Something to Ponder

[Daniel Mullarkey]

Arguably, you could prove that there is no god by proving metaphysical naturalism as a scientific theory.

[Daniel Mullarkey]

[Free Lunch]

On Fri, 16 Aug 2013 21:06:23 -0700 (PDT), Daniel Mullarkey
<corresp...@danielmullarkey.me> wrote in alt.atheism.moderated:

>Arguably, you could prove that there is no god by proving metaphysical naturalism as a scientific theory.

Metaphysical naturalism?

No. No. That cannot be right.

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <e62fac11-fd8a-4c6a...@googlegroups.com>,

Daniel Mullarkey <corresp...@danielmullarkey.me> wrote:

> Arguably, you could prove that there is no god by proving metaphysical
> naturalism as a scientific theory.

Do you have any actual evidence for this "metaphysical naturalism"?

--

JD

"Osama Bin Laden is dead and GM is alive."--VP Joseph Biden

[Burkhard]

On Monday, August 19, 2013 10:25:16 PM UTC+1, Jeanne Douglas wrote:
> In article <e62fac11-fd8a-4c6a...@googlegroups.com>,

> >
>
> > Arguably, you could prove that there is no god by proving metaphysical
> > > naturalism as a scientific theory.


> Do you have any actual evidence for this "metaphysical naturalism"?
>
>

Well, depends what you mean with "evidence". It is a philosophical
position, so you get mainly arguments that appeal to plausibility,
though the philosophers who expose it tend to be of the more "sciencey"
variety - Dennet, Churchland,Susan Blackmore (and earlier
Rudolf Carnap, Bertrand Russel, and generally the Vienna circle)

Daniel Dennet's Darwin's Dangerous ideas
is often seen as the most recent manifesto, with is notion that
the theory of evolution has acted as "universal acid" that
could not be contained within biology, or even science
(that would be methodological naturalism)
but "spilled over" into all other fields, including ethics
(though he warns from "greedy reductionism" in that respect.
Older and slightly less reputable examples would be certain
forms of Marxism, and Ayn Rand's objectvism

What they have in common is that they read Occam's razor as an
ontological criterion - the simpler theory is the one that is also
more true (and not just more elegant, or easier to handle, or
more productive etc)

The standard formulation comes from Paul Draper:
[MN is] "the hypothesis that the natural world is a closed
system","nothing that is not a part of the natural world affects
it."

Since science always presupposes as a methodological choice
naturalism, it is at the very least problematic, as the OP
requests, to have a scientific prove of metaphysical naturalism
- that would be in the words of the Popper student Alberts
to be like "Muenchausen pulling himself out of the swamp by
pulling at his hair" cf "Muenchausen trilemma"

a very basic intro to the concept is here at atheistnexus:
http://www.atheistnexus.org/profiles/blogs/metaphysical-naturalism

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Mon, 19 Aug 2013 14:25:16 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
<hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:

>In article <e62fac11-fd8a-4c6a...@googlegroups.com>,
> Daniel Mullarkey <corresp...@danielmullarkey.me> wrote:
>
>> Arguably, you could prove that there is no god by proving metaphysical
>> naturalism as a scientific theory.
>
>Do you have any actual evidence for this "metaphysical naturalism"?

Does one really expect a troll calling s/h/itself "Mallarkey" in a
moderated group?

[Burkhard]

On Tuesday, August 20, 2013 3:39:03 PM UTC+1, Christopher A. Lee wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Aug 2013 14:25:16 -0700, Jeanne Douglas

<snip>

>
> >> Arguably, you could prove that there is no god by proving metaphysical
>
> >> naturalism as a scientific theory.
>

> >Do you have any actual evidence for this "metaphysical naturalism"?
>
>
> Does one really expect a troll calling s/h/itself "Mallarkey" in a
> > moderated group?

Why not? Mullarkey is a pretty common name, Neil Mullarkey
probably the most famous under this name in the UK.

And his post s nothing worse than a trivially true
statement (a tautology). To the extend that he thinks it
is more it simply demonstrates unfamiliarity with the
relevant philosophical debate.

For a newsgroup that for all practical purposes is as dead as
a dodo, not bad.

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <5354048d-302d-413e...@googlegroups.com>,

Burkhard <undesira...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Monday, August 19, 2013 10:25:16 PM UTC+1, Jeanne Douglas wrote:
> > In article <e62fac11-fd8a-4c6a...@googlegroups.com>,
> > >
> >
> > > Arguably, you could prove that there is no god by proving metaphysical
> > > > naturalism as a scientific theory.
>
>
> > Do you have any actual evidence for this "metaphysical naturalism"?
> >
> >
>
> Well, depends what you mean with "evidence".

Evidence is objective and verifiable. Verifiable by ANYone.

> It is a philosophical
> position, so you get mainly arguments that appeal to plausibility,

Plausibility ain't evidence.

> though the philosophers who expose it tend to be of the more "sciencey"
> variety - Dennet, Churchland,Susan Blackmore (and earlier
> Rudolf Carnap, Bertrand Russel, and generally the Vienna circle)
>
> Daniel Dennet's Darwin's Dangerous ideas
> is often seen as the most recent manifesto, with is notion that
> the theory of evolution has acted as "universal acid" that
> could not be contained within biology, or even science
> (that would be methodological naturalism)
> but "spilled over" into all other fields, including ethics
> (though he warns from "greedy reductionism" in that respect.
> Older and slightly less reputable examples would be certain
> forms of Marxism, and Ayn Rand's objectvism
>
> What they have in common is that they read Occam's razor as an
> ontological criterion - the simpler theory is the one that is also
> more true (and not just more elegant, or easier to handle, or
> more productive etc)
>
> The standard formulation comes from Paul Draper:
> [MN is] "the hypothesis that the natural world is a closed
> system","nothing that is not a part of the natural world affects
> it."

The natural world is NOT a closed system.

> Since science always presupposes as a methodological choice
> naturalism, it is at the very least problematic, as the OP
> requests, to have a scientific prove of metaphysical naturalism
> - that would be in the words of the Popper student Alberts
> to be like "Muenchausen pulling himself out of the swamp by
> pulling at his hair" cf "Muenchausen trilemma"
>
> a very basic intro to the concept is here at atheistnexus:
> http://www.atheistnexus.org/profiles/blogs/metaphysical-naturalism

It's all gibberish.

[Burkhard]

On Tuesday, 20 August 2013 22:00:45 UTC+1, Jeanne Douglas wrote:
> In article <5354048d-302d-413e...@googlegroups.com>,
<snip>

>

>
> > > Do you have any actual evidence for this "metaphysical naturalism"?
>
> > Well, depends what you mean with "evidence".
>
>
>
> Evidence is objective and verifiable. Verifiable by ANYone.

So if I tell my dentist that I have a toothache, my
statement is not evidence?
I hope you never have to treat a patient.

>
> > It is a philosophical
> > > position, so you get mainly arguments that appeal to plausibility,

>
> Plausibility ain't evidence.

Of course not, plausibility is how you evaluate evidence.
Philosophy is not science. If you are interested in, ohh,
"do numbers exist", "are the laws of science real, or
only conventional and language dependant", "can qualia
be reduced to brain states or is there an explanatory gap left",
"is the part-whole relation transitive"; are perdurants
(objects that change parts over time but stay self-identical,
like "the battle of Waterloo") irreducible parts of our ontology,
or in reality just the sum of physical objects" and any other of
the question that intrigues professional philosophers,
going to a lab and doing measurements won't help you much.
That's why these issues are discussed by philosophers, not
scientists. and yes, they will hope that their solutions
have objective validity, by appealing e.g. to shared intuitions
about language use etc.

Now, IF you are a metaphysical naturalist, then you do think indeed
that all these questions are ultimately solvable by science, but
that still leaves you with the problem to justify metaphysical naturalism

>
> > though the philosophers who expose it tend to be of the more "sciencey"
>> > variety - Dennet, Churchland,Susan Blackmore (and earlier
>> > Rudolf Carnap, Bertrand Russel, and generally the Vienna circle)
>> >
>
> > Daniel Dennet's Darwin's Dangerous ideas
>> > is often seen as the most recent manifesto, with is notion that
>> > the theory of evolution has acted as "universal acid" that
>> > could not be contained within biology, or even science
>> > (that would be methodological naturalism)
>> > but "spilled over" into all other fields, including ethics
>> > (though he warns from "greedy reductionism" in that respect.
> > Older and slightly less reputable examples would be certain
>> > forms of Marxism, and Ayn Rand's objectvism
>>
> > What they have in common is that they read Occam's razor as an
>> > ontological criterion - the simpler theory is the one that is also
> > more true (and not just more elegant, or easier to handle, or
>> > more productive etc)
>
> > The standard formulation comes from Paul Draper:
> > [MN is] "the hypothesis that the natural world is a closed
> > system","nothing that is not a part of the natural world affects
> > it."

> The natural world is NOT a closed system.

Well, that certainly is another possible
metaphysical position one can take.
If you reject metaphysical naturalism, then you you might
be e.g. a mind-body dualist, who thinks
that there is something outside nature (the mind) that
interacts with nature. Or you believe in one of the
numerous deities or other supernatural entities that can
interact with nature "from the outside"

I noticed you did not present any "evidence" for your claim
though, not even by the relaxed standard of evidence that
is commonly used in philosophical issues. I take it you
want me to accept your bare assertion then?

>
> > Since science always presupposes as a methodological choice
>> > naturalism, it is at the very least problematic, as the OP
>> > requests, to have a scientific prove of metaphysical naturalism
>> > - that would be in the words of the Popper student Alberts
> > to be like "Muenchausen pulling himself out of the swamp by
>> > pulling at his hair" cf "Muenchausen trilemma"
>
>
> > a very basic intro to the concept is here at atheistnexus:
>> > http://www.atheistnexus.org/profiles/blogs/metaphysical-naturalism
>

> It's all gibberish.

You think so? I thought he writes quite well
and very clear, for a general audience.

It is of course a "partisan" account by
an atheist who embraces metaphysical naturalism, and no
discussion of the criticism of that position, but
I thought that makes it easier to follow as a starter.

Maybe you were put off by his slightly frivolous style?
A more serious, but still quite clear introduction is here:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/physicalism/

OK, that is strictly speaking physicalism which is a form of
metaphysical naturalism, but not identical with it -
but then today most metaphysical naturalists are
physicalists, psychologims as the other main alternative
having fallen out of favour in the early 1930s.

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <7da2cfc9-1bfe-4104...@googlegroups.com>,

Burkhard <undesira...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tuesday, 20 August 2013 22:00:45 UTC+1, Jeanne Douglas wrote:
> > In article <5354048d-302d-413e...@googlegroups.com>,
> <snip>
> >
>
> >
> > > > Do you have any actual evidence for this "metaphysical naturalism"?
> >
> > > Well, depends what you mean with "evidence".
> >
> >
> >
> > Evidence is objective and verifiable. Verifiable by ANYone.
>
> So if I tell my dentist that I have a toothache, my
> statement is not evidence?

Sure, let's be ridiculous. Congrats.

> I hope you never have to treat a patient.
>
> > > It is a philosophical
> > > > position, so you get mainly arguments that appeal to plausibility,
>
> >
> > Plausibility ain't evidence.
>
> Of course not, plausibility is how you evaluate evidence.
> Philosophy is not science. If you are interested in, ohh,
> "do numbers exist", "are the laws of science real, or
> only conventional and language dependant", "can qualia
> be reduced to brain states or is there an explanatory gap left",
> "is the part-whole relation transitive"; are perdurants
> (objects that change parts over time but stay self-identical,
> like "the battle of Waterloo") irreducible parts of our ontology,
> or in reality just the sum of physical objects" and any other of
> the question that intrigues professional philosophers,
> going to a lab and doing measurements won't help you much.
> That's why these issues are discussed by philosophers, not
> scientists. and yes, they will hope that their solutions
> have objective validity, by appealing e.g. to shared intuitions
> about language use etc.
>
> Now, IF you are a metaphysical naturalist, then you do think indeed
> that all these questions are ultimately solvable by science, but
> that still leaves you with the problem to justify metaphysical naturalism

Since you have yet to provide any evidence that the "metaphysical" even
exists, how can something about it be justified?

I don't believe in ANY god.

I don't believe in anything "mnetaphysical".

> I noticed you did not present any "evidence" for your claim
> though, not even by the relaxed standard of evidence that
> is commonly used in philosophical issues. I take it you
> want me to accept your bare assertion then?





> > > Since science always presupposes as a methodological choice
> >> > naturalism, it is at the very least problematic, as the OP
> >> > requests, to have a scientific prove of metaphysical naturalism
> >> > - that would be in the words of the Popper student Alberts
> > > to be like "Muenchausen pulling himself out of the swamp by
> >> > pulling at his hair" cf "Muenchausen trilemma"
> >
> >
> > > a very basic intro to the concept is here at atheistnexus:
> >> > http://www.atheistnexus.org/profiles/blogs/metaphysical-naturalism
> >
>
> > It's all gibberish.
>
> You think so? I thought he writes quite well
> and very clear, for a general audience.

It's assuming something "metaphysical" exists. That makes it gibberish.

> It is of course a "partisan" account by
> an atheist who embraces metaphysical naturalism, and no
> discussion of the criticism of that position, but
> I thought that makes it easier to follow as a starter.

How could it since you have yet to provide any evidence that anything
"metaphysical" exists?

> Maybe you were put off by his slightly frivolous style?
> A more serious, but still quite clear introduction is here:
> http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/physicalism/
>
> OK, that is strictly speaking physicalism which is a form of
> metaphysical naturalism, but not identical with it -
> but then today most metaphysical naturalists are
> physicalists, psychologims as the other main alternative
> having fallen out of favour in the early 1930s.

Gibberish.

[Burkhard]

On Monday, August 19, 2013 11:46:28 PM UTC+1, Free Lunch wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Aug 2013 21:06:23 -0700 (PDT), Daniel Mullarkey

> >Arguably, you could prove that there is no god by proving metaphysical naturalism as a scientific theory.
>
>
>
> Metaphysical naturalism?
> No. No. That cannot be right.

Do you mean metaphysical naturalism can't be right
(a philosophical position I'd agree with, but still
one worth discussing) or that there can't be such a
thing as metaphysical naturalism?

The latter would be false at the face of it, as it
is a pretty ancient philosophical position that is these
days embraced by people like Daniel Dennet, Sam Harris,
Carl Sagan or Richard Carrier.
You might argue they are wrong, but not that their position
does not exist - and from your posts over at talk origins,
I would have thought you are broadly sympathetic
to the general idea, e.g. the way Carrier describes it
in "A Defense of Metaphysical Naturalism":

"worship is replaced with curiosity, devotion with
diligence, holiness with sincerity, ritual with study,
and scripture with the whole world and the whole of
human learning [...]Question all things and have a
well grounded faith in what is well-investigated and
well-proved, rather than what is merely well-asserted
or well-liked"

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Tue, 20 Aug 2013 14:00:45 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
<hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:

>In article <5354048d-302d-413e...@googlegroups.com>,
> Burkhard <undesira...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Monday, August 19, 2013 10:25:16 PM UTC+1, Jeanne Douglas wrote:
>> > In article <e62fac11-fd8a-4c6a...@googlegroups.com>,
>> > >
>> >
>> > > Arguably, you could prove that there is no god by proving metaphysical
>> > > > naturalism as a scientific theory.

It not up to anybody to disprove it any more that to disprove
Russell's tea pot in Pluto's orbit.

It is up to its claimants.

>> > Do you have any actual evidence for this "metaphysical naturalism"?
>>
>> Well, depends what you mean with "evidence".

Standard intellectually dishonest dodge ball.

>Evidence is objective and verifiable. Verifiable by ANYone.

If they actually had any they wouldn't need this kind of weaseling.

>> It is a philosophical
>> position, so you get mainly arguments that appeal to plausibility,
>
>Plausibility ain't evidence.

Hiding behind philosophy proves nothing - they need to back it up in
the real world.

But it's only intended for those who already believe, and then only a
rationalisation.

>> though the philosophers who expose it tend to be of the more "sciencey"
>> variety - Dennet, Churchland,Susan Blackmore (and earlier
>> Rudolf Carnap, Bertrand Russel, and generally the Vienna circle)
>>
>> Daniel Dennet's Darwin's Dangerous ideas
>> is often seen as the most recent manifesto, with is notion that

Emotionally loaded to the point of falsehood.

>> the theory of evolution has acted as "universal acid" that
>> could not be contained within biology, or even science
>> (that would be methodological naturalism)

Bullshit.

Evolution and our understanding of it are simply part of the global
knowledge base, It is one of the cornerstones of modern scientific
understanding but for some reason people don't like things being
explained using it.

Which would be like explaining tides, pendulum clocks, etc without
mentioning another cornerstone, namely gravity.

>> but "spilled over" into all other fields, including ethics
>> (though he warns from "greedy reductionism" in that respect.
>> Older and slightly less reputable examples would be certain
>> forms of Marxism, and Ayn Rand's objectvism

?????????

>> What they have in common is that they read Occam's razor as an
>> ontological criterion - the simpler theory is the one that is also
>> more true (and not just more elegant, or easier to handle, or
>> more productive etc)

No.

There is less to prove.

When you multiply the logical entities every one of then has a
probability less than one otherwise it is already a certainty.

It doesn't matter what their probabilities are, but multiplying them
always produces a smaller probability because they're all fractional.

And the more you introduce the smaller the probability of the end
result.

Try multiplying a tenth by itself a few times and the result gets very
small, very quickly.

>> The standard formulation comes from Paul Draper:
>> [MN is] "the hypothesis that the natural world is a closed
>> system","nothing that is not a part of the natural world affects
>> it."
>
>The natural world is NOT a closed system.

It was an argument from an authority who got it wrong.

Understanding the world is about practical realism (is that really an
-ism?).

What philosophers, theists and others imagine is an -ism called
"methodological naturalism" is simply being realistic.

Any naturalism is incidental and consequential, not foundational.

If anything pointed to the supernatural then science, scientists and
others who simply follow where the evidence takes them would have gone
down that route and incorporated what was discovered into the global
knowledge base.

They don't seem to understand this so they rationalise why science etc
hasn't done that.

Don't forget that Burkhard has said that atheists shouldn't use
Occam's razor because he was a theologian and we use it as an argument
from authority.

When it's just a shorthand for something we'd all realised long before
heard of William of Occam.

I killfiled him as a troll not long after that.

>> Since science always presupposes as a methodological choice

Bullshit.

It simply follows where the evidence takes it with no such
presupposition.

>> naturalism, it is at the very least problematic, as the OP
>> requests, to have a scientific prove of metaphysical naturalism

Good thing that's just a dishonest straw man then, isn't it?

>> - that would be in the words of the Popper student Alberts
>> to be like "Muenchausen pulling himself out of the swamp by
>> pulling at his hair" cf "Muenchausen trilemma"

Science works, bitches.

That's all there is to it.

It is up to those who insist on other methodologies like metaphysics,
to demonstrate they are equally valid before invoking them.

>> a very basic intro to the concept is here at atheistnexus:
>> http://www.atheistnexus.org/profiles/blogs/metaphysical-naturalism
>
>It's all gibberish.

Yep.

Mental masturbation.

[Burkhard]

On Wednesday, August 21, 2013 6:11:05 PM UTC+1, Christopher A. Lee wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Aug 2013 14:00:45 -0700, Jeanne Douglas

<snip>

>
> >> > > Arguably, you could prove that there is no god by proving metaphysical
> > >> > > > naturalism as a scientific theory.
>
>
>
> It not up to anybody to disprove it any more that to disprove
> > Russell's tea pot in Pluto's orbit.
> >
> It is up to its claimants.

it might not be "up to" anybody, in the sense of a
duty to do this.

This however does not mean that people can't make the
decision to try it, out of interest or to increase the sum
of human knowledge.

as many have done, from antiquity (Demokritus
and Epicurus to modernity (Dennet, Sam harris,
probably Richard Dawkins etc). They did not
ask your permission to spend their time on this?
Well, tough.

> >
> >> > Do you have any actual evidence for this "metaphysical naturalism"?
> >> Well, depends what you mean with "evidence".
>
> Standard intellectually dishonest dodge ball.

Nope, a request for necessary precision.

>
> >Evidence is objective and verifiable. Verifiable by ANYone.

> If they actually had any they wouldn't need this kind of weaseling.

No weaseling involved. Just a recognition that in different fields
of activity, standards of what counts as "evidence" may differ

Some people believe for instance that we can rationally
debate ethical issues even though we don;t have
the type of evidence for or against a position that we would
get in physics.

>
>
> >> It is a philosophical
> > >> position, so you get mainly arguments that appeal to plausibility,
> > >
>
> >Plausibility ain't evidence.
>
> >
> Hiding behind philosophy proves nothing - they need to back it up in
> > the real world.
>
> > But it's only intended for those who already believe, and then only a
> > rationalisation.
>

"Metaphysical naturalism" implies atheism, so a pretty ..
strange..statement.

>
> >> though the philosophers who expose it tend to be of the more "sciencey"
> > >> variety - Dennet, Churchland,Susan Blackmore (and earlier
> > >> Rudolf Carnap, Bertrand Russel, and generally the Vienna circle)
> > >> Daniel Dennet's Darwin's Dangerous ideas
> > >> is often seen as the most recent manifesto, with is notion that
> >
> Emotionally loaded to the point of falsehood.
>

What is "emotionalyl loaded" about this? Dennet's book
is highly influential and cited widely by people
who advocate that position A simple, verifiable fact

>
> >> the theory of evolution has acted as "universal acid" that
> > >> could not be contained within biology, or even science
> > >> (that would be methodological naturalism)

>
> Bullshit.

Do you mean Dennet's position, or my rendition of it?
If it is the former, I would agree, I think his
position is not convincing.

If the latter, well, we can let him speak for himself:

"This book is about why Darwin's idea is so powerful,
and why it promises -- not threatens -- to put our
most cherished visions of life on a new foundation."
Darwin's Dangerous Idea p.11

Universal acid is a liquid so corrosive that it will eat
through anything! The problem is: what do you keep it in?
It dissolves glass bottles and stainless-steel canisters as
readily as paper bags. What would happen if you some how
came upon or created a dollop of universal acid? [...]
Little did I realize that in a few years I would encounter
an idea -- Darwin's idea -- bearing an unmistakable likeness
to universal acid: it eats through just about every traditional
concept, and leaves in its wake a revolutionized world-view,
with most of the old landmarks still recognizable, but transformed
in fundamental ways.

Darwin's idea had been born as an answer to questions in
biology, but it threatened to leak out, offering answers
-- welcome or not -- to question in cosmology
(going in one direction) and psychology (going in the other
direction). If redesign could be a mindless, algorithmic
process of evolution, why couldn't that whole process
itself be the product of evolution, and so forth,
all the way down? And if mindless evolution could account
for the breathtakingly clever artifacts of the biosphere,
how could the products of our own "real" minds be exempt
from an evolutionary explanation? Darwin's idea thus also
threatened to spread all the way up, dissolving the illusion
of our own authorship, our own divine spark of creativity
and understanding. Darwin's Dangerous Idea (1995) p.63

>
> Evolution and our understanding of it are simply part of the global
> > knowledge base, It is one of the cornerstones of modern scientific
> > understanding but for some reason people don't like things being
> > explained using it.

Ehh, and who here disagreed with this?

>
> Which would be like explaining tides, pendulum clocks, etc without
> mentioning another cornerstone, namely gravity.
>
> >> but "spilled over" into all other fields, including ethics
> > >> (though he warns from "greedy reductionism" in that respect.
> > >> Older and slightly less reputable examples would be certain
> > >> forms of Marxism, and Ayn Rand's objectvism

>
> ?????????

Yes? Ayn Rand's objectivism is a form of metaphysical
realism, as is Mraxism-Leninism. both argue that only
physical ("material") objects exist
Because they were both aligned to specific political
philosophies that are far form universally accepted,
philosophers interested in metaphysical naturalism tend
not to use them as reference points

> >> What they have in common is that they read Occam's razor as an
> > >> ontological criterion - the simpler theory is the one that is also
> > >> more true (and not just more elegant, or easier to handle, or
> > >> more productive etc)
> >
>
> No.

Why, yes. thta is what they argue. Now you might
disagree with teir conclusion, but that does not make teh fact
go away that these are the positions that you find

> There is less to prove.
> When you multiply the logical entities every one of then has a
> probability less than one otherwise it is already a certainty.

>
> It doesn't matter what their probabilities are, but multiplying them
> always produces a smaller probability because they're all fractional.

Yes, you tried that before. nice attempt, but no cigar
(which we know since the work of Harold Jeffreys in the 50s)
It works only if you impose quite a number of ad hoc assumptions,
and restrict the field of application heavily.

I think I gave you a simple counter example.
If on an island where there are only Bob, Bill and Jo, Jo is
killed, then the theory "It was Bob or Bill who killed
Jo" is more likely true than the simple theory 2It was Bob who
killed jo"
You can exclude this type of counterexample by tweaking
the razor, but there similar problems pop up.

>
> And the more you introduce the smaller the probability of the end
> > result.
>
>
>
> Try multiplying a tenth by itself a few times and the result gets very
> > small, very quickly.
>
>
> >> The standard formulation comes from Paul Draper:
> > >> [MN is] "the hypothesis that the natural world is a closed
> > >> system","nothing that is not a part of the natural world affects
> > >> it."
> > >
>
> >The natural world is NOT a closed system.

>
> It was an argument from an authority who got it wrong.

Really? What authority, and why do you think the claim is wrong?

> Understanding the world is about practical realism (is that really an
>> -ism?).
>
>
> What philosophers, theists and others imagine is an -ism called
>> "methodological naturalism" is simply being realistic.
>
> Any naturalism is incidental and consequential, not foundational.

No idea what you mean by the above. Methodological naturalism is
indeed a form of realism, just a rather strong one.

>
>
> If anything pointed to the supernatural then science, scientists and
> > others who simply follow where the evidence takes them would have gone
> > down that route and incorporated what was discovered into the global
> > knowledge base.
>
> They don't seem to understand this so they rationalise why science etc
>> hasn't done that.

no idea what that is supposed to mean, and I somehow doubt
you do. Metaphysical naturalists argue that scientific theories
are true precisely because they do not incorporate
supernatural entities.

Note: they argue that science is _true_ because it does this.
Not just "efficient" or "pragmatic". That is the only
difference they have with methodological naturalists

>
>
> Don't forget that Burkhard has said that atheists shouldn't use
> > Occam's razor because he was a theologian and we use it as an argument
> > from authority.

Nope, that was just your misunderstanding of what I said.
I corrected you several times, that you continue to
misrepresent me makes you dishonest.

> When it's just a shorthand for something we'd all realised long before
>> heard of William of Occam.

> I killfiled him as a troll not long after that.
>
>
>
> >> Since science always presupposes as a methodological choice

>
> Bullshit.
>
> It simply follows where the evidence takes it with no such
> > presupposition.

Sigh.. That is the same thing.
Have you ever read the Dover vs Kitzmiller
decision that ruled that creationism does not belong in
classrooms? he judge, quite correctly, described science
thus:

"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 self-imposed convention 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.

>
> >> naturalism, it is at the very least problematic, as the OP
> > >> requests, to have a scientific prove of metaphysical naturalism
> >
> Good thing that's just a dishonest straw man then, isn't it?
>

So you say. and I suppose we simply take your word
for it.

> >> - that would be in the words of the Popper student Alberts
> > >> to be like "Muenchausen pulling himself out of the swamp by
> > >> pulling at his hair" cf "Muenchausen trilemma"
>
>
> Science works, bitches.
>
> That's all there is to it.

> It is up to those who insist on other methodologies like metaphysics,
>> to demonstrate they are equally valid before invoking them.

Metaphysical naturalism is the theory that science works,
and that therefore we have good reasons to believe it
it is true.

That is not itself a physical statement, and neither is yours.
That makes them "meta" physical.

you are vigorously arguing here against your own position.

<snip>

[Burkhard]

On Thursday, August 22, 2013 12:42:56 AM UTC+1, Jeanne Douglas wrote:
>
> > > > > Do you have any actual evidence for this "metaphysical naturalism"?

> > > > Well, depends what you mean with "evidence".

> > > Evidence is objective and verifiable. Verifiable by ANYone.

> > So if I tell my dentist that I have a toothache, my
> > statement is not evidence?

> Sure, let's be ridiculous. Congrats.

Your inability to respond with evidence and reason
to this standard objection noted.

For the copyrigh record: I've been using this example
for ages, long before PZ Myers recently used an
extended version of it over at Pharyngula
http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2013/08/18/skepticdoc-m-d/
in his case arguing that even evidence that can't
be verified by ANYone is often good enough evidence
to warn people of (what he thinks are) sexual predators

> > I hope you never have to treat a patient.

> > > > It is a philosophical
> > > > > > position, so you get mainly arguments that appeal to plausibility,

>
> > > Plausibility ain't evidence.
>

> > Of course not, plausibility is how you evaluate evidence.
> > > Philosophy is not science. If you are interested in, ohh,
> > > "do numbers exist", "are the laws of science real, or
> > > only conventional and language dependant", "can qualia
>> > be reduced to brain states or is there an explanatory gap left",
>> > "is the part-whole relation transitive"; are perdurants
>> > (objects that change parts over time but stay self-identical,
>> > like "the battle of Waterloo") irreducible parts of our ontology,
>> > or in reality just the sum of physical objects" and any other of
>> > the question that intrigues professional philosophers,
>> > going to a lab and doing measurements won't help you much.
>> > That's why these issues are discussed by philosophers, not
>> > scientists. and yes, they will hope that their solutions
>> > have objective validity, by appealing e.g. to shared intuitions
>> > about language use etc.
>
> > Now, IF you are a metaphysical naturalist, then you do think indeed
>> > that all these questions are ultimately solvable by science, but
>> > that still leaves you with the problem to justify metaphysical naturalism
>>
> Since you have yet to provide any evidence that the "metaphysical" even
> > exists, how can something about it be justified?

Sorry, I think you are a bit confused about what
"metaphysical naturalism" means. It does
most emphatically NOT mean that
something metaphysical exists.

Rather, it is the claim that nothing BUT the
physical (or natural) exists, and that
in particular supernatural things do not exist.

However, as this is a claim about what actually
exists - in philosophical classification, a statement
about ontology, and not just about what we know
(epistemology) or what works (pragmatism) it is
itself a mataphysical statement. Which means nothing
more dramatic that in order to argue for this position
you have to go beyond ("meta) physics to make your case.

In the case of Dennet e.g., this is history of science -
since science has been good at eliminating non-
physical entities, we can inductively infer that there
are in all likelihood no non-physical entities - or so
his argument

>
> > > > though the philosophers who expose it tend to be of the more "sciencey"
> > > >> > variety - Dennet, Churchland,Susan Blackmore (and earlier
> > > >> > Rudolf Carnap, Bertrand Russel, and generally the Vienna circle)
>

<snip own stuff for brevity>

> > > > The standard formulation comes from Paul Draper:
> > > > > [MN is] "the hypothesis that the natural world is a closed
> > > > > system","nothing that is not a part of the natural world affects
> > > > > it."

> > > The natural world is NOT a closed system.

> > Well, that certainly is another possible
> > > metaphysical position one can take.
> > > If you reject metaphysical naturalism, then you you might
> > > be e.g. a mind-body dualist, who thinks
> > > that there is something outside nature (the mind) that
> > > interacts with nature. Or you believe in one of the
> > > numerous deities or other supernatural entities that can
> > > interact with nature "from the outside"

>
> I don't believe in ANY god.
> I don't believe in anything "mnetaphysical".

Well, that then makes you a naturalist.
And in that case you _do_ believe that the world
is a closed system, which is just another expression
for saying tat there is nothing beyond ("meta",
or supra) the natural world.

All metaphysical naturalists are, by definition,
also atheists.that holds true btw also for the OP.
1 min with Google brings up this website of his
http://thesecularwave.com/philosophy.html
where he argues for a secular philosophy

The converse however does of course
not hold, you can be atheist and not be a
metaphysical naturalist.

For instance you might argue that metaphyscial
naturalism is unnecessarily and possibly
unjustifiably strong as a position.

Or you might not believe in deities, but believe
in ghosts, numbers, souls, qualia or any other
of a long list of things metaphysical
naturalism rejects in addition to gods.

<snip more of my own stuff>

>
> > > a very basic intro to the concept is here at atheistnexus:
> >> > http://www.atheistnexus.org/profiles/blogs/metaphysical-naturalism

> > > It's all gibberish.

> > You think so? I thought he writes quite well
> > > and very clear, for a general audience.

> It's assuming something "metaphysical" exists.

No it doesn't, as you would have found
out if you had followed the link to what is the
blog of an atheist philosopher

> That makes it gibberish.

That is another intriguing statement. If you
were right on this, it would make science
and scientific testing impossible.

Falsificationsim e.g. is build on
the logical form of modus tollens - that is we
_assume_ the claim we want to test, then ask what
would follow from it (Assuming A, then B)
and then try to show that B does not hold, thus
falsifying A

Simple example: we want to test if there
was a global flood at around 2000CE.
ASSUMING there was such a flood, we should
find a global sedimentary layer. There is no such
layer. Therefore, there was no global flood.

Or the simple proof that there is no largest natural
even number: ASSUME there is a largest even natural
number.
Let's call this number X
Multiply X by 2
The new number is a even natural number larger than
the one assumed to be the largest.
That proves the assumption that there is a largest even
natural number is a false assumption.
Therefore no largest even natural number exists..

The concept of "largest even number" is perfectly
intelligible and not gibberish, even though there
is no such thing.

In science, we often find that things we thought
exist do in fact not. For instance,
until the late 19th century, scientific theories
of gravity employed the concept of aether
(e.g Newton, Kelvin, Rieman or Le Sage)
We now know there is no such thing. That did
not turn these theories over night into gibberish,
just into theories that are just as intelligible
as always, they just happen to be wrong.

General lesson:
- It is possible to understand a theory even if
you disagree with it (the precondition for
rational debate)
- Even if a theory or a sentence is about
something that does not exist, it does
not mean we can't understand what the
theory says (and it can even be true)

> > It is of course a "partisan" account by
> > > an atheist who embraces metaphysical naturalism, and no
> > > discussion of the criticism of that position, but
> > > I thought that makes it easier to follow as a starter.
>
>
> How could it since you have yet to provide any evidence that anything
> "metaphysical" exists?
>

Leaving aside your misunderstanding of the term
"metaphysical naturalism", that is why I provided
the link - to give you exactly that evidence.
Now I could have cut and pasted it all, but what
would have been th epoint?

And I'm not a metaphysical naturalist myself,
on the contrary, I believe that all sorts of
non-physical things exist.
I just try to explain to you what that position actually
says, what the OP meant and the reasons why a number
of otherwise pretty good scientists and
philosophers find it compelling.

> > Maybe you were put off by his slightly frivolous style?
> > A more serious, but still quite clear introduction is here:
> > > http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/physicalism/
>

> > OK, that is strictly speaking physicalism which is a form of
>> > metaphysical naturalism, but not identical with it -
>> > but then today most metaphysical naturalists are
>> > physicalists, psychologims as the other main alternative
>> > having fallen out of favour in the early 1930s.

>
> Gibberish.

Nope, it is a very short statement about the history of ideas.
You might disagree with the various schools that are mentioned,
but that does not make the statement "gibberish".
"Physicalism is a form of metaphyscial naturalism" is a
provably true statement about 20th century philosophy of science
just as "Protestantism is a form of Christianity" is a true
statement about a specific religious tradition

Both can be objectively verified (and I gave you
the link to the Stanford Encyclopedia entry as
an academic source), both can be understood and
tested by people from all sorts of personal believes
or none, and regardlessof whether they themselves
find physicalism , naturalism or protestantism
compelling.

History of ideas does not change just because you
dislike some of the ideas.

[Free Lunch]

On Wed, 21 Aug 2013 14:49:50 -0700 (PDT), Burkhard <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk>
wrote in alt.atheism.moderated:

>On Monday, August 19, 2013 11:46:28 PM UTC+1, Free Lunch wrote:
>> On Fri, 16 Aug 2013 21:06:23 -0700 (PDT), Daniel Mullarkey
>
>> >Arguably, you could prove that there is no god by proving metaphysical naturalism as a scientific theory.
>>
>>
>>
>> Metaphysical naturalism?
>> No. No. That cannot be right.
>
>Do you mean metaphysical naturalism can't be right
>(a philosophical position I'd agree with, but still
>one worth discussing) or that there can't be such a
>thing as metaphysical naturalism?

I was thinking that metaphysical naturalism (not something with an
obvious definition) does not prove that there is no god.

>The latter would be false at the face of it, as it
>is a pretty ancient philosophical position that is these
>days embraced by people like Daniel Dennet, Sam Harris,
>Carl Sagan or Richard Carrier.

I understood them to accept methodological naturalism. I don't recall
that any of those had comments about metaphysics.

>You might argue they are wrong, but not that their position
>does not exist - and from your posts over at talk origins,
>I would have thought you are broadly sympathetic
>to the general idea, e.g. the way Carrier describes it
>in "A Defense of Metaphysical Naturalism":
>
>"worship is replaced with curiosity, devotion with
>diligence, holiness with sincerity, ritual with study,
>and scripture with the whole world and the whole of
>human learning [...]Question all things and have a
>well grounded faith in what is well-investigated and
>well-proved, rather than what is merely well-asserted
>or well-liked"

If that is all it is, I have not problem with it, but I don't
immediately assume that this is what is meant by the OP.

[Burkhard]

On Thursday, 22 August 2013 03:31:23 UTC+1, Free Lunch wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Aug 2013 14:49:50 -0700 (PDT), Burkhard <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk>
>
> wrote in alt.atheism.moderated:
>
>
>
> >On Monday, August 19, 2013 11:46:28 PM UTC+1, Free Lunch wrote:
>
> >> On Fri, 16 Aug 2013 21:06:23 -0700 (PDT), Daniel Mullarkey
>
> >
>
> >> >Arguably, you could prove that there is no god by proving metaphysical naturalism as a scientific theory.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> Metaphysical naturalism?
>
> >> No. No. That cannot be right.
>
> >
>
> >Do you mean metaphysical naturalism can't be right
> > >(a philosophical position I'd agree with, but still
> > >one worth discussing) or that there can't be such a
> > >thing as metaphysical naturalism?
>
>
>
> I was thinking that metaphysical naturalism (not something with an
> > obvious definition) does not prove that there is no god.

Well, the wikipedia definition is quite good in my opinion
and describes adequately how the term is used by philosophers:

"a strong belief in naturalism, a worldview with a philosophical aspect which holds that there is nothing but natural elements, principles, and relations of the kind studied by the natural sciences, i.e., those required to understand our physical environment"

A similar definitive from an academic source for physicalism as the dominant
version of metaphysical naturalism:

"Physicalism is the thesis that everything is physical, or as
contemporary philosophers sometimes put it, that everything
supervenes on, or is necessitated by, the physical.
The thesis is usually intended as a metaphysical thesis,
parallel to the thesis attributed to the ancient Greek philosopher
Thales, that everything is water, or the idealism of the 18th Century philosopher Berkeley, that everything is mental. The general idea
is that the nature of the actual world (i.e. the universe and
everything in it) conforms to a certain condition, the
condition of being physical"

That means in particular that ANY non-physical entity is ruled out.
Since deities are typically conceived as non-physical, super-
natural entities, then yes, metaphyscial naturalism implies
atheism.

It just goes further and also rules out things like numbers as
mind-independent platonic entities in the philosophy
of mathematics, "substance dualism" in the theory of mind,and
also reduces ethical problems to questions of physical facts.

I would not use your expression "Metaphysical naturalism proves
atheism" as this assumes MN true, however, "metaphysical atheism
implies atheism" is true, and hence also the conditional
statement: IF we could prove Methodological Naturalism, then we
could also prove atheism"

>
> >The latter would be false at the face of it, as it
> > >is a pretty ancient philosophical position that is these
> > >days embraced by people like Daniel Dennet, Sam Harris,
> > >Carl Sagan or Richard Carrier.
>
>
> I understood them to accept methodological naturalism. I don't recall
> > that any of those had comments about metaphysics.

You get hung up too much on the term "metaphysical", Contemporary
philosophers use it quite literally, as any statement that is
"about" ("meta") the physical. So questions like: are our physical
theories absolutely true, or only true relative to human
language/human sense perception" is a metaphysical question.
Do species really "exist", or are the divisions conventional
artefacts imposed by our theories" is another.

Karl Poppers notion that as science progresses, our theories
become more and more "truth like" is a metaphysical statement
, a statement about our physical theories. So making
metaphysical claims does not mean necessarily that you
suddenly invite all sorts f speculative entities. it just
means that you reflect about our physical theories, the truth
claims they make and what we can say about them.

Now, Harris, Dennet and other metaphysical naturalists do indeed
make statements of this type, statements that "quantify over"
our physical theories, such as: everything that exists can be
reduced to physical objects. That is Dennet's position, and it is
a philosophical, metaphysical position as he himself acknowledges:

“There is no such thing as philosophy-free science; there is
only science whose philosophical baggage is taken on board without
examination"

and then, on Darwinism as universal acid;

“it eats through just about every traditional concept, and
leaves in its wake a revolutionized world-view, with most
of the old landmarks still recognizable, but transformed in

fundamental ways.”

So this is not any longer a methodological issue restricted
to scientific investigation (methodological naturalism),
it applies to every aspect of the world, including ethics
and aesthetics, it is a coherent world view that says that
only the physical really exists

>
> >You might argue they are wrong, but not that their position
>> >does not exist - and from your posts over at talk origins,
>> >I would have thought you are broadly sympathetic
>> >to the general idea, e.g. the way Carrier describes it
>> >in "A Defense of Metaphysical Naturalism":
>
>
> >"worship is replaced with curiosity, devotion with
>> >diligence, holiness with sincerity, ritual with study,
>> >and scripture with the whole world and the whole of
>> >human learning [...]Question all things and have a
>> >well grounded faith in what is well-investigated and
>> >well-proved, rather than what is merely well-asserted
>> >or well-liked"
>
>
>
> If that is all it is, I have not problem with it, but I don't
> > immediately assume that this is what is meant by the OP.

Seems to be. This is his website:
http://thesecularwave.com/philosophy.html