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 2 of 4
 [ 70 posts ] 
Common ancestry of apes
Author Message
hackenslashLime TordUser avatarPosts: 2435Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 3:43 pm Gender: Cake

Post Re: Common ancestry of apes

That's some quality stuff there, Rum, me old mucker. Haven't had a chance to read in detail, but do you fancy knocking that into shape for a guest post?

I've been meaning to do some material for my evo section on common ancestry, but I still have a lot of other topics in development, and that would make a cracking addition.

It would involve simply removing the discursive elements and knocking it into a more didactic form. Fancy it?
Wed Dec 13, 2017 11:24 pm
RumraketUser avatarPosts: 1239Joined: Fri Jun 25, 2010 7:49 am Gender: Male

Post Re: Common ancestry of apes

hackenslash wrote:That's some quality stuff there, Rum, me old mucker. Haven't had a chance to read in detail, but do you fancy knocking that into shape for a guest post?

I've been meaning to do some material for my evo section on common ancestry, but I still have a lot of other topics in development, and that would make a cracking addition.

It would involve simply removing the discursive elements and knocking it into a more didactic form. Fancy it?

Sure thing. I'm in the process of generating some better (more realistic) example phylogenies as we speak so I can use those instead. I'll get back to you.
"Nullius in verba" - Take nobody's word for it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nullius_in_verba
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Thu Dec 14, 2017 8:27 am
hackenslashLime TordUser avatarPosts: 2435Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 3:43 pm Gender: Cake

Post Re: Common ancestry of apes

Fantastic!
Thu Dec 14, 2017 1:31 pm
ProlescumWebhamsterUser avatarPosts: 5007Joined: Thu Dec 31, 2009 8:41 pmLocation: Peptone-upon-Sores

Post Re: Common ancestry of apes

AronRa wrote:Owens says he can't participate in this thread because he never got a confirmation email. Who can re-send that?


I've activated his account. Apologies for my tardiness, I've been on holiday.
if constructive debate is allowed to progress, better ideas will ultimately supplant worse ideas.

Comment is free, but facts are sacred
Sat Dec 16, 2017 10:10 am
Gnug215ModeratorUser avatarPosts: 2634Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2009 10:31 pm

Post Re: Common ancestry of apes

Prolescum wrote:
AronRa wrote:Owens says he can't participate in this thread because he never got a confirmation email. Who can re-send that?


I've activated his account. Apologies for my tardiness, I've been on holiday.


How come he didn't show up in the mod queue?
- Gnug215

YouTube channel:
http://www.youtube.com/user/Gnug215


The horse is a ferocious predator.
Sat Dec 16, 2017 7:07 pm
leroyPosts: 2015Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: Common ancestry of apes

AronRa wrote:
If he ever shows up here, I'll explain to him how all branches of creationism admit that they're opposed to evolution specifically, but that they're really against methodological naturalism. If the opposition to evolution is also in oppostion to scientific methodology itself, then acceptance of science means acceptance of evolution.





Methodological naturalism excludes any supernatural explanation by default, any atheist who affirms that methodological naturalism is the only methodology that should be accepted when analyzing any event or phenomena is admitting that he is rejecting any supernatural explanation by default. This would make any conversation on the existence of God and miracles meaningless.
If you are going to have a mean full conversation on the existence of God or on the existence of miracles, at least you have to be open to the possibility of the existence of God and miracles.

Apart from Aronra, is there anyone in this forum who believes in Methodological naturalism?
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Tue Dec 19, 2017 5:40 pm
SparhafocPosts: 1973Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: Common ancestry of apes

leroy wrote:Methodological naturalism excludes any supernatural explanation by default,...


No, that's silly and nonsensical.

It's philosophical naturalism that excludes any supernatural explanation.

Methodological naturalism, as it's name implies, seeks only for natural explanations because, methodologically, we only actually possess real tools, not magical ones LEROY, no special goggles to see into the alleged spirit realm, no pixies footsteps can be counted, nor angels on pinheads seen. We can inquire about only what we know with only the tools we have, not what we are definitionally unable to know with the tools we have.


leroy wrote:any atheist who affirms that methodological naturalism is the only methodology that should be accepted when analyzing any event or phenomena is admitting that he is rejecting any supernatural explanation by default.


Any theist claiming that methodological naturalism is rejecting supernatural explanations by default needs to provide ways of using supernatural things such as powers, tools, or sundry occult techniques to inquire about the greater nature incorporating all these non-natural things because natural tools and techniques (i.e. real ones) can't be expected to measure, describe, or define in any meaningful way supernatural things (i.e. made up ones).

Unfortunately, if you are unable to do that LEROY, you're in the same boat as the rest of us, whether you know it or not. You implicitly acknowledge the absolute primacy of methodological naturalism when it comes to knowing anything about our shared reality.

Unless you want to talk about reading the flight of birds - I expect that at least has a kernel of ancient truth to it.


leroy wrote:This would make any conversation on the existence of God and miracles meaningless.


Well, gods and other supernatural beings would be problematic if they exist wholly outside of nature because we can, of course, only actually test nature. So all manner of pixie sex could be happening on our kitchen tables without us being able in any way to detect that. Probably still best to give it a wipe down before eating just in case, eh?

Miracles, on the other hand, would in the context you're talking about indicate a supernatural being manipulating the natural, which of course would be immediately measurable and become totally inexplicable to any scientific hypothesis. Do we find such events? Please be specific because so much actual research has been conducted on so many of these supernatural claims, and nothing has ever really suggested there's anything actually there to discover.

Incidentally, you're also making way for everyone else's supernatural claims to be taken just as seriously scientifically. That means we need to spend equal scientific research effort on finding out whether goat entrails actually do augur future events, we need to spend our taxes on supporting research into exhaustively researching astrology, reincarnation, and communicating with the dead.

Given the fact that there are something like a million gods believed in by various humans throughout history, and given the countless millions of supernatural beliefs we or our ancestors have held, our research spend is going to be a little thin.

Meanwhile, we're still waiting for those magical tools we all know we actually need!

In reality, LEROY, everyone serious politely acknowledges that the world, as science has revealed it in the past few hundred years, leaves no room for these provincial little delusions of our forebears. Sorry to reveal it to you, but any form of inquiry into your hypothetical fairy kingdom just never produces even any reason to believe it exists. Deny that all you like, but were you to apply your theist belief to inquiry into nature, you would similarly draw a complete blank. The only difference is that you couldn't admit it to yourself.


leroy wrote:If you are going to have a mean full conversation on the existence of God or on the existence of miracles, at least you have to be open to the possibility of the existence of God and miracles.


No, you have to accept ALL supernatural claims, LEROY - yours doesn't get special dispensation to be the preferred one. I propose we do it alphabetically - you're way after Astrology, so let us pray that the celestial spheres align for us as we bravely enter this new world of lending credence to things that honestly don't actually appear to be there in the first place.

Of course, in reality, it's just sheer utility. We tried a thousand or more years of doing the whole 'for the glory of God' thing, and we seemed to still be at least partly covered in shit for most of it. Whereas, 400 odd years ago, a change arose in philosophical thought: what if we stopped trying to square the circle, I mean, we all know our god is real after all, right boys? So let's just cut the god out of the equation - 3 hail marys/I have sinned - and just look at this as if it were purely natural forces; would it even make sense without immediately referring to a god's workings?

Of course, it did. It didn't just 'make sense' everything bloody well worked. Before, we were bumbling about looking at stars as fucking augurs of human history while your ideological Christian brotherhood were telling us that the Earth was the centre of the universe. How did they know? They didn't, because there is no inquiry into reality when it comes to religion, it's inquiry into itself, a development of the narrative, and reality and all its constituents are only ever the setting in that narrative never what it's really concerned with.

Then science spanked that belief repeatedly into the ground. That feeds so nicely into your martyr Creationist spiel, doesn't it, LEROY? The problem is you have to - you are obliged to - recognize the fact that the reason why we see X in nature, and why we keep seeing it no matter how many of us look and in how many ways we look, is because it's actually there, and things that are undeniably actually there necessarily take precedence, in terms of understanding anything honestly, than things that are not there, not observable, not detectable, and to the best of our knowledge not even existent.

What happened? Well, now we know where we are in the universe, so much complexity in the forces and interactions, the host of galaxies and their innumerable resident systems and planets, we even know why they are like they are, we know where they are, we can 'see' them, they are within our purview.... and that was not possible under the constraints of a Christian world view. When I say 'not possible' that extends even to threat of death, certainly of penury and arrest. Christianity then was not capable of knowing what was right from what was wrong - it lacked any and all tools to evaluate anything, and behaved in an atrocious manner which arrested knowledge of the truth for centuries.

In the intervening centuries, Christianity has not received any new revelations, it has no better tools today than it had then. It is the same Christianity, regardless of the massive change in the minds of its believers.

Ergo, why the fuck would any sane person think that Christianity would be a good system of judging how accurate our understanding of physical reality is? Of course, all the meat of Christianity's claims are themselves supernatural, which we cannot possess tools to explore unless... as per it's own religious instruction... we first submit absolutely to the belief that Christianity is right, only then will it be confirmed for us that Christianity is right. How that then would fix the manifest and innumerable contradictions between Christianity's claims and evident, empirical reality thereby becomes an article of faith.

In reality, Christianity is being done much better than this. Drop all the silly narrative, all your doctrine is clearly just people like you from the Bronze, Iron, and Classical ages recording their thoughts on the divine. The subject of the divine is not what you've been taught: really, it's actually about you and how you interact with the world given your time of awareness. That is the one and only universal requirement available to all faiths and none, and stop pestering at scientific topics you are laughably ill-equipped to deal with.


leroy wrote:Apart from Aronra, is there anyone in this forum who believes in Methodological naturalism?


Believe in methodological naturalism?

Do you believe in measuring lengths?
Do you believe in weighing weights?

It's not about 'belief' chap. It's a methodology. It doesn't matter what I believe in when I calculate a multiplication, when I hammer a nail, when I catalyze a chemical reaction... none of these events are in any way predicated on belief, in fact, belief is consequently shown not to be a mechanism by which these events are affected.

You, typically, misunderstand all you talk about, but you will, typically, pretend otherwise and make the entire experience of interacting with you like pulling rotten teeth. Such a shame.
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Tue Dec 19, 2017 6:36 pm
leroyPosts: 2015Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: Common ancestry of apes

Sparhafoc wrote:
leroy wrote:Methodological naturalism excludes any supernatural explanation by default,...


No, that's silly and nonsensical.

It's philosophical naturalism that excludes any supernatural explanation.

Methodological naturalism, as it's name implies, seeks only for natural explanations because, methodologically, we only actually possess real tools, not magical ones LEROY, no special goggles to see into the alleged spirit realm, no pixies footsteps can be counted, nor angels on pinheads seen. We can inquire about only what we know with only the tools we have, not what we are definitionally unable to know with the tools we have.


leroy wrote:any atheist who affirms that methodological naturalism is the only methodology that should be accepted when analyzing any event or phenomena is admitting that he is rejecting any supernatural explanation by default.


Any theist claiming that methodological naturalism is rejecting supernatural explanations by default needs to provide ways of using supernatural things such as powers, tools, or sundry occult techniques to inquire about the greater nature incorporating all these non-natural things because natural tools and techniques (i.e. real ones) can't be expected to measure, describe, or define in any meaningful way supernatural things (i.e. made up ones).

Unfortunately, if you are unable to do that LEROY, you're in the same boat as the rest of us, whether you know it or not. You implicitly acknowledge the absolute primacy of methodological naturalism when it comes to knowing anything about our shared reality.

Unless you want to talk about reading the flight of birds - I expect that at least has a kernel of ancient truth to it.


leroy wrote:This would make any conversation on the existence of God and miracles meaningless.


Well, gods and other supernatural beings would be problematic if they exist wholly outside of nature because we can, of course, only actually test nature. So all manner of pixie sex could be happening on our kitchen tables without us being able in any way to detect that. Probably still best to give it a wipe down before eating just in case, eh?

Miracles, on the other hand, would in the context you're talking about indicate a supernatural being manipulating the natural, which of course would be immediately measurable and become totally inexplicable to any scientific hypothesis. Do we find such events? Please be specific because so much actual research has been conducted on so many of these supernatural claims, and nothing has ever really suggested there's anything actually there to discover.

Incidentally, you're also making way for everyone else's supernatural claims to be taken just as seriously scientifically. That means we need to spend equal scientific research effort on finding out whether goat entrails actually do augur future events, we need to spend our taxes on supporting research into exhaustively researching astrology, reincarnation, and communicating with the dead.

Given the fact that there are something like a million gods believed in by various humans throughout history, and given the countless millions of supernatural beliefs we or our ancestors have held, our research spend is going to be a little thin.

Meanwhile, we're still waiting for those magical tools we all know we actually need!

In reality, LEROY, everyone serious politely acknowledges that the world, as science has revealed it in the past few hundred years, leaves no room for these provincial little delusions of our forebears. Sorry to reveal it to you, but any form of inquiry into your hypothetical fairy kingdom just never produces even any reason to believe it exists. Deny that all you like, but were you to apply your theist belief to inquiry into nature, you would similarly draw a complete blank. The only difference is that you couldn't admit it to yourself.


leroy wrote:If you are going to have a mean full conversation on the existence of God or on the existence of miracles, at least you have to be open to the possibility of the existence of God and miracles.


No, you have to accept ALL supernatural claims, LEROY - yours doesn't get special dispensation to be the preferred one. I propose we do it alphabetically - you're way after Astrology, so let us pray that the celestial spheres align for us as we bravely enter this new world of lending credence to things that honestly don't actually appear to be there in the first place.

Of course, in reality, it's just sheer utility. We tried a thousand or more years of doing the whole 'for the glory of God' thing, and we seemed to still be at least partly covered in shit for most of it. Whereas, 400 odd years ago, a change arose in philosophical thought: what if we stopped trying to square the circle, I mean, we all know our god is real after all, right boys? So let's just cut the god out of the equation - 3 hail marys/I have sinned - and just look at this as if it were purely natural forces; would it even make sense without immediately referring to a god's workings?

Of course, it did. It didn't just 'make sense' everything bloody well worked. Before, we were bumbling about looking at stars as fucking augurs of human history while your ideological Christian brotherhood were telling us that the Earth was the centre of the universe. How did they know? They didn't, because there is no inquiry into reality when it comes to religion, it's inquiry into itself, a development of the narrative, and reality and all its constituents are only ever the setting in that narrative never what it's really concerned with.

Then science spanked that belief repeatedly into the ground. That feeds so nicely into your martyr Creationist spiel, doesn't it, LEROY? The problem is you have to - you are obliged to - recognize the fact that the reason why we see X in nature, and why we keep seeing it no matter how many of us look and in how many ways we look, is because it's actually there, and things that are undeniably actually there necessarily take precedence, in terms of understanding anything honestly, than things that are not there, not observable, not detectable, and to the best of our knowledge not even existent.

What happened? Well, now we know where we are in the universe, so much complexity in the forces and interactions, the host of galaxies and their innumerable resident systems and planets, we even know why they are like they are, we know where they are, we can 'see' them, they are within our purview.... and that was not possible under the constraints of a Christian world view. When I say 'not possible' that extends even to threat of death, certainly of penury and arrest. Christianity then was not capable of knowing what was right from what was wrong - it lacked any and all tools to evaluate anything, and behaved in an atrocious manner which arrested knowledge of the truth for centuries.

In the intervening centuries, Christianity has not received any new revelations, it has no better tools today than it had then. It is the same Christianity, regardless of the massive change in the minds of its believers.

Ergo, why the fuck would any sane person think that Christianity would be a good system of judging how accurate our understanding of physical reality is? Of course, all the meat of Christianity's claims are themselves supernatural, which we cannot possess tools to explore unless... as per it's own religious instruction... we first submit absolutely to the belief that Christianity is right, only then will it be confirmed for us that Christianity is right. How that then would fix the manifest and innumerable contradictions between Christianity's claims and evident, empirical reality thereby becomes an article of faith.

In reality, Christianity is being done much better than this. Drop all the silly narrative, all your doctrine is clearly just people like you from the Bronze, Iron, and Classical ages recording their thoughts on the divine. The subject of the divine is not what you've been taught: really, it's actually about you and how you interact with the world given your time of awareness. That is the one and only universal requirement available to all faiths and none, and stop pestering at scientific topics you are laughably ill-equipped to deal with.


leroy wrote:Apart from Aronra, is there anyone in this forum who believes in Methodological naturalism?


Believe in methodological naturalism?

Do you believe in measuring lengths?
Do you believe in weighing weights?

It's not about 'belief' chap. It's a methodology. It doesn't matter what I believe in when I calculate a multiplication, when I hammer a nail, when I catalyze a chemical reaction... none of these events are in any way predicated on belief, in fact, belief is consequently shown not to be a mechanism by which these events are affected.

You, typically, misunderstand all you talk about, but you will, typically, pretend otherwise and make the entire experience of interacting with you like pulling rotten teeth. Such a shame.



That is my point, if according to you there is no valid methodology that would let us know if something had a supernatural origin then supernatural explanations loose by default under your view.


It's not about 'belief' chap. It's a methodology. It doesn't matter what I believe in when I calculate a multiplication, when I hammer a nail, when I catalyze a chemical reaction... none of these events are in any way predicated on belief, in fact, belief is consequently shown not to be a mechanism by which these events are affected.


Nobody denies that these methodology works, but if you grant that Methodological naturalism is the only mechanism that can be used when one seeks for an explanation then by default any supernatural explanation is excluded.

I will ask you directly, hopping to receive a direct answer.

Wound you say that Methodological naturalism is the only acceptable method that we have when we seek for an explanation? If your answer is NO, then I apologize for misinterpreting your view .


My personal prediction, I won’t get a direct YES or No answer from you
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Tue Dec 19, 2017 7:40 pm
SparhafocPosts: 1973Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: Common ancestry of apes

leroy wrote:That is my point, if according to you there is no valid methodology that would let us know if something had a supernatural origin then supernatural explanations loose by default under your view.


No, it's not your point, because my point is that you factually lack any ability to inquire objectively into the alleged spiritual world, there is no evidence of your belief, and there is no evidence that you can show your belief to even hold the most elementary validity. You can offer precisely zero manner, no access at all in which any knowledge can be drawn from the practice or consequences of your belief's contents. Your supposed knowledge doesn't actually exist, you know nothing useful about what you believe other than that you believe it, and you have no reason to lend it belief comparative to that we have for lending the natural world 'belief'.

Ergo, there's nothing equivalent to be had here, you're operating under entirely faulty reasoning.


leroy wrote:Nobody denies that these methodology works,...


End of. Then it works. Simple as that, we have no need for your 5th wheel hypothesis, thanks.

Planes fly whether Jesus, Siva, or gnomes are real or figments of some peoples' imaginations, while those who believe in Jesus, Siva or gnomes can offer no useful or evident ability resulting from their alleged knowledge.

As I said, there's no functional equivalence, nothing in Christianity provides a jot of utility in understanding the nature of reality.


leroy wrote:but if you grant that Methodological naturalism is the only mechanism that can be used when one seeks for an explanation then by default any supernatural explanation is excluded.


You need to stop repeating and start reading what's been written, which of course we all know you will never do.

As such, I can just say that I've clearly addressed this in spades, and you're welcome to respond to my points whenever you feel you possess the competence to.


leroy wrote:I will ask you directly, hopping to receive a direct answer.


Which is funny when your entire post here is a complete evasion of the post you're supposedly replying to.


leroy wrote:Wound you say that Methodological naturalism is the only acceptable method that we have when we seek for an explanation? If your answer is NO, then I apologize for misinterpreting your view .


What kind of explanation? It makes a world of difference.

Are you talking about natural phenomena? Objective, empirical, factually real, intersubjective knowledge? Then yes, manifestly and unarguably so. Which is, of course, not to say that it is therefore necessarily the only one, just the only one our species knows.

Are you talking about truths, ethics, aesthetics... the arts, the human journey of self-discovery and finding harmony with their existence? Then no, obviously not for there are many ways to that kind of knowledge which entail not one beaker or measuring tape.


leroy wrote:My personal prediction, I won’t get a direct YES or No answer from you


You won't get a yes or no from me unless you can ask a question that merits a yes or no. What you will need to learn to do is amend your questions should people tell you that your questions are lacking specificity or are phrased in a way that loads an implication. You know, as has happened dozens of times before?
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Tue Dec 19, 2017 8:14 pm
leroyPosts: 2015Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: Common ancestry of apes

Sparhafoc wrote:
You won't get a yes or no from me unless you can ask a question that merits a yes or no. What you will need to learn to do is amend your questions should people tell you that your questions are lacking specificity or are phrased in a way that loads an implication. You know, as has happened dozens of times before?


In other words, I won’t get a direct Yes or No answer because any answer would have implications that would expose you intellectual dishonesty, the best you can do is keep your answer ambiguous without quite affirming nor denying anything.


Are you a methodological naturalist? Yes or no? why can’t you answer?
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Tue Dec 19, 2017 8:34 pm
he_who_is_nobodyBloggerUser avatarPosts: 3433Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 1:36 amLocation: Albuquerque, New Mexico Gender: Male

Post Re: Common ancestry of apes

leroy wrote:
Sparhafoc wrote:
You won't get a yes or no from me unless you can ask a question that merits a yes or no. What you will need to learn to do is amend your questions should people tell you that your questions are lacking specificity or are phrased in a way that loads an implication. You know, as has happened dozens of times before?


In other words, I won’t get a direct Yes or No answer because any answer would have implications that would expose you intellectual dishonesty, the best you can do is keep your answer ambiguous without quite affirming nor denying anything.


Are you a methodological naturalist? Yes or no? why can’t you answer?


Sparhafoc wrote:
leroy wrote:Wound you say that Methodological naturalism is the only acceptable method that we have when we seek for an explanation? If your answer is NO, then I apologize for misinterpreting your view .


What kind of explanation? It makes a world of difference.

Are you talking about natural phenomena? Objective, empirical, factually real, intersubjective knowledge? Then yes, manifestly and unarguably so. Which is, of course, not to say that it is therefore necessarily the only one, just the only one our species knows.

Are you talking about truths, ethics, aesthetics... the arts, the human journey of self-discovery and finding harmony with their existence? Then no, obviously not for there are many ways to that kind of knowledge which entail not one beaker or measuring tape.

[emphasis added


:docpalm:

If only dandan/leroy would learn to read before posting. This is just sad.
_BONES AND FOSSILS = LOVE_
(_'--------------------'_)
(_.--------------------._)
Tue Dec 19, 2017 8:56 pm
YIM WWW
RumraketUser avatarPosts: 1239Joined: Fri Jun 25, 2010 7:49 am Gender: Male

Post Re: Common ancestry of apes

leroy wrote:Apart from Aronra, is there anyone in this forum who believes in Methodological naturalism?

As long as your hypotheses are observationally falsifiable and easily distinguished from other hypotheses, I don't care what you call them(supernatural or otherwise).

If you can come up with a testable prediction from a supernaturalist hypothesis, then I think pretty much all scientists would be happy to test it. And I'm pretty much certain AronRa would agree with that.
"Nullius in verba" - Take nobody's word for it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nullius_in_verba
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Tue Dec 19, 2017 9:01 pm
hackenslashLime TordUser avatarPosts: 2435Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 3:43 pm Gender: Cake

Post Re: Common ancestry of apes

leroy wrote:Methodological naturalism excludes any supernatural explanation by default


No it doesn't. What it does do is only include that with which it can make contact. Since the supernatural is, as far as we can ascertain, an entirely empty set with no explanatory power and no means of testing, it isn't included.

Science excludes nothing. It goes where the evidence leads. If you have any evidence that there is any such class of things that could reasonably be described as supernatural, science will be all ears, and you'd probably be a shoo-in for a Nobel prize. I could even put you in touch with some scientists of you can deliver the goods on this, as I number many among my friends.

When you're ready.
Tue Dec 19, 2017 9:07 pm
RumraketUser avatarPosts: 1239Joined: Fri Jun 25, 2010 7:49 am Gender: Male

Post Re: Common ancestry of apes

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.
"Nullius in verba" - Take nobody's word for it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nullius_in_verba
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Tue Dec 19, 2017 9:14 pm
leroyPosts: 2015Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: Common ancestry of apes

Rumraket wrote:
If you can come up with a testable prediction from a supernaturalist hypothesis, then I think pretty much all scientists would be happy to test it. And I'm pretty much certain AronRa would agree with that.


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.

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

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.

So are you a Methodological naturalist?
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Tue Dec 19, 2017 9:21 pm
leroyPosts: 2015Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: Common ancestry of apes

hackenslash wrote:
leroy wrote:Methodological naturalism excludes any supernatural explanation by default


No it doesn't. What it does do is only include that with which it can make contact. Since the supernatural is, as far as we can ascertain, an entirely empty set with no explanatory power and no means of testing, it isn't included.

Science excludes nothing. It goes where the evidence leads. If you have any evidence that there is any such class of things that could reasonably be described as supernatural, science will be all ears, and you'd probably be a shoo-in for a Nobel prize. I could even put you in touch with some scientists of you can deliver the goods on this, as I number many among my friends.

When you're ready.


Granted, science doesn’t exclude anything, but methodological naturalism does.
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Tue Dec 19, 2017 9:24 pm
RumraketUser avatarPosts: 1239Joined: Fri Jun 25, 2010 7:49 am Gender: Male

Post Re: Common ancestry of apes

leroy wrote:
Rumraket wrote:
If you can come up with a testable prediction from a supernaturalist hypothesis, then I think pretty much all scientists would be happy to test it. And I'm pretty much certain AronRa would agree with that.


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.

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

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.

So are you a Methodological naturalist?

Under the definition you give, no I am not. I'll test anything that can be tested by observation and experiment.

Do you know of any good supernaturalist hypotheses that we can do experiments to test?
"Nullius in verba" - Take nobody's word for it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nullius_in_verba
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Tue Dec 19, 2017 9:25 pm
leroyPosts: 2015Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: Common ancestry of apes

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.
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Tue Dec 19, 2017 9:31 pm
CollecemallPosts: 378Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2014 1:53 am

Post Re: Common ancestry of apes

Great. Let's have a few of these events. I'm giddy with anticipation. Shockingly these stopped happening once reality displaced your miracles.
"Every man is a creature of the age in which he lives, and few are able to raise themselves above the ideas of their time."
“Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities.” ~~Voltaire
Wed Dec 20, 2017 5:27 am
SparhafocPosts: 1973Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: Common ancestry of apes

leroy wrote:
Sparhafoc wrote:
You won't get a yes or no from me unless you can ask a question that merits a yes or no. What you will need to learn to do is amend your questions should people tell you that your questions are lacking specificity or are phrased in a way that loads an implication. You know, as has happened dozens of times before?


In other words, I won’t get a direct Yes or No answer because any answer would have implications that would expose you intellectual dishonesty,...


The intellectual dishonesty you are now asserting I have?

I wasn't aware that your posts represented a legal challenge to my intellectual honesty - precisely who gave you the notion that you possess such authority?

Regardless, no, I tell you what occurs in my mind, you tell me what occurs in yours. You don't tell me what occurs in my mind, so in other words, we can thereby see that the notion that sprang to your mind - the factor operating in your thoughts - is the need to paint intellectual dishonesty in your interlocutor, probably projection. This is, of course, an utterly transparent well-poisoning.

This fact of this stupidly obvious tactic on your part is that it is made even worse when you're replying to an email where I tell you in detail and quite specifically in what regards I would consider myself a methodological naturalist.

As I am obviously perfectly entitled to inform you of my position, and as you are obviously wholly up your own arse if you think you can dictate to me what my position is, then do feel free to get over yourself.

As you have been informed many times, LEROY - you are not the boss here, you do not get to make up the rules as you go along.

It doesn't matter how many times you need to be told this - your refusal to accept reality does not mean reality doesn't still occur (which would be a beautiful segue if I were about to start talking about the point of methodological naturalism but as LEROY isn't genuinely interested in nuance, I won't bother pulling him out of his latest embarrassing quagmire), so your response which tries to command me to jump the hoops as per your instructions is dismissed completely.

You will acknowledge my replies, or you are simply providing yet another iteration of LEROY being a total fucking LEROY.


leroy wrote: the best you can do is keep your answer ambiguous without quite affirming nor denying anything.


Was I ambiguous? Perhaps you're just challenged in the comprehension department?

Do feel free to ask me for help if you have failed to understand any of the following text I am citing from the post I wrote which you are allegedly replying to...


Sparhafoc wrote:
leroy wrote:Wound you say that Methodological naturalism is the only acceptable method that we have when we seek for an explanation? If your answer is NO, then I apologize for misinterpreting your view .


What kind of explanation? It makes a world of difference.

Are you talking about natural phenomena? Objective, empirical, factually real, intersubjective knowledge? Then yes, manifestly and unarguably so. Which is, of course, not to say that it is therefore necessarily the only one, just the only one our species knows.

Are you talking about truths, ethics, aesthetics... the arts, the human journey of self-discovery and finding harmony with their existence? Then no, obviously not for there are many ways to that kind of knowledge which entail not one beaker or measuring tape.


Thanks to he_who_is_nobody for the targeted formatting

Funny, I see nothing ambiguous in there, although of course I could provide much more detail about any and all parts of what I've written should you ever wish to acknowledge its existence and then actually direct your comments to what I've written rather than the solipsistic onanism you appear to have opted for once again.

You're obviously not obliged to read what I write, but don't pretend that what I've written doesn't exist.



leroy wrote:Are you a methodological naturalist? Yes or no? why can’t you answer?


Yes I am when I am doing science, of course I am. That is the only way to do science; it is what modern science is.

But of course I am not a methodological naturalist when contemplating the nature of humility, of passion, of mortality, or of light reflection's geometry captured on a canvas, the soaring aria of a master-crafted composition, or of an innumerable quantity of aspects of my life, of being human.

The problem, as usual, is that you don't really understand what you're talking about, so you're asking questions that are meaningless, and desperately trying to 'trap' people into your error.

What you should be asking is 'are you a philosophical naturalist' as I already told you, because that would make more sense. That would strike at the point you're trying to make while also not be nonsensically stunted through a faulty premise.

The way you're talking about methodological naturalism shows you don't grasp what it is.

It's a tool, LEROY - I told you already. So think about other tools. Yeah? Got a set of them in your mind? OK, so let's pick one: a hammer. I hammer nails. Am I a hammerer then? Yes, when the task requires a hammer, but not when the task is irrelevant or inappropriate for a hammer, then I might use another tool even something unrecognizable as a tool compared to the contents of our imagined toolbox here, or simply not have any real tools at all to deal with it.

As such, I already told you as specifically as is possibly necessary, but you failed to realize it, thereby showing your misapprehension of the topic you want to talk about....


Sparhafoc wrote:
LEROY wrote:Wound you say that Methodological naturalism is the only acceptable method that we have when we seek for an explanation?


Are you talking about natural phenomena? Objective, empirical, factually real, intersubjective knowledge? Then yes, manifestly and unarguably so. Which is, of course, not to say that it is therefore necessarily the only one, just the only one our species knows.


The question is answered as comprehensively as was asked.

Is methodological naturalism the only acceptable method when we seek an explanation?

If we're talking about explanations for natural phenomena, as in one's existing, observable, detectable empirically evident in the universe, then yes absolutely.

But for seeking an explanation as to other topics, such as why you repeatedly use your internet anonymity to spend vast amounts of time talking to people you express constant disdain for... then no, I don't use methodological naturalism, as I don't for a vast number of other aspects of life.

What I've written is as clear as it needs to be, so evade if you want, but the answer to your question is right there.

Evade away, it just exposes you LEROY.

Why don't you try and make 2018 a more productive one instead of chasing your tail for another year?
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Last edited by Sparhafoc on Thu Dec 21, 2017 7:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Thu Dec 21, 2017 6:03 pm
PreviousNext
Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 2 of 4
 [ 70 posts ] 
Return to Science & Mathematics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests