Elsewhere on the internet...

The League of Reason has some social media accounts! You can find us on Facebook or on Twitter for some interesting links and things.

Common ancestry of apes

Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 3 of 4
 [ 70 posts ] 
Common ancestry of apes
Author Message
SparhafocPosts: 1895Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: Common ancestry of apes

leroy wrote:The point of Methodological naturalism is...


No LEROY, stop.

You really don't know what you're talking about, so for once in your life, start asking questions to understand first, then have a discussion about it.


leroy wrote: that one should not even consider the possibility of a supernatural explanation regardless of the evidence and regardless of any prediction.


No, the point of methodological naturalism is that one should only seek observable, empirical, detectable explanations for phenomenon. Appealing to invisible gnomes with a penchant for pulling shit down can never be an appropriate claim within the context of methodological naturalism.

However, methodological naturalism makes no claims that there are or aren't what we might call supernatural events because, as I've already educated you, it's a tool, not a philosophy.

To extend the analogy, let's use a specific tool - a machine.

Put the empirical, observable, hard data into the Methodological Naturalism Machine, and it starts computing, pushing out some models that can explain that data.

Don't have empirical, observable, hard data? Then the machine does nothing.

What's missing from the side you are arguing for, those claiming supernatural events, is the empirical, observable, hard data - you have none - and consequently methodological naturalism cannot even be used because there's nothing there for it to work on.

So your misunderstanding is about where in the process supernatural claims get rejected. It's not the output of the methodological naturalism machine that sieves off unwanted supernatural claims, it's that there's no input in the first place.

As with any machine, if it runs on petroleum, then it doesn't matter how much water you put in, not how lovely tasting that water is, how pure and free of heavy metals it is, it just doesn't matter that water is the absolute essence of life because the machine cannot run without the required fuel.


leroy wrote:In fact Methodological naturalism tells us that we most exclude any supernatural explanation before even evaluating the evidence.


Again, LEROY, you just show you're far out of your depth in so many ways.

If you think you start explaining before evaluating the evidence, you're doing ANY form of truth acquisition wrong.

In reality, this is exactly your position. You start with a ready-made, fit for all purpose explanation, then you evaluate the evidence in terms of it. There's no evidence at the start to produce the explanation you started with, it's an assumption, a dogma, and antithetical to any realistic inquiry into truth.

And what is the evidence? Well, it's not your God because, as we all know, your God isn't evident not actually being corporeal or directly observable. So the very thing you believe as an assumption is a thing not actually made evident to you. Rather, you now have the task of corralling all evidence in support of it because it is not evident. If you're wrong in that assumption, then all of your treatment of evidence is wrong, flawed by that faulty assumption.

Methodological naturalism, on the contrary, is not trying to prove itself. What it's trying to do is explain what factually is there, shit that's real and shit that happens. The data starts the process: X exists, Y occurs, Z seems to happen when I do this.... in each instance, there is something factually, undeniably there to be explained, an empirical quantity, and thus explanation of it proceeds.

Of course, if methodological naturalism were to have evidence put in that would require a resulting supernatural explanation, then it would fail, but that's hardly its fault any more than a hammer would fail at cleaning glass. But were such evidence to exist, that wouldn't suddenly mean that methodological naturalism has no utility because it so obviously does. All the array of modern world infrastructure around you from internets to aeroplanes were achieved via methodological naturalism, and were the supernatural to exist, it wouldn't change the fact that these things work. It would still be a useful tool in the set.

In fact, many researchers try to use methodological naturalism to assess supernatural claims - there are even dozens of journals dedicated to it, i.e. parapsychology. Naturally, they don't actually end up being able to successfully corroborate their predictions arising from explanations appealing to the supernatural.

In reality, whatever set of ideas that perfectly encapsulates the sum of human ideas known as 'the supernatural' probably doesn't exist at all in any regard. It's probably explicable solely via human psychology, but again, such explanations are not the remit of methodological naturalism.



leroy wrote:For example if my grandfather resurrects from the dead, I would certainly consider the possibility that a miracle took place, a methodological naturalist would not even consider that possibility, even if the resurrection gets recorded by cameras and confirmed by multiple eye witnesses. The methodological naturalist would reject the possibility of miracles, before even asking if there are cameras, eye witnesses or anything that you would consider evidence.


Again, you clearly don't understand anything you're talking about.

Firstly, if your grandfather resurrected from the dead, then there'd be actual physical, empirical evidence from which to produce explanations. So in this way it's wholly unlike the preponderance of supernatural claims because there's actually something really there to study.

Secondly, you leap to a faulty assumption: a miracle? No, that doesn't stand to reason even if your God exists exactly as you believe because there could be countless other forces at work you are wholly ignorant of, or there could even be a wholly natural explanation. You don't know a priori, but the problem is that you believe you know, you convince yourself that everything proves your assumption. That's why you're so mistaken in life.

Thirdly, when you say 'miracle' - what kind of explanation is that really? What does it actually mean? Are you saying 'God did it'? Then in terms of an explanation as to why someone has resurrected, it's pretty empty. How exactly did God do that? Do you know? Do you know anything about the manner in which God did it? Your explanation turns out to be no explanation at all, and certainly no greater explanatory power than if someone just said 'well it happened, so it did.'

Fourthly, what's laughable is that you have to employ an imaginary scenario where you offer evidence.... because you can't actually offer any evidence of the supernatural.

In essence, you've just shown why your approach is so weak. You start with an assumption then pretend that everything conforms to it and you're too lazy ever to reach beyond that uninspected assumption.

But you have nothing resulting from your approach whatsoever - no discoveries are made with your approach, no medicines, no new ways of conveying people, you don't find exoplanets with your approach, or cure diseases.... your approach seems never to have offered any utility at all.

It's almost as if your approach is wholly the figment of your imagination, and has no relationship with reality at all.
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Thu Dec 21, 2017 7:03 pm
SparhafocPosts: 1895Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: Common ancestry of apes

leroy wrote:Granted, science doesn’t exclude anything, but methodological naturalism does.


Does a car 'exclude' water?

No, its really just that it runs on petroleum and water doesn't make it work.

If you don't have any empirical evidence, you're going to need a different tool.

So do you have such a tool?

Does it offer the same utility as methodological naturalism has provided?

Where are the discoveries made with your approach?

What are the inventions made with your approach?

What have we learned about the universe lately with your approach?

Nothing?

Nothing goes in, nothing comes out.
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Thu Dec 21, 2017 7:05 pm
SparhafocPosts: 1895Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: Common ancestry of apes

leroy wrote:
Rumraket wrote:I would welcome and relish the opportunity to test the supernatural. If you have any hypotheses I'm all ears.

For example, I'd like to know if God controls the weather. How do we go about testing that? I welcome suggestions.

Well pretend that you look up in the sky and the clouds spell,

Dear Rumraket:

I control the climate.

Sincerely God.

And pretend that millions of cameras recorded this event.



Wouldn’t you at least consider the possibility that God exists and that he wrote that message? I am pretty sure that your answer would be yes, but methodological naturalists would disagree. and I bet that many members form this forum would say that it wouldn’t be evidence for God.



Why is 'pretend' necessary, LEROY?

It's like me saying that Lord of the Rings is a documentary, and then arguing that IF you saw an elf, then WOULD you believe me?

I don't see any elves, LEROY.

Do you wish to produce something other than pretend scenarios?
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Thu Dec 21, 2017 7:08 pm
SparhafocPosts: 1895Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: Common ancestry of apes

Russell wrote:Many orthodox people speak as though it were the business of sceptics to disprove received dogmas rather than of dogmatists to prove them. This is, of course, a mistake. If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense.



Sagan wrote: "A fire-breathing dragon lives in my garage"

Suppose (I'm following a group therapy approach by the psychologist Richard Franklin[4]) I seriously make such an assertion to you. Surely you'd want to check it out, see for yourself. There have been innumerable stories of dragons over the centuries, but no real evidence. What an opportunity!

"Show me," you say. I lead you to my garage. You look inside and see a ladder, empty paint cans, an old tricycle--but no dragon.

"Where's the dragon?" you ask.

"Oh, she's right here," I reply, waving vaguely. "I neglected to mention that she's an invisible dragon."

You propose spreading flour on the floor of the garage to capture the dragon's footprints.

"Good idea," I say, "but this dragon floats in the air."

Then you'll use an infrared sensor to detect the invisible fire.

"Good idea, but the invisible fire is also heatless."

You'll spray-paint the dragon and make her visible.

"Good idea, but she's an incorporeal dragon and the paint won't stick."

And so on. I counter every physical test you propose with a special explanation of why it won't work.

Now, what's the difference between an invisible, incorporeal, floating dragon who spits heatless fire and no dragon at all? If there's no way to disprove my contention, no conceivable experiment that would count against it, what does it mean to say that my dragon exists? Your inability to invalidate my hypothesis is not at all the same thing as proving it true. Claims that cannot be tested, assertions immune to disproof are veridically worthless, whatever value they may have in inspiring us or in exciting our sense of wonder. What I'm asking you to do comes down to believing, in the absence of evidence, on my say-so.
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Thu Dec 21, 2017 7:12 pm
leroyPosts: 2014Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: Common ancestry of apes

Sparhafoc
The only point that I was making is that any discussion on the existence of God, Miracles, supernatural etc. is meaningless if you assume a priory methodological naturalism. Any method that you use when analyzing the evidence has to allow for the possibility of “supernatural causes or beings”

This was not even intended to be a controversial statement, why didn’t you answered clearly and directly like Rumraket did? Unlessyou clarify otherwise, I will simply assume that you agree with Rumraket
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Thu Dec 21, 2017 7:50 pm
he_who_is_nobodyBloggerUser avatarPosts: 3430Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 1:36 amLocation: Albuquerque, New Mexico Gender: Male

Post Re: Common ancestry of apes

Sparhafoc wrote:Why is 'pretend' necessary, LEROY?

It's like me saying that Lord of the Rings is a documentary, and then arguing that IF you saw an elf, then WOULD you believe me?

I don't see any elves, LEROY.

Do you wish to produce something other than pretend scenarios?


You know what is funny? Dandan/Leroy does not accept counterfactuals when they are presented to him.

leroy wrote:
Tree wrote:No it's not, it is trivial to disprove that with a hypothetical: What if all 7 billion people wanted to come to the US? Do you think that would be sustainable?


The laws of supply and demand would prevent that. You don’t need a law nor a regulation to prevent it, the invisible hand of free market would solve those problems.


One wonders why he expects others to.
_BONES AND FOSSILS = LOVE_
(_'--------------------'_)
(_.--------------------._)
Thu Dec 21, 2017 8:08 pm
YIM WWW
SparhafocPosts: 1895Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: Common ancestry of apes

leroy wrote:Sparhafoc
The only point that I was making is that any discussion on the existence of God, Miracles, supernatural etc. is meaningless if you assume a priory methodological naturalism. Any method that you use when analyzing the evidence has to allow for the possibility of “supernatural causes or beings”


And your point is a complete non-sequitur.

Methodological naturalism doesn't operate on a discussion level; it's a method for querying empirical data.

As I've just spent several hundred words explaining why you're wrong, isn't it funny how you simply repeat your error.

Again, quite obviously, you're talking about philosophical naturalism, and again as is wholly usual, you will continue to repeat your error then whine about semantics when it's finally drilled through your thick skull.


leroy wrote:This was not even intended to be a controversial statement, why didn’t you answered clearly and directly like Rumraket did?


I did answer perfectly clearly and directly, your comprehension, or lackthereof, notwithstanding.

Are you still struggling to process my position? I can draw a picture in crayon for you if it helps?

As for your new question, I am - it may come as a surprise to you - not Rumraket, and by strange chance, when people aren't the same person, their answers are different.


leroy wrote: Unlessyou clarify otherwise, I will simply assume that you agree with Rumraket


Assume what you like, but my position is written indelibly for all to see, so if you refuse to acknowledge my position it reflects only on your discoursive integrity.
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Thu Dec 21, 2017 8:33 pm
leroyPosts: 2014Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: Common ancestry of apes

Sparhafoc:


1 Methodological naturalism is a method that excludes the possibility of miracles

2 Any discussion on whether if an event was a miracle or not, should be addressed using some other method that would allow for the possibility of miracles.

Honestly this is my whole point, all your comments about my supposed errors are just a result of your mental masturbation, it is just an example of you thinking that I made some other point, and my supposed errors are things that you imagine that I would say.
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Thu Dec 21, 2017 11:06 pm
SparhafocPosts: 1895Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: Common ancestry of apes

leroy wrote:Sparhafoc:


1 Methodological naturalism is a method that excludes the possibility of miracles


Wrong.

See previous text for education.


leroy wrote:2 Any discussion on whether if an event was a miracle or not, should be addressed using some other method that would allow for the possibility of miracles.


You're going to need something more sophisticated than begged-questions.


leroy wrote:Honestly this is my whole point,...


Yes, and it's a fucking stupid point as usual.


leroy wrote: all your comments about my supposed errors are just a result of your mental masturbation,....


Either that, or it's due to your utter incompetence, intellectual failings, and paucity of knowledge.


leroy wrote:it is just an example of you thinking that I made some other point, and my supposed errors are things that you imagine that I would say.


It's an example of you not having given your pet ego-stroking, solipsistic assertions any thought and then you are perplexed why they aren't taken on faith.

Do feel free to address what I've written showing your numerous errors.
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Fri Dec 22, 2017 6:34 am
SparhafocPosts: 1895Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: Common ancestry of apes

Again, for education LEROY, people who absolutely believe whole-heartedly in gods can employ methodological naturalism, LEROY. Any scientist does, and regardless of their religious convictions, they understand the utility of it.

But of course, LEROY doesn't understand yet again and refuses to be corrected.... yet again! What a surprise.
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Fri Dec 22, 2017 6:39 am
leroyPosts: 2014Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: Common ancestry of apes

Sparhafoc wrote:
leroy wrote:Sparhafoc:


1 Methodological naturalism is a method that excludes the possibility of miracles


Wrong.

:lol:

Methodological naturalism is a strategy for studying the world, by which scientists choose not to consider supernatural causes - even as a remote possibility.

http://www.conservapedia.com/Methodological_naturalism

Methodological naturalism is the label for the required assumption of philosophical naturalism when working with the scientific method. Methodological naturalists limit their scientific research to the study of natural causes,
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Methodological_naturalism


So the bets are open who thinks that Sparhafoc would admit that he is wrong? As I said Methodological naturalism is a method that excludes supernatural causes by default.

Note that I never said that Methodological naturalism is a philosophical doctrine, nor I said that theis cant use this method.

Sparhafoc wrote:Again, for education LEROY, people who absolutely believe whole-heartedly in gods can employ methodological naturalism, LEROY. Any scientist does, and regardless of their religious convictions, they understand the utility of it
.

What makes you think that I would disagree with that? Again this is just a result of your mental masturbation, you are imagining that I am adopting a given position and then you are refuting the straw man that you invented.
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Fri Dec 22, 2017 4:59 pm
SparhafocPosts: 1895Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: Common ancestry of apes

leroy wrote: :lol:

Methodological naturalism is a strategy for studying the world, by which scientists choose not to consider supernatural causes - even as a remote possibility.

http://www.conservapedia.com/Methodological_naturalism



/facepalm

You're citing Conservapedia you loon. It's a crackpot website for science denial.


leroy wrote:
Methodological naturalism is the label for the required assumption of philosophical naturalism when working with the scientific method. Methodological naturalists limit their scientific research to the study of natural causes,
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Methodological_naturalism


It's exactly what I told you half a dozen times in the last half a dozen posts.

What you're trying to talk about, but failing completely due to your ignorance, is philosophical naturalism. See the bit in the sentence that wholly agrees with what I've been telling you? Yeah? No, of course you don't.


leroy wrote:So the bets are open who thinks that Sparhafoc would admit that he is wrong?


Well, given that the only way you've shown me wrong is by citing Conservapedia, which is about a legitimate authority on the subject as my rectum, the point rather is that LEROY won't admit to being wrong, because LEROY refuses ever to learn anything.


leroy wrote: As I said Methodological naturalism is a method that excludes supernatural causes by default.


And as I educated you, the fact is that methodological naturalism operates solely on EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE, so if your fantasy cloud kingdom belief doesn't possess any empirical evidence supporting it, then methodological naturalism cannot proceed with any form of inquiry.

I've explained why you're mistaken so many times already it's wholly up to you to now grasp the point.


leroy wrote:Note that I never said that Methodological naturalism is a philosophical doctrine, nor I said that theis cant use this method.


Note that I never said you said the first point, but the second point is completely opaque according to your asinine assertions.

The reason why theists can use methodological naturalism is because it doesn't and cannot infringe on their beliefs, and their beliefs do not and cannot infringe upon methodological naturalism.

I've explained this to you - try and catch up, eh?


leroy wrote:
Sparhafoc wrote:Again, for education LEROY, people who absolutely believe whole-heartedly in gods can employ methodological naturalism, LEROY. Any scientist does, and regardless of their religious convictions, they understand the utility of it
.

What makes you think that I would disagree with that? Again this is just a result of your mental masturbation, you are imagining that I am adopting a given position and then you are refuting the straw man that you invented.


Your argument is predicated on the reverse because you don't understand the entire point of methodological naturalism. Obviously, theists cannot be philosophical naturalists, because it is philosophical naturalism that is actually in contradiction to the supernatural, rejecting it as a possibility. Methodological naturalism, on the other hand, is a way of interrogating empirical evidence, as you've been informed a dozen times.
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Fri Dec 22, 2017 5:49 pm
SparhafocPosts: 1895Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: Common ancestry of apes

In terms of Wikipedia warriors citing stuff they know nothing about to people who do actually know what they're talking about, perhaps you might want to try this LEROY...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalism_(philosophy)#Methodological_naturalism

Methodological naturalism concerns itself with methods of learning what nature is. These methods are useful in the evaluation of claims about existence and knowledge and in identifying causal mechanisms responsible for the emergence of physical phenomena. It attempts to explain and test scientific endeavors, hypotheses, and events with reference to natural causes and events. This second sense of the term "naturalism" seeks to provide a framework within which to conduct the scientific study of the laws of nature. Methodological naturalism is a way of acquiring knowledge. It is a distinct system of thought concerned with a cognitive approach to reality, and is thus a philosophy of knowledge. Studies by sociologist Elaine Ecklund suggest that religious scientists in practice apply methodological naturalism. They report that their religious beliefs affect the way they think about the implications - often moral - of their work, but not the way they practice science.[19][20]

In a series of articles and books from 1996 onward, Robert T. Pennock wrote using the term "methodological naturalism" to clarify that the scientific method confines itself to natural explanations without assuming the existence or non-existence of the supernatural, and is not based on dogmatic metaphysical naturalism (as claimed by creationists and proponents of intelligent design, in particular by Phillip E. Johnson). Pennock's testimony as an expert witness[21] at the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial was cited by the Judge in his Memorandum Opinion concluding that "Methodological naturalism is a 'ground rule' of science today":[22]

Expert testimony reveals that since the scientific revolution of the 16th and 17th centuries, science has been limited to the search for natural causes to explain natural phenomena.... While supernatural explanations may be important and have merit, they are not part of science." Methodological naturalism is thus "a paradigm of science." It is a "ground rule" that "requires scientists to seek explanations in the world around us based upon what we can observe, test, replicate, and verify.
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Fri Dec 22, 2017 5:52 pm
SparhafocPosts: 1895Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: Common ancestry of apes

http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/ ... ralism.htm

Methodological Naturalism vs
Ontological or Philosophical Naturalism

Excerpted from http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articl ... 4_2003.asp
by Lawrence Lerner

It is standard intelligent design creationist jargon to deliberatly confuse and misuse the terms ontological (philosophical) naturalism and methodological naturalism. The former is the view that nothing supernatural exists - a point which may engender heated debate among theologians and philosophers but is irrelevant to the pursuit of science.


And our very standard Creationist is trying, but failing abysmally as usual, to do exactly that.

Regardless, as is quite clearly the case, the distinction is very clear for those who aren't utterly blinded idiots.
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Fri Dec 22, 2017 5:56 pm
SparhafocPosts: 1895Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: Common ancestry of apes

leroy wrote:The point of Methodological naturalism is that one should not even consider the possibility of a supernatural explanation regardless of the evidence and regardless of any prediction.


Wrong: do feel free to revise it in your own leisure and to the extent of your competence.
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Fri Dec 22, 2017 6:05 pm
leroyPosts: 2014Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: Common ancestry of apes

Sparhafoc wrote:

leroy wrote:Methodological naturalism is the label for the required assumption of philosophical naturalism when working with the scientific method. Methodological naturalists limit their scientific research to the study of natural causes,
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Methodological_naturalism


It's exactly what I told you half a dozen times in the last half a dozen posts.



And what makes you think that I disagree? Have I ever said/Implied that I meant something different when I used the term methodological naturalism?


The problem is that In your mental masturbation you think that I believe that methodological naturalism and philosophical naturalism are the same, and then you are making arguments correcting the mistake that you are wrongly attributing to me.
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Last edited by leroy on Fri Dec 22, 2017 6:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Fri Dec 22, 2017 6:16 pm
leroyPosts: 2014Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: Common ancestry of apes

Sparhafoc wrote:
leroy wrote:The point of Methodological naturalism is that one should not even consider the possibility of a supernatural explanation regardless of the evidence and regardless of any prediction.


Wrong: do feel free to revise it in your own leisure and to the extent of your competence.


There is nothing wrong with that statement, if you study an event using the tool of methodological naturalism; by default you are assuming that such an event was “natural”
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Fri Dec 22, 2017 6:23 pm
SparhafocPosts: 1895Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: Common ancestry of apes

leroy wrote:And what makes you think that I disagree? Have I ever said/Implied that I meant something different when I used the term methodological naturalism?


Every one of your statements has repeated the erroneous contention that...

leroy wrote:The point of Methodological naturalism is that one should not even consider the possibility of a supernatural explanation regardless of the evidence and regardless of any prediction.


So you do obviously disagree due to being ignorant of the subject matter.

In reality, it's the complete lack of empirical evidence for supernatural claims that stops methodological naturalism being applicable. Furnish some empirical evidence, and methodological naturalism will be more than happy to do what it does.

It's actually empirical evidence that is the key idea, not the endless wibble you keep spouting.



leroy wrote:The problem is that In your mental masturbation you think that I believe that methodological naturalism and philosophical naturalism are the same, and then you are making arguments correcting the mistake that you are wrongly attributing to me.


No, you are making exactly this mistake as I've told you from your first post.

You're still making it now. You don't understand the point of the word 'methodological' as opposed to 'philosophical'. The former makes no claims whatsoever about the ontology of the universe in terms of nature/supernature paradigms, which is expressly what you are erroneously contending.

But do try and drag the goalposts away, I'll be more than happy to quote the numerous instances of you arguing as I've said, plus I'll chuck in a previously written prediction that you'd do exactly this! :D
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Fri Dec 22, 2017 6:26 pm
SparhafocPosts: 1895Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: Common ancestry of apes

leroy wrote:
Sparhafoc wrote:
Wrong: do feel free to revise it in your own leisure and to the extent of your competence.


There is nothing wrong with that statement, if you study an event using the tool of methodological naturalism; by default you are assuming that such an event was “natural”



No, you make no such assumption as I've already educated you.
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Fri Dec 22, 2017 6:28 pm
leroyPosts: 2014Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: Common ancestry of apes

Sparhafoc wrote:
But do try and drag the goalposts away, I'll be more than happy to quote the numerous instances of you arguing as I've said, plus I'll chuck in a previously written prediction that you'd do exactly this! :D


Again it is all in your imagination, the method does exclude any supernatural cause by default, this is true regardless if the individual who is using the method believes in supernatural entities or not. our only point of disagreement Exists only in your imagination.
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Fri Dec 22, 2017 6:39 pm
PreviousNext
Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 3 of 4
 [ 70 posts ] 
Return to Science & Mathematics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: WarK and 13 guests
cron