature of that which you are trying to understand.
So yes, methodological naturalism makes claims about the nature of nature. And more than implicit claims.

Comment by GringoRoyale — January 15, 2009 @ 10:02 am

Zachriel Says:
January 15th, 2009 at 10:33 am
GringoRoyale: Whenever you proceed in a particular manner with respects to understanding something which currently is not well understood…. the manner in which you proceed elucidates assumptions you have about the nature of that which you are trying to understand.

That doesn't make it a claim. Only when you have the results and then assert that these results are meaningful does it become a claim. And depending on the universe being explored, the scientific method may or may not converge on a some reasonable generalizations. And you might still reject even strongly supported generalizations because it could be that the universe is just on its 'good behavior'. But the results are the results, and we call these results "science".

I find the distinction made by methodological naturalism between natural and supernatural to be poorly defined. It's a useful simplification though for many purposes. Basically, don't suppose that the beaker solution turned green due to the actions of unevidenced demons.

We can devise a more fundamental structural methodology by just recording and reading records of objective observations. We put a scratch on a clay tablet, then read it back. Again, this is not a claim, but a procedure, and we can then apply hypothetico-deduction on our observations. And if the universe or phenomena of interest is amenable to such a methodology, our results will converge to theories we call "scientific". Furthermore, the validity of these results when expressed as *claims* depends only on the reliability of recording and reading back these records.

Comment by Zachriel — January 15, 2009 @ 10:33 am

Todd Berkebile Says:
January 15th, 2009 at 11:07 am
Strawman alert, stawman alert.

Look at yourself, you are lashing out at a jocular argument made with smiley faces. Amazing. Not only that but you are doing so rather poorly. The point of my joke is that I too can mix definitions and apply fallacious logic to make silly claims as you have been doing for this whole discussion. Regardless, given the implication my argument does 'logically' follow. Apparently you aren't cleaver enough to point out the actual fallacies so instead you throw out a stock response. For fun, I'll pretend my argument is rock solid.

Todd: Implied in this is the claim there are only two things, empiricism and metaphysics.
Vivid: I take that as a no I cannot empirically verify the proposition and yes Vivid you are right MN is a metaphysical position and I was wrong.

You made that claim that something is metaphysics unless it can be empirically verified. This presents a dichotomy. You are the one proposing this dichotomy so my first statement accepts your statement as an axiom. Instead of responding to that claim by clarifying your position or challenging my position you responded with evasion.

A1: All things are either empirically verifiable or else they are metaphyisics.

Todd: So by your implied claim that means empiricism must be the only form of epistemology
Vivid: How my claim that MN is a metaphysical position means that empiricism is the only form of epistimology escapes me.

This claim is simple set theory. Empiricism is a sub-set of Epistemology. Metaphysics is not. So of the two members in the dichotomy you present only one of those is a form of Epistemology. I'm not surprised that simply set theory or simple matters of definition would escape you.

P1: Empiricism is a sub-set of Epistemology, metaphysics is not.

Todd: So only empiricism (and thus naturalism) can yield knowledge, everything else is just metaphysics.
Vivid: Thats your position not mine that only empiricism can yield knowledge and you said it or at least strognly implied it.

That may or may not be my position, that's irrelevant to this argument. The argument is that of the two members of the dichotomy you proposed only one is a form a epistemology. Epistemology is, by definition, all about the nature of knowledge; what is knowledge, how do we obtain knowledge, etc etc. So I offer the following:

A2: Knowledge exists and can be acquired
P2: By A1, there are only two things and of them only Empiricism is a form of Epistemology.
C1: By A2 and P2, Empiricism is the only form of Epistemology and thus the only way to acquire knowledge.

Vivid: That would be true if MN is 1) the foundation of science and 2) that MN is neccessary to do science neither one is true.

These are matters of definition. I just finished showing you a definition proving that these statements are true. Your response: "waaa, no they aren't cause I say so!"

Vivid: The foundation of science is the inductive or Baconian method.

And what do we call the methods for studying nature? Come on now, this definition was just provided a few posts ago. I know you can string it together… Method… Methodology… Methodological… you can do it! Methodological Naturalism! Good job, gold star! The Baconian Method is simply a part of Methodological Naturalism. You might think its a sub-set or even a superset, either way my argument is still completely validated.

Comment by Todd Berkebile — January 15, 2009 @ 11:07 am

fifth monarchy man Says:
January 15th, 2009 at 6:21 pm
You made that claim that something is metaphysics unless it can be empirically verified.

Um that's not a claim that’s one means when one says “metaphysics”

The word derives from the Greek words μετά (metá) (meaning "beyond" or "after") and φυσικά (physiká) (meaning "physical"), "physical"

These are matters of definition

I could not agree more

Comment by fifth monarchy man — January 15, 2009 @ 6:21 pm

Todd Berkebile Says:
January 15th, 2009 at 6:56 pm
fmm:

Um that's not a claim that’s [what] one means when one says “metaphysics”

'Claim', 'statement', whatever. The point is I was agreeing with Vivid and merely pointing out that he was the source of the statement that I was agreeing with. The logical conclusion of this statement which you agree with is that Empiricism is the only way to acquire knowledge. Man, even when you agree with someone around here you get people squabbling over vocabulary. Is the entirety of the ID movement nothing more than semantics?

Comment by Todd Berkebile — January 15, 2009 @ 6:56 pm

Vividbleau Says:
January 15th, 2009 at 7:56 pm
You made that claim that something is metaphysics unless it can be empirically verified.

Well I never made that claim. Here are the assertions that I have made.

Empirical observation indeed leads to knowledge but empirical observation is not naturalism, nor is knowledge naturalism, naturalism is a metaphysical position.

Methodological naturalism is itself a metaphysical position

Science was being done long before the enlightenment just ask Newton.

Methodological naturalism is nothing but the assumption that philosophical naturalism is true.

Furthermore if MN is science then the proposition can be empirically verified

No theism is metahysics as is PN and MN science needs no metaphysical constraints in order for science to be done either by religion, atheists or theists.

You have yet to refute any of the above.

C1: By A2 and P2, Empiricism is the only form of Epistemology and thus the only way to acquire knowledge.

Your so easy grasshopper.

You have just used formal logic to argue for the position that empericism is the only way to acquire knowledge

Now either formal logic is knowledge and therefore your statement that empiricism is the only way to acquire knowledge is self defeating and incoherent. Or formal logic is not knowledge and your statement is one of ignorance. Which one is it grasshopper?

Come on now, this definition was just provided a few posts ago.

Yes and here it is:

1) the analysis of the principles of methods, rules, and postulates employed by a discipline
2) the systematic study of methods that are, can be, or have been applied within a discipline
3) a particular procedure or set of procedures.

Method… Methodology… Methodological… you can do it! Methodological Naturalism!

Funny I dont see naturalism anywhere in the definition you gave. As I said you are so blind to your naturalism thet you see it in a definition even when its not there!!!

Vivid

Comment by Vividbleau — January 15, 2009 @ 7:56 pm

Todd Berkebile Says:
January 15th, 2009 at 8:20 pm
Vivid:

Now either formal logic is knowledge and therefore your statement that empiricism is the only way to acquire knowledge is self defeating and incoherent. Or formal logic is not knowledge and your statement is one of ignorance. Which one is it grasshopper?

Oh come now, there are so many huge flaws in my pretend argument and that's all you've got? Well, here we go: Empiricism deals with objective observation of quantity, structure, space and change. Quantity, structure, space and change are Mathematical concepts. As such mathematics is a fundamental aspect of Empiricism. Logic is a branch mathematics. So Logic is a fundamental aspect of Empiricism. So formal logic yields knowledge because it is empirical! In other words you're proposed dichotomy is a false dichotomy, such a common problem for ID supporters.

Disclaimer: in this post I am mock defending a mock argument which vivid took seriously. Any future quote-mining from this "debate" used outside of this debate will be grossly out of context if this fact is ignored.

Comment by Todd Berkebile — January 15, 2009 @ 8:20 pm

Todd Berkebile Says:
January 15th, 2009 at 8:21 pm
Vivid:

As I said you are so blind to your naturalism thet you see it in a definition even when its not there!!!

Wait, I'm so blind to naturalism that I see it? Oxymoron much?

Comment by Todd Berkebile — January 15, 2009 @ 8:21 pm

Vividbleau Says:
January 15th, 2009 at 8:37 pm
Wait, I'm so blind to naturalism that I see it? Oxymoron much?

Nice dodge, where is naturalism in the definition you gave?

Disclaimer: in this post I am mock defending a mock argument which vivid took seriously. Any future quote-mining from this "debate" used outside of this debate will be grossly out of context if this fact is ignored.

Or "I have lost every argument to Vivid and I know I look silly
so please dont let this get outside this thread"

Pitifull.

Vivid

Comment by Vividbleau — January 15, 2009 @ 8:37 pm

Todd Berkebile Says:
January 15th, 2009 at 10:22 pm
Vivid:

Nice dodge … Pitifull.

Very ironic considering your entire response is a dodge. So how about my 'argument'? Its quite horrid and yet you seem stymied. Come on, a high school dropout could point out the fallacies in my 'argument'. I guess since its the sort of argument you normally use it seems perfectly fine to you.

Comment by Todd Berkebile — January 15, 2009 @ 10:22 pm

Vividbleau Says:
January 15th, 2009 at 10:42 pm
So how about my 'argument'? Its quite horrid and yet you seem stymied. Come on, a high school dropout could point out the fallacies in my 'argument'. I guess since its the sort of argument you normally use it seems perfectly fine to you.

Where is naturalism in the definition you gave?

Vivid

Comment by Vividbleau — January 15, 2009 @ 10:42 pm

Todd Berkebile Says:
January 16th, 2009 at 12:31 am
Vivid: Where is naturalism in the definition you gave?

More dodging, I see. I will answer your question even though you are dodging all of mine.

Todd: Come on now, the definition [of methodological naturalism] was just provided a few posts ago.
Vivid: Yes and here it is:
1) the analysis of the principles of methods, rules, and postulates employed by a discipline
2) the systematic study of methods that are, can be, or have been applied within a discipline
3) a particular procedure or set of procedures.

I'm really left with no choice but to question either your reading skills or your ethics. Let's look at the sentence which immediately preceded that definition:

Todd: From Merriam-Webster via wikipedia, the word methodology is defined as:

Interesting that you left that part out, the definition you repeated is rather clearly the definition of methodology, not methodological naturalism. I provided a very clear definition of methodological naturalism with a wikipedia article to back it up:

Todd: I offer the following Wikipedia page which says, "methodological naturalism, is the epistemology and methodological principle which forms the foundation for the scientific method."

So what will it be, more evasiveness or some honest answers?
Do you deny the validity of empirical observation?
Do you have any sources supporting your claims?
Do you accept the following argument?

A1: All things are either empirically verifiable or else they are metaphysics.
A2: Knowledge exists and can be acquired
P1: Empiricism is a sub-set of Epistemology, metaphysics is not.
P2: By A1, there are only two things and of them only Empiricism is a form of Epistemology.
C1: By A2 and P2, Empiricism is the only form of Epistemology and thus the only way to acquire knowledge.

If not, can you point out a fallacy in my argument? You really should be able to.

Comment by Todd Berkebile — January 16, 2009 @ 12:31 am

Vividbleau Says:
January 16th, 2009 at 2:18 am
Interesting that you left that part out, the definition you repeated is rather clearly the definition of methodology, not methodological naturalism.

Of course I included the definition of methodology you gave because

No theism is metahysics as is PN and MN science needs no metaphysical constraints in order for science to be done either by religion, atheists or theists.

One does not have to assume PN to be true in order to do science. Bacon and Newton were not PN nor did they assume PN to be true and they did great science. Even one of your own agrees with me.

"It is not that the METHODS and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the world . On the contrary we are forced by our priori adherence to materialism to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations"

Richard Lewontin

Translation: MN compels scientists to accept material explanations, to do science one must assume that nature is a closed system of cause and effect. Why? "because of our priori adherence to materialism"

So what will it be, more evasiveness or some honest answers?
Do you deny the validity of empirical observation?

Talk about calling the kettle black and questioning my reading reading skills. I already answered this question.

Empirical observation indeed leads to knowledge but empirical observation is not naturalism, nor is knowledge naturalism, naturalism is a metaphysical position.

If not, can you point out a fallacy in my argument? You really should be able to.

Been there done that. It is either incoherent and self refuting or it is a statement of ignorance. Your later argument to redress these deficiencies can best be described, among other things as "garbage in garbage out". Your first premise is faulty from the get go. Start with a faulty premise your are going to get a faulty conclusion. And even if your first premise was not faulty your argument is a form of question begging.

Vivid

Comment by Vividbleau — January 16, 2009 @ 2:18 am

Vividbleau Says:
January 16th, 2009 at 2:42 am
I was unable to access the edit feature in time so I will edit here.

One does not have to assume PN to be true in order to use the scientific method. Bacon and Newton, to just name two, were not PN nor did they assume PN to be true and they used the scientific method and did great science.

Vivid

Comment by Vividbleau — January 16, 2009 @ 2:42 am

Todd Berkebile Says:
January 16th, 2009 at 10:55 am
"It is not that the METHODS and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the world." — Richard Lewontin

This is correct, methodological naturalism is NOT materialism. I never said it was. Again you base your argument on conflating different terms.

Vivid: Empirical observation indeed leads to knowledge…

Agreed.

Vivid: …but empirical observation is not naturalism, …

The definition I provided says that empiricism is a subset of methodological naturalism. So you are correct that the subset does not equal the whole, but empiricism is certainly a critical part of naturalism.

Vivid: …nor is knowledge naturalism,…

I never said it was. Naturalism includes a way to acquire knowledge (empiricism), but is not knowledge itself. I've said before that everything starts with axioms, even empiricism, are you trying to say this make all conclusions equivalent? Since you just accepted the validity of empiricism it shouldn't lead you to that conclusion.

Vivid: …naturalism is a metaphysical position.

This is wrong and does not follow from your other statements. The very point of methodological naturalism verse ontological naturalism is to separate the procedural from the metaphysical. This is a simple matter of definition, I'm not making a claim here I am simply showing you the definition of the term, as supported by the provided wikipedia page. When you claim that naturalism is metaphysics you are intentionally confusing the ontological naturalism with methodological naturalism. I have a daily routine. I wake up after snoozing my alarm three times, then I void, shower, dry, deodorize, brush my teeth, and dress. This is a routine, a methodology. Do you think my mourning routine is a metaphysical position?

Comment by Todd Berkebile — January 16, 2009 @ 10:55 am

Todd Berkebile Says:
January 16th, 2009 at 11:07 am
Todd: If not, can you point out a fallacy in my argument? You really should be able to.
Vivid: Been there done that. It is either incoherent and self refuting or it is a statement of ignorance.

Haha, so which is? Specifics? I told you from the get-go that the argument is invalid, so you know that it is. You seem unable to say why exactly it's invalid.

Vivid: Your later argument to redress these deficiencies can best be described, among other things as "garbage in garbage out".

Sure, but which parts are garbage and why are they garbage? You've simply said, "I'm sure it's wrong but I can't tell you why."

Vivid: Your first premise is faulty from the get go. Start with a faulty premise your are going to get a faulty conclusion.

My first premise was:
P1: Empiricism is a sub-set of Epistemology, metaphysics is not.
Are you claiming Empiricism is not a form of Epistemology? Are you claiming that metaphysics IS a form of Epistemology? I don't know, that premise seems fairly rock-solid.

Vivid: And even if your first premise was not faulty your argument is a form of question begging.

Oh, how so? I need your help to understand where exactly I'm begging the question, so I can improve my argument.

Comment by Todd Berkebile — January 16, 2009 @ 11:07 am

Todd Berkebile Says:
January 16th, 2009 at 11:14 am
Vivid: One does not have to assume PN to be true in order to use the scientific method.

I agree. In fact, one doesn't even have to believe the scientific method is valid to use the scientific method. Heck, one doesn't even have to know what the scientific method IS to use the scientific method. A primitive caveman could observe, hypothesize, and test without even having language.

Vivid: Bacon and Newton, to just name two, were not PN nor did they assume PN to be true…

Again you are conflating terms. Science has nothing to do with Philosophical/Ontological Naturalism and this PN is completely and totally not required to do science. It wasn't required then and its not required now.

Vivid: …and they used the scientific method and did great science.

Exactly, they used the scientific method, which later humans dubbed methodological naturalism. They were using methodological naturalism, heck they were inventing it! Are you saying it was impossible for them to use methodological naturalism simply because that specific phrase hadn't entered the language yet?

Comment by Todd Berkebile — January 16, 2009 @ 11:14 am

Vividbleau Says:
January 17th, 2009 at 4:22 am
Todd:This is correct, methodological naturalism is NOT materialism. I never said it was. Again you base your argument on conflating different terms.

Good I am glad you agree. We have been making great progress. If science as a method does not require the acceptance of material explanation as Lewontin states and you agree, then science does not need to confine itself to material explanations. The only thing that confines science to only accepting material explanations of the world is an a priori commitment to materialism, which is not science but philosophy ( metaphysics) . This is terrific news.

Furthermore if the method of science , doing science, does not compel us to accept a material explanation of the world then neither does one need to be compelled to assume or accept a natural explanation of the world in order to do science. After all one could just as easily say

It is not that the METHODS and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a NATURAL explanation of the world rather our a prori commitment to naturalism

Todd:This is correct, methodological naturalism is NOT materialism….Again you base your argument on conflating different terms.

The quote by Lewontin is about method. However if I am conflating my terms regarding MN and MM, that is the one is the same as the other as far as science goes, I am in very good company. The terms methodological naturalism and the term methodological materialism are conflated all the time by your party. In fact the term methodological materialism is often used instead of methodological naturalism. In the scientific community there is no distinction made between the two.

From the national Center of Science Educations own website critiquing Darwin on Trial:

Johnson fails to recognize the necessity for METHODOLOGICAL MATERIALISM, because of his concern for philosophical materialism's attack on his theology

And here:

In this he errs, as do many "scientific" creationists, in conflating the necessary METHODOLOGICAL MATERIALISM of science with philosophical materialism or naturalism

We are talking here about the great bastion and home of the defenders of science . If they do not know what they are talking about my goodness who does? Am I to take your word over theirs?

Now if the defenders of science considers MN and MM to be the same, when you say one you mean the other and vice versa, then according to Lewontin (and since you agree with Lewontin) the only reason for one to assume PN/MM to be true is a metaphysical reason but as Lewontin and you yourself agree, it is not a necessary condition of scientific methodology.

Todd:never said it was. Naturalism includes a way to acquire knowledge (empiricism), but is not knowledge itself.

You most certainly did just that.

How exactly does accepting the idea that empirical observation leads to KNOWLEDGE (I.E. NATURALSM) taint science with metaphysics

?

i.e means ‘That is to say", "In other words” Lets substitute these words for i.e.

How exactly does the idea that empirical observation leads to knowledge , that is to say naturalism…..How exactly does the idea that empirical observation leads to knowledge, in other words naturalism…..

Todd:This is wrong and does not follow from your other statements

Contrary to your assertion naturalism is most definitely a metaphysical position.

Philosophical naturalism is, as a position, the idea that all phenomena can be explained in terms of natural causes and laws. In its broadest and strongest sense, naturalism is the metaphysical position that "nature is all there is and all basic truths are truths of nature

And indeed it does follow from my statement,

Vivid:nor is knowledge naturalism, naturalism is a metaphysical position

Todd:The very point of methodological naturalism verse ontological naturalism is to separate the procedural from the metaphysical.

But as I have shown over and over again the methodology of science does not require one to assume PN/MM.

Todd:I have a daily routine. I wake up after snoozing my alarm three times, then I void, shower, dry, deodorize, brush my teeth, and dress. This is a routine, a methodology. Do you think my mourning routine is a metaphysical position?

What a great example to make my point. Does one have to assume PN/MM to be true to do this routine/methodology?

Vivid: Bacon and Newton, to just name two, were not PN nor did they assume PN to be true…

Todd:Again you are conflating terms. Science has nothing to do with Philosophical/Ontological Naturalism and this PN is completely and totally not required to do science. It wasn't required then and its not required now.

No I am not conflating anything. When I say Newton and Bacon (sounds like a breakfast menu item) were not PN nor did they assume PN I am saying two different things. 1)Bacon and Newton were not philosophical naturalists/materialists. 2)Bacon and Newton were not methodological naturalists/methodological materialists. What does it mean to be a methodological naturalist/materialist? It does not require one to be a philosophical naturalist nor does it require one to be a materialist, it does require one, when they are doing science, to ASSUME that philosophical naturalism/materialism to be true within that limited scope called science.

From Wiki quoting Steven Scharfsman:

methodological naturalism is "the adoption or assumption of philosophical naturalism within scientific method with or without fully accepting or believing it …

I guess I took it for granted that you knew that methodological naturalism is the assumption of philosophical naturalism within scientific method. I would also note the use of the phrase WITHIN SCIENTIFIC METHOD. MN/MM are within something like a car is within a garage. Because the car is not in the garage does not mean there is no garage! If MN/MM is not within scientific method does not mean there is no scientific method without them. Which is what I have been saying for days now.

Todd:Exactly, they used the scientific method, which later humans dubbed methodological naturalism. They were using methodological naturalism, heck they were inventing it!

Since the enlightenment science has adopted methodological naturalism/materialism but once again one does not need to assume PN/MM to be true in order to do science. Once again to use methodological naturalism/materialism one must assume Philosphical naturalism or materialism to be true within the limited scope of science. Neither Francis Bacon or Newton used methodological naturalism/materialism. To use methodological naturalism one must assume philosophical naturalism to be true. Not only did they not assume PN/MM to be true they assumed the exact opposite. It is impossible to say that Newton or Francis Bacon used methodological naturalism/materialism.

In Newtons system of physics, God was essential to the nature and absoluteness of space. In Principia he stated, "The most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion on an intelligent and powerful Being."

Newton alone is enough evidence to demonstrate my position that one can employ scientific methodology without adopting methodological naturalism/materialism.

Todd:Are you saying it was impossible for them to use methodological naturalism simply because that specific phrase hadn't entered the language yet?

Yes that is exactly what I am saying but it has nothing to do with the fact that the phrase had not entered the language yet. They would never assume PN/MM thus they would never use MN/MM. As I stated they assumed the exact opposite, they assumed that nature was not a closed system, that the supernatural existed.

I am going to be away from my computer for a few days so do not look for any posts from me for awhile.
Vivid

Comment by Vividbleau — January 17, 2009 @ 4:22 am

Open Thread: Bears

72 Responses to “Open Thread: Bears”

Featured Books