Are there Empirical Implications of Supernatural Causation?
James G. Acker
1/12/1999 - Mr. Pagano is to be commended for responding to every
point that I raised. However, this is an extremely large body of text, so
I think that I'll break it up into two parts.
Pagano previously wrote:
If Naturalism is not asserted as true by mainstream scientists, on what
basis do they exclude the supernatural in explanations? Many of the
evolutionist posters in this forum don't even realize that Naturalism is
presupposed because they have for so long been taught that naturalism is
an integral, necessary, and inseparable component of science. They are
shocked to learn that it is unscientific untestable philosophy and that
it is not a first order claim "of" science, but a philosophical claim
"about" science. Perhaps the Horn is among them.
Acker replied:
I think there's a key concept here, which is "testability". A
supernatural explanation isn't necessarily excluded because of the
underlying methodology of naturalism, it's excluded because it can't be
tested. If any explanation can be tested in a scientific manner, the
"explanation" (i.e. cause) would fall into the realm of natural
phenomena.
Pagano explains:
Modern scientists presuppose that ALL events in prehistory (i.e. no
observers) can be explained with reference to matter and its properties
alone----this is Naturalism. How do we know that this presupposition is
true? What empirical tests can Acker conduct which empirically test
this presupposition? Absolutely none because Naturalism is a
philosophical conjecture "about" science, not an empirical statement
"of" science.
1/12/1999 - I agree that the presupposition can't be tested. It's
like the Euclidean axiom that parallel lines never intersect -- which can't be
tested either. However, the axiom or the presupposition is used to
construct the body of inquiry called science. The problem is, any other
presuppositions that bring in the supernatural (such as that God was
the cause of all events in prehistory) cannot be tested either. Since
natural causes can be tested both now and modeled for past events,
they are amenable to scientific inquiry.
Pagano continues:
Supernaturalism of the Christian Faith "is" excluded when
Naturalism is presupposed. Why is this so? Naturalism says that nature
is a "permanently" closed system of material causes and effects that can
"never" be influenced by anything outside of itself---by God, for
example. Acker disputes this definition below, but his definition
produces the same result.
1/12/1999 - What result?
Also the vast majority of events conjectured to have occurred
(particularly the critical ones) in prehistory were unique, non
recurring, and as a result untestable, even in principle. They are
purely materialistic but no more testable than are the acts of a
supernatural creator.
1/12/1999 -You assert that such unique events are untestable,
but I disagree. The events produced results which have been
observed. By constructing a model of the natural cause of the
observed result, the model can be tested to determine how closely
it produces a result similar to observation. The model is modified
to bring about results closer to the observation, and in so doing
the models of natural causes can be tested. This cannot be done for
supernatural causes because supernatural causes are not bounded by
natural laws.
Pagano previously wrote:
Naturalism is not a denial of the "existence" of God, but a denial of
His necessity.
Acker replied:
I agree with that, with respect to science. Because science can only
investigate naturally-occurring phenomena, it will only posit
investigable causes of those phenomena, which are required to be
natural. Since all investigable causes are required to be natural and
God is supernatural, God is not a necessary element of any natural
cause. In fact, God is excluded from natural cause.
Pagano replies:
Acker is offering the "party line" of modern secular authorities, but it
doesn't stand much close scrutiny.
WHAT ABOUT NATURALISM?
Modern scientific authorities (that is those that influence and write
curriculum) have disguised the unscientific and metaphysical character
of Naturalism within the definition of Science. In so doing they have
misled students and perhaps Acker into believing that the __pursuit of
knowledge__ about our material world can only be done if we presuppose
that every event is explanable with reference to matter and its
properties alone.
THE VEIL DISGUISING NATURALISM
To disguise the unscientific, untestable, and metaphysical character of
Naturalism modern authorities have asserted "a priori" that matter and
its properties are both necessary and sufficient to explain every
observation. But how does Acker or the modern scientific authorities
empirically test this claim? What repeatable laboratory experiments
demonstrate that matter and its properties are alone necessary and
sufficient to explain all events? There are no such empirical tests;
this claim is not scientific, but many, like Acker, have been led to
believe that it is.
1/12/1999 - Once again, the claim/presupposition/axiom is
not tested -- it is used. The "empirical test" that you desire is
in the usage. If events emerge that cannot be explained by "matter
and its properties", they are quite obvious. And they exist now --
gamma-ray bursts, for example, do not yet have an agreed-upon
mechanism that conforms to the known properties of matter and energy and
their interaction. Would you assert a supernatural cause for gamma-
ray bursts? If not, why not?
THE DOUBLE STANDARD OF SCIENTIFIC SECULAR AUTHORITIES
And while we cannot investigate supernatural causes we can investigate
the empirical consequences of supernatural causes. Likewise we cannot
empirically investigate the claim that Nature is the cause of
everything, but we can investigate the empirical consequences of such an
unscientific claim. Mainstream authorities have taught through its
educational institutions to treat the metaphysical claims of Naturalism
and Supernaturalism by a two different standards. Using the
"testablility" standard Naturalism should also be excluded, but it is
not.
1/12/1999 - This is a strong assertion. How do you propose to
test the "empirical consequences" of supernatural causes, and in so doing
how will the test indicate the inevitability of supernatural causation for
a particular event?
Pagano previously wrote:
The unscientific and arguably false philosophy of Naturalism has been
employed by the scientific community to render the christian faith as
only a comforting superstitious fiction which has little relevance to
the material world. This violates the Nicene Creed. The National
Academy of Sciences (see "Teaching about Evolution and the Nature of
Science") gives the general consensus opinion when they wrote,
"...religious faith and scientific knowledge, which are both useful and
important, are different." The National Academy of Sciences attempted
to solve the problem of the conflict between Naturalism and the
christian faith by suggesting that ALL the propositions of christian
faith are mutually exclusive of ALL the propositions of man's
conjectures. This is nonsense. The christian faith doesn't address
biology but neither does naturalism. However, for christians, our
conjectures about the world should be consistent with the truths of our
faith.
1/12/1999 -- I fail to see why the axiom of naturalism cannot
be used in the scientific system of investigation called "biology".
Furthermore, I agree with the NAS system. The process of inquiry called
theology address questions of interest in a different manner than
scientific method. Since the process used is different, the results of such
inquiry are likely to be different as well.
Acker replied:
I disagree with the implications of the term "employed". The
implication is one of deliberate action.
Pagano rebuts:
Of course mainstream secular authorities deliberately presuppose the
metaphysical unscientific philosophy of Naturalism. Making such a
presupposition is not a crime and it has been fruitful. However, the
christian faith offers absolute objective truths which contradict and
argue for the falsity of Naturalism.
1/12/1999 -- Surprisingly we agree here. The Christian
faith indicates that naturalism -- meaning that everything is explainable
as purely a result of natural cause -- is not true. However, I still argue
from my perspective as a Christian and a scientist that the axiom of
naturalism is still properly employed in scientific inquiry, and by
doing so the results obtained by the inquiry are correctly termed
"scientific" results.
Acker continues:
What has actually occurred as science has become the primary means of
inquiry into the natural (material) world is that science has been
granted in the public perception (both Christian and non-Christian)
ultimate explanatory power -- to whit, scientific explanations are the
"best" explanations.
Pagano replies:
Then let us test this.
Faithful christians believe that Jesus was born to a woman who was a
virgin, Jesus changed water into wine at a wedding, He fed thousands
with a few loaves of bread and fish, He cured those with congenital
illnesses, He brought the dead back to life, and He rose from the dead,
to name only a few. These were all actual events in our material world
which were observed by many and recorded. If so Acker must be able to
explain these events with purely naturalistic causes; can he? If
Naturalism fails here it may fail to be fruitful for other inquiries.
1/12/1999 - What is surprising about the miracles and events
described above is that scientific creationists do not attempt to address them
in the same manner in which they address the events of creation and the
Noachian Flood. If the latter events are miraculous and supernatural
manifestations of God, why do creationists attempt to explain them with
mundane "natural" causes? As a Christian, I do NOT attempt to explain
miracles with natural causes UNLESS a natural mechanism employed by God
is indicated, such as the wind which blew for 12 hours prior to the Red
Sea crossing. To attempt to explain miracles with natural cause does
two things: it negates the symbolic meaning of the miracle and it cheapens
it by denying that a supernatural cause was necessary! (As an aside, this is
why I frequently don't understand why Scientific Creationists do what they
do.)
Pagano continues:
Can Acker provide the relationship between "best" explanation and the
objectively "true" explanation? I couldn't care less what Acker claims
is "best." Best relative to what? I want to know what he claims is
objectively true.
1/12/1999 -- I think my above response addresses what you're asking
for here. Because science has garnered a public perception as the "Supreme
Court" of inquiry, Scientific Creationists debase the miraculous and symbolic
nature of Scripture in an attempt to explain things "by science". The added
fact that they are frequently in flagrant error makes things even worse.
This is a logical break point, because the next exchanges address
Scientific Creationism more directly.
===============================================
| James G. Acker |
| REPLY TO: jga...@neptune.gsfc.nasa.gov |
===============================================
All comments are the personal opinion of the writer
and do not constitute policy and/or opinion of government
or corporate entities.
James G. Acker
1/12/1999
Part 2 of discussion with T. Pagano
Acker continues:
...That leads to the fallacy of Scientific Creationism, which attempts
to provide mock scientific explanations for all manner of phenomena in
order to give a preconceived model some "scientific" validity, and thus
more credence for both Christians and non-Christians.
Pagano replies:
What argument of scientific creationism is fallacious?
1/12/1999 - I did not say that an argument of Scientific
Creationism is fallacious, I said that Scientific Creationism is
fallacious. The reason is that scientific creationists employ
scientific method incorrectly, such that their supposed "results" do
not stand up to scientific scrutiny.
Pagano continues:
Adherents of scientific creationism take seriously the idea that a
supernatural creator exists and that He acts in His world. Modern
secular theorists say they cannot investigate this supernatural action,
but this is not the same thing as saying that it did not occur.
Nonetheless they presuppose a world in which a supernatural creator did
not act in His world. But this assumption contradicts the christian
faith which says the Creator has acted intimately and personally.
Adherents of scientific creationism don't attempt to provide "mock"
scientific explanations, but attempt to determine the empirical
implications of supernatural action and test for those implications.
Qualitatively this is little different from modern secular theorists.
They presuppose that Nature did it all, attempt to determine the
empirical implications of that presupposition, and test for them. They
never test for nor can they test the presupposition that Nature did it all.
Remember that Naturalism excludes the action of a supernatural creator
while the presupposition of a supernatural creator does not exclude the
action of matter and its properties.
1/12/1999 -- I'm going to concentrate on the middle paragraph
above, because that's precisely what scientific creationists do not do.
They do not test the empirical implications of supernatural action in a
scientific manner -- thus, their conclusions have no scientific validity.
Yet the creationists continue to assert that their conclusions have EQUAL
scientific validity with the results of correctly-performed scientific
inquiry. That, to use your word, is nonsense.
Acker continues:
What this causes is the adjunct perception that the natural world is the
most important thing to investigate. Thus, by giving scientific
explanation such a high position, the practice of religious faith and
theological study is relegated to a secondary role. I feel that this is
unfortunate, because I have been instructed and enlightened by both
methods of inquiry. When the natural world is the subject, science is
the method, though religious faith may comment. When
morality/philosophy/history/social order are the subjects, theological
inquiry is the preferred method, though science may comment.
Pagano replies:
This is essentially the line of reasoning used by the National Academy
of Sciences. They suggest that ALL the propositions of the christian
faith are mutually exclusive of all the propositions of the man's
conjectures. The argument goes something like this: The bible says
nothing specifically about biology, chemistry, etc. therefore the
christian faith and its propositions never intersect with those of man's
conjectures. BUT THIS IS FALSE. And further the presupposition that
"Nature did it all" says nothing specifically about biology, chemistry,
etc..
The bible and the christian faith are intimately involved with material
creation. The christian faith is more than some philosophy of life like
Budhism. As a result the attempt of Acker and the National Academy of
Sciences to place these propositions in two non intersecting sets
fails.
Another problem with such an attempt is that it requires a subjective
theory of truth. Acker must argue that the propositions of man's
conjectures don't have to be logically consistent with true propositions
of the christian faith which address the material creation. This is
only sustainable if truth is neither absolute or objective. Such a
theory of truth is also antithetical to the Chrisitian Faith.
1/12/1999 - I will admit right here that what is written above
is a little hard to follow. So I will respond for myself: my Christian
faith includes the true propositions of the faith when I contemplate the
material creation as a Christian. When I investigate the natural world
as a scientist, despite whatever my faith tells me about the "true" cause of
a given observation, I must investigate the observation using the axiom
of natural causation because that is the only way to derive a scientifically
useful result.
Pagano:
(1) Christians believe that their God is the Creator of everything and
nothing exists without Him. He is absolutely necessary.
(2) Believers in Naturalism (of which Horn is member despite his
denials) deny the necessity of God in the creation of our world and the
life in it.
(3) Therefore by denying the Christian God's necessity they in effect
deny THIS God's existence. Perhaps Horn doesn't deny some other god of
his own creation.
Acker replied:
However, those who use naturalism as a principle tenet of scientific
inquiry -- which is proper -- do not deny the necessity of God as the
Creator of everything. They only dmit that scientific method cannot
investigate God's action and role in the natural world.
Pagano rebuts:
Actually Dawkins and Dennett (and possibly Gould) have had the
intellectually honesty to openly deny the necessity of supernatural
action.
Modern secular theorists say unequivocally that they carry out their
investigations as if no supernatural action ever intruded into our
closed material universe and that matter and its properties are both
necessary and sufficient to explain all events. This is clearly a
denial that a supernatural creator acted in any way.
1/12/1999 - The viewpoint results from the fact that the
men above are not Christians. You are invited to contrast their
views with those of Dr. Owen Gingerich, a noted astronomer.
But regarding the "denial that a supernatural creator
acted in any way": obviously I disagree. Science attempts to
discover the minimum set of necessary conditions required to
bring about a given observation. Before relativity and Michelson-
Morley, a "luminiferous ether" was considered necessary for the
propagation of electromagnetic energy through a vacuum. First
the ether was shown not to exist; and then it was shown not to
be necessary. With regards to a supernatural creator, science cannot
provide a way to test for the existence of same, so it operates on the
axiom that a supernatural creator is not necessary to explain observations
in the "closed material universe". So far, the axiom has worked well
for science.
Pagano continues:
If we do assume that a supernatural creator acted in and on our material
universe the scientific method CAN determine and test for the EMPIRICAL
IMPLICATIONS of that supernatural action. The scientific method cannot
investigate the modern secular claim that "Nature is necessary and
sufficient for all events in our universe," but it can determine and
test for the EMPIRICAL IMPLICATIONS of this claim.
1/12/1999 - How do you propose to use the scientific method
to test the empirical implications of supernatural action? Likewise for
the empirical implications of the "nature is necessary and sufficient"
claim?
Pagano previously wrote:
Remember the unscientific philosophy of Naturalism proposes that nature
is a permanently closed system of material causes and effects that can
never be influenced by anything outside of itself--by God for example.
To speak of something as "supernatural" is therefore to imply that it is
imaginary, and belief in powerful imaginary entities is known as
superstition.
Acker replied:
Terminology disagreement again. Naturalism proposes that nature can be
explained by a closed set of causes and effects.
Pagano rebuts:
This is a distinction without a difference. Whether one suggests that
the universe is closed to action by an outside supernatural entity or
one suggests that the universe is open but the set of ALL causes within
that universe are closed to supernatural ones the result is the
same-----Supernatural action is excluded. Surely this is obvious.
But again the question for Acker is: "what empirical tests does he
conduct which tests the validity of Naturalism?" He should realize that
Naturalism is an unscientific untestable claim "about" Science not a
claim "of" Science. And even apart from the Christian Faith there are
arguments for its falsity.
1/12/1999 - Thrice repeated, once heard is enough. The validity
of naturalism is only tested by its use as an axiom of scientific
investigation. If a result is found that conflicts with the axiom, then
the axiom is falsified. Returning to my analogy with Euclidean geometry,
the parallel lines axiom provides a self-consistent geometrical system.
However, if the axiom is different (as for Lobachevsky) a different
self-consistent geometrical system results. The axiom of naturalism
is self-consistent with the results of scientific investigation into the
natural world I.e., naturalism is consistent with natural cause. If a
different axiom is used, then the results are for a different system, which
can be one in which supernatural cause is included. However, this system
will not be consistent with the results of inquiry obtained using scientific
method.
Acker continues:
An effect in the natural world may in fact have a supernatural cause,
but use of the naturalism principle excludes supernatural cause from the
allowable explanatory set because the effect was observed in the natural
world.
Pagano replies:
In effect what Acker says is: Supernatural action may indeed be true
but because modern secular theorists have chosen the unscientific
empirically untestable philosophy of Naturalism such action is
excluded. This is not a scientific decision but a purely philosophical
one. It should be added that supernaturalism does not exclude matter or
its properties, and it implies that matter and its properties are NOT
sufficient to explain all events.
1/12/1999 - If naturalism is an axiom of scientific method, then
the use of the axiom provides boundaries for science. It is therefore not
unscientific, it defines what "scientific" means.
Pagano continues:
What Acker fails to realize is that he can't empirically test the
presupposition that "Nature did it" any better than I can test the
presupposition that "God did it." But we both can determine and test
the empirical implications of such presuppositions.
1/12/1999 - I really want to know how this is proposed to be
done. You've asserted that it can be done several times.
Pagano continues:
An important question for Acker is: What reasons are there for chosing
unscientific untestable Naturalism over unscientific untestable
Supernaturalism?
1/12/1999 - The reason for using naturalism as an axiom of
science is that it produces a self-consistent model of nature in which
all observations are explainable by the closed set of matter, energy,
and the mechanisms by which they interact. Using
supernaturalism as an axiom produces a different model by which
what we observe is explained. This model is not amenable to
scientific investigation, whereas the model constructed using the
axiom of naturalism IS amenable to scientific investigation.
Acker continues:
Thus, the supernatural is not necessarily imaginary, it is strictly
excluded from detection by natural tools of investigation, i.e.,
scientific methods.
Pagano replies:
Whether modern secular theorists claim overtly that the supernatural is
imaginary or not acceptance of Naturalism causes them to act and behave
as if it was.
The vast majority of interested christians have solved this problem by
accepting the argument of the National Academy of Science. That is to
logically separate as mutually exclusive the propositions of their Faith
from the propositions of man's conjectures. While this "mutual
exclusivity" might be true for Hinduism, Budhism, and similar
philosophies it is not true for the Christian Faith. I also doubt it is
true of Judaism, Islam, or any religion which presupposes the truth of a
supernatural creator.
Naturalistic tools cannot test the claim that Nature is alone the cause
of all events in our universe. But modern secular theorists don't test
that claim with the scientific method, they go about searching for the
empirical implications of that philosophical claim. This is little
different from creation scientists who don't attempt to observe or
explain supernatural causation, but attempt to determine the empirical
implications of that causation and test for those implications with the
scientific method.
This is difficult for the products of our educational system where it is
taught that Naturalism is either equivalent to science or that it is
inseparable from science. I doubt either position is defensible.
1/12/1999 - I must agree that naturalism is inseparable from
science, since that's what I've been arguing continually. It is clear from
these last paragraphs that one of your concerns is that the use of
the axiom of naturalism in scientific inquiry allows some individuals
to extrapolate it into the philosophical realm. To whit, because science
"works", God should be excluded from consideration in any area of
human inquiry. I think individuals that attempt this kind of argument
are wrong to do so, but just because I think that they are wrong doesn't
mean that they are going to stop. I think Scientific Creationists produce
both bad science and bad theology too, and they haven't stopped because
of my opinion.
Jim Acker
A Pagano
[Do to length this is likely to be the first of a multipart reply]
Pagano previously wrote:
Modern scientists presuppose that ALL events in prehistory (i.e. no
observers) can be explained with reference to matter and its properties
alone----this is Naturalism. How do we know that this presupposition is
true? What empirical tests can Acker conduct which empirically test
this presupposition? Absolutely none because Naturalism is a
philosophical conjecture "about" science, not an empirical statement
"of" science.
Acker replied:
1/12/1999 - I agree that the presupposition can't be tested. It's like
the Euclidean axiom that parallel lines never intersect -- which can't
be tested either.
Pagano responds:
If it can't be tested how is it preferable to supernaturalism?
Supernaturalism does not exclude matter and its properties. It also
explains the existence of matter, complexity, and apparent design.
These are only poorly explained if at all with the help of untestable
unscientific Naturalism.
The presupposition of Naturalism is NOT like a Euclidean axiom.
Traditionally an axiom is a proposition thought to be self-evidently and
unquestionably true: neither capable of proof nor requiring any. The
unscientific presupposition of Naturalism is not self-evidently true and
there are compelling arguments for its falsity.
********************************
Acker continues:
However, the axiom or the presupposition is used to construct the body
of inquiry called science.
Pagano responds:
First, "axiom" and "presupposition" are not synonomous. It is not
self-evidently true that ALL causes in unobserved history are purely
materialistic ones. This is an untestable existential claim arbitrarily
established by convention---by definition---not because anyone has been
able to argue that it is true.
This is not the only metaphysical presupposition which can be used to
construct a "body of inquiry." The question is: is this presupposition
necessary and sufficient to uncover the truth or lead to the truth of
prehistoric events and their causes?
********************************************
Acker continues:
The problem is, any other presuppositions that bring in the supernatural
(such as that God was the cause of all events in prehistory) cannot be
tested either. Since natural causes can be tested both now and modeled
for past events, they are amenable to scientific inquiry.
Pagano replies:
Your second sentence is tautologous. In effect you say that natural
causes can be studied by the study of natural causes. I agree, but this
is not what is at issue. Modern secular theorist do more than simply
suggest that we can only investigate naturalistic events with
naturalistic inquiry. They assert clearly and unequivocally, as you do,
that matter and its properties are necessary and sufficient to explain
EVERY event.
This is no less vulnerable to the "sword" of testability than is
supernatural cause. The sword of testability is used to eliminate
supernatural cause from consideration regardless of whether it is true
or not. But the sword of testability is prevented from severing the
untestable existential claim that purely naturalistic causes exist for
every event. This is inconsistent and a double standard.
As far as modeling the unknown events of prehistory, theorists of your
framework offer any number of occult naturalistic causes which are often
unseen, often untestable, and are often assumed into existence. The
character of such occult naturalistic causes is little different than
that of supernatural ones. Also christians and jews are in possession
of observational reports of supernatural events which argue for both the
falsity of your framework's existential claim and the truth of
supernaturalism. Supernaturalism does NOT propose that all events are
explanable by direct supernatural action and supernaturalism does not
exclude matter and its properties.
More to follow if time permits
Regards,
T Pagano
Thomas Paine
>
>
>[Do to length this is likely to be the first of a multipart reply]
> Pagano responds:
>If it can't be tested how is it preferable to supernaturalism?
>Supernaturalism does not exclude matter and its properties. It also
>explains the existence of matter, complexity, and apparent design.
>These are only poorly explained if at all with the help of untestable
>unscientific Naturalism.
>
>The presupposition of Naturalism is NOT like a Euclidean axiom.
>Traditionally an axiom is a proposition thought to be self-evidently and
>unquestionably true: neither capable of proof nor requiring any. The
>unscientific presupposition of Naturalism is not self-evidently true and
>there are compelling arguments for its falsity.
You have yet to show, or even successfully argue, that "naturalism" is anything
more than your strawman anti-scientific bull shit.
Who cares, until that time, whether it is testable or not.
BTW... you still haven't answered for your crap "the earth can't be that old,
because..."
That is something than can be investigated and proven/disproved.
Guess you would rather play games arguing invented assaults rather than facts
and (oh my god ... here's that word again) ...evidence.
Dave Horn
Is it rerun season yet? Gosh, it must be in talk.origins...since Pagano is
repeating himself...again...
A Pagano wrote in message <369EC364...@fast.net>...
>
>[Do to length this is likely to be the first of a multipart
>reply]
But will you really "reply" to anything or will you just regale us further
with vague speechifying? Let's have a look-see, shall we?
>Pagano previously wrote:
>Modern scientists presuppose that ALL events in
>prehistory (i.e. no observers)...
Direct observation is not required in all aspects of science, Pagano...as
explained (you didn't answer, of course). Also, we have no observers for
most of what you have proposed here and on those occasions when you insist
there *were* "witnesses" that has been challenged, too...and these
challenges send you scrambling from the thread as all challenges tend to
do...
>...can be explained with reference to matter and its
>properties alone----this is Naturalism.
Nope. Science explores the natural world keeping in mind that science must
adhere to explanations that use natural law and natural processes that are
known (or at least reasonably well understood).
>How do we know that this presupposition is
>true?
We have evidence for the processes that I mentioned. We do not have to
support any peculiar interpretation that you may attempt to force on us.
>What empirical tests can Acker conduct which empirically
>test this presupposition?
See above.
>Absolutely none because Naturalism is a philosophical
>conjecture "about" science, not an empirical statement
>"of" science.
In fact, it is your own "conjecture" and not an accurate portrayal of
science -- or scienTISTS -- at all. We are not obligated to answer for your
delusions.
>Acker replied:
>1/12/1999 - I agree that the presupposition can't be tested.
>It's like the Euclidean axiom that parallel lines never intersect --
>which can't be tested either.
>
> Pagano responds:
>If it can't be tested how is it preferable to supernaturalism?
Acker can speak for himself but it seems that he is responding to your red
herring -- something we are not obligated to do. The scientific method as
it is generally understood works because we have *evidence* for natural law
and natural processes acting as they and we have evidence that they have
acted this way for as far back as study is feasible. We have *no* empirical
evidence of supernatural events.
>Supernaturalism does not exclude matter and its
>properties.
Supernaturalism as it is commonly understood relies on suspensions or
violations of natural processes and natural law by entities that are not
evidenced. It can and does "exclude matter and its properties." A case in
point is the Flood of Noah -- which constitutes a very lengthy suspension of
natural law and left absolutely no evidence. You have referred to "flood
geology" on frequent occasions and we have challenged you to produce
evidence. You never seem to be able to do that.
>It also explains the existence of matter...
In fact, there are several presumed supernatural explanations for the
existence of matter. None of them have any supportive evidence. So which
do we choose and why?
>...complexity, and apparent design.
But science explains these things as well. I have challenged you more than
once to pick any scientific theory and tell us what is *scientifically*
wrong with it. You won't even tackle this challenge in a general sense.
>These are only poorly explained if at all with the help of
>untestable unscientific Naturalism.
Like I said...no answers. Just a speech. "Is NOT..."
>The presupposition of Naturalism is NOT like a
>Euclidean axiom. Traditionally an axiom is a proposition
>thought to be self-evidently and unquestionably true:
>neither capable of proof nor requiring any. The unscientific
>presupposition of Naturalism is not self-evidently true and
>there are compelling arguments for its falsity.
It's too bad you can never seem to produce anything other than straw men,
red herrings, evasion and dishonesty to deal with any of that. We never see
argumens. We see speeches.
Here's an axiom for you, Pagano: It is intellectually dishonest and rather
foolish to criticize what you don't understand.
>Acker continues:
>However, the axiom or the presupposition is used to
>construct the body of inquiry called science.
>
> Pagano responds:
>First, "axiom" and "presupposition" are not synonomous.
Axioms, by their nature, may be presupposed, Pagano.
>It is not self-evidently true that ALL causes in unobserved
>history are purely materialistic ones.
What evidence do we have for other explanations?
>This is an untestable existential claim arbitrarily
>established by convention---by definition---not
>because anyone has been able to argue that it is true.
Well, if we accept that "materialistic" explanations are simply those that
do not involve an outside, unevidenced, supernatural agent, we *can* argue
that it's true insofar as we understand these processes. "ALL causes?" Who
knows? That's too vague to include; but then, vagueness is what you're all
about, isn't it?
[Snip repetitious crap -- already answered and avoided by Pagano...many
times.]
Loren King
(i.e. no observers) can be explained with reference to matter and
its properties alone----this is Naturalism.
I think this is an mis-statement of methodological naturalism. To do
science, I think all we need to assume (provisionally) is that: (1)
there is an external world of objects and events, the basic existence of
which is generally independent of human thought and perception; and (2)
our senses are roughly accurate in conveying to us certain features of
this external world.
These are provisional assumptions because they can be critically
assessed and revised in light of our explanatory models and subsequent
observations. Now it might follow from these assumptions that the
phenomena we observe will generally be the product of causal relations
between some sorts of material objects (assuming for the moment we know
what a "cause" is), which is something like your statement above. But I
don't see this as being a fundamental-yet-untestable tenet at the basis
of all science.
Pagano: How do we know that this presupposition is true?
We can infer that the two assumptions above are accurate because, after
repeated study and reflection by a lot of independent researchers, the
world generally behaves as though they are accurate. But we may find
phenomena that challenge this, and then we'll revise our assumptions
accordingly until we have some sort of coherent explanation for how
things appear to behave.
Pagano: Naturalism is a philosophical conjecture "about" science,
not an empirical statement "of" science.
There are some metaphysical claims about naturalism that are of
this character, but they're abstract and controversial. The provisional
naturalism underlying the scientific method isn't as you describe
(although it is philosophical, it is also indirectly testable).
Acker: I agree that the presupposition can't be tested. It's like
the Euclidean axiom that parallel lines never intersect -- which can't
be tested either.
Pagano: If it can't be tested how is it preferable to supernaturalism?
Think of it this way: Euclidean geometry seems to be a reasonable model
of some spaces we encounter. When we find data suggesting that
Euclidean assumptions are not quite right, we change the assumptions,
reformulate our geometric models, and then compare with these new data
to see if they make sense. Or we find some mechanism that accounts for
the anomalous data, without requiring that we modify our basic geometric
assumptions. Why can't you accept that methodological naturalism may be
analogous?
Pagano: Supernaturalism does not exclude matter and its properties.
It also explains the existence of matter, complexity, and apparent design.
This must be some new usage of "explain" that I'm unfamiliar with.
How does it count as an "exaplanation" to appeal to supernatural forces
that haven't been observed, and for which there is no reliable evidence?
What is the supernatural logic of explanation? How does it differ from
the logic of scientific inference?
Pagano: The presupposition of Naturalism is NOT like a Euclidean axiom.
Traditionally an axiom is a proposition thought to be self-evidently and
unquestionably true: neither capable of proof nor requiring any. The
unscientific presupposition of Naturalism is not self-evidently true and
there are compelling arguments for its falsity.
I think there's a pretty strong case to be made that the two provisional
assumptions of methodological naturalism are very self-evident, although
not unquestionably true -- but then, neither is the "parallel lines"
axiom in Euclidean geometry, as several mathematicians have demonstrated.
Loren
--------------------------------------
Loren King lk...@mit.edu
http://web.mit.edu/lking/www/home.html
Todd S. Greene
<369EC364...@fast.net>):
>[snip]
What about the testability (and falsification) of young-earth creationism? We
have stars blowing up that are about 169,000 light-years away (SN1987A), we
have events going on in a galaxy about 2.2 million light-years away that we
observe occurring right now (Andromeda), events that we can see in a galaxy
about 60 million light-years distant (such as the "jet" shooting out of galaxy
M87 in the Virgo Cluster), and the examples just go on and on.
We directly see the past history of the universe in time layers.
You have COMPLETELY FAILED to address this critical point.
You can argue your opinions about such ideas as "naturalism vs.
supernaturalism" and "absolute truth vs. scientific approach" all you want,
but when it comes to uncomfortable factual information, you seem to shy away.
Am I wrong about this? Is it just that you haven't got to writing about this
"direct observation of the history of the universe" yet?
Please clarify.
+----------------+---------------------------------------
| Todd S. Greene | "People believe what they want to
+----------------+ believe and close their eyes to what
they don't want to believe. They need to think the
world is they way they'd like it to be because having
to face up to the reality that it isn't would be too
uncomfortable. So they carry on pretending because it
makes them feel better.
"Truth isn't the important thing. The important
thing is to be certain."
-- James P. Hogan (Code of the Lifemaker, 1983)
Ghidora
> If it can't be tested how is it preferable to supernaturalism?
> explains the existence of matter, complexity, and apparent design.
> unscientific Naturalism.
Who's "supernaturalism" do you prefer, and how do you figure out which
supernatural explanation is the best? The greek myth about the universe
being created with a union between darkness and chaos is my favorite
supernatural explanation. The biblical claim that the earth is 6000 years
old with a recent flood that covered the Earth makes it one of the least
likely supernatural explanations of the bunch, as we know that both claims
are incorrect. Unless you can prove that the Earth isn't the remains of
Tiamat or that humanity isn't an accidental left-over from the "Old Ones"
experiments, you have a problem. Say hi to the Shoggoths if you find any.
You object to using only objective reality as opposed to subjective myths,
but the difference is that objective reality is the same to all observers,
and creation stories change when you cross borders or go in to a different
church or look in a different book. Antibiotic resistant TB will kill you
even if you don't believe in it, and fossils don't change shape when looked
at by a Hindu, Shinto, Jew, or Christian.
> Also christians and jews are in possession
> of observational reports of supernatural events which argue for both the
> falsity of your framework's existential claim and the truth of
> supernaturalism. Supernaturalism does NOT propose that all events are
> explanable by direct supernatural action and supernaturalism does not
> exclude matter and its properties.
Why give special consideration of the hebrew creation myth as opposed to
other creation myths? If you want a supernatural explanation for the
creation of everything, try to open your mind to more than one supernatural
explanations. Test each supernatural explanation as best you can, and see
which one is the best. Is the king of the gods Zeus, Odin, Azathoth, YHWH,
Yog-Sothoth, Marduk, or some other unknown deity or deities? If you use
prayer, how do you know that Loki isn't playing games with you by giving you
false, or that you are praying to the correct deity or being. Try to find
out why every culture has come up with different gods and different creation
myths, each reflecting their culture.
When I do my research, I would have a hard of a time convincing people that
my results are because pixies, elves, gnomes, angels, daemons, gods, or
other supernatural beings are playing games with the positrons. I would
take a similar dim view of anyone trying to use supernatural explanations
for things they see, given the poor track record of such claims. Mythology
can be poetic and sci-fi can be amusing, but don't confuse it with reality.
I am sure you will ignore this, but until you can show why your favorite
mythology is better than the others you shouldn't expect people who don't
believe in your myths to take your mythical explanations seriously.
A Pagano
[this is part 2 of a reply to Acker]
[The crux of this discussion is that modern secular theorists presuppose
far more than the tautologous claim that "material causes can only be
studied by the study of material causes." Modern secular theorists
presuppose that the only "real" causes, the only "true" causes, the only
"existing" causes, are material ones and that EVERY cause is purely
material. This "stronger" claim should be severed by the Acker's
demarcation criteria of testability, but it is not.]
Pagano previously wrote:
Supernaturalism of the Christian Faith "is" excluded when > Naturalism
is presupposed. Why is this so? Naturalism says that nature is a
"permanently" closed system of material causes and effects that can
"never" be influenced by anything outside of itself---by God, for
example. Acker disputes this definition below, but his definition
produces the same result.
Acker asked:
1/12/1999 - What result?
Pagano replies:
The result that God NEVER influenced the material world directly and
that God is, perhaps, imaginary. You disputed that your defining terms
for Naturalism implied any such thing. Remember you said that,
"Terminology disagreement again. Naturalism proposes that nature can be
explained by a closed set of [purely materialistic] causes and
effects."
First "your" defining terms don't constitute a scientific claim about
scientific phenomenon, but constitute an untestable philosophical
existential claim. Your "set" arbitrarily established with philosophy
NOT naturalistic tools that the only real causes are "natural" ones.
This unequivocally leaves supernatural causes, regardless of whether
they occurred, regardless of whether they are true, regardless of
whether they exist, EXCLUDED and unreal (that is imaginary).
Michael Ruse said in "Darwinism Defended", "Even if scientific
creationism were totally successful in making its case as science, it
would not yield a [purely materialistic] explanation of origins.
Rather, at most, it could prove that science shows that there can be no
[purely materialistic] explanation of origins." I agree with Ruse, but
this possibility is never seriously considered by modern secular
theorists; it is excluded by Naturalism.
***********************************************
Pagano previously wrote:
Also the vast majority of events conjectured to have occurred
(particularly the critical ones) in prehistory were unique, non
recurring, and as a result untestable, even in principle. They are
purely materialistic but no more testable than are the acts of a
supernatural creator.
Acker replied:
1/12/1999 -You assert that such unique events are untestable, but I
disagree. The events produced results which have been observed. By
constructing a model of the natural cause of the observed result, the
model can be tested to determine how closely
it produces a result similar to observation. The model is modified to
bring about results closer to the observation, and in so doing the
models of natural causes can be tested. This cannot be done for
supernatural causes because supernatural causes are not bounded by
natural laws.
Pagano replies:
Let's take the occult force of gravity. The modern secular theorist
doesn't (and can't) expose "gravity," itself, to empirical tests, he
only exposes the empirical consequences of the occult force to tests.
The modern secular theorist cannot directly examine the conjectured
gravitational perturbation itself which purportedly caused a diffuse
scattering of atoms to coalesce into complex stars, he can only model
and, in principle, test for the empirical consequences of this occult
cause.
Likewise I cannot directly examine or test God's direct supernatural
acts, but similarly I can model the empirical consequences of such
acts. If I propose that God initiated a catastrophic world wide flood,
I can't recreate the supernatural cause in the laboratory, but I can
model the empirical consequences and test this model against
observations in the field. The empirical consequences of the creation
science model can be compared to the empirical consequences of the
purely materialistic uniformitarian model.
*****************************************
[snip]
Pagano previously wrote:
THE DOUBLE STANDARD OF SCIENTIFIC SECULAR AUTHORITIES
And while we cannot investigate supernatural causes we can investigate
the empirical consequences of supernatural causes. Likewise we cannot
empirically investigate the claim that Nature is the cause of
everything, but we can investigate the empirical consequences of such an
unscientific claim. Mainstream authorities have taught through its
educational institutions to treat the metaphysical claims of Naturalism
and Supernaturalism by a two different standards. Using the
"testablility" standard Naturalism should also be excluded, but it is
not.
Acker replies:
1/12/1999 - This is a strong assertion. How do you propose to test the
"empirical consequences" of supernatural causes, and in so doing how
will the test indicate the inevitability of supernatural causation for a
particular event?
Pagano responds:
I've asked you and others the same question: How do you empirically
test the philosophy that matter and its properties are both necessary
and sufficient to explain ALL events? So far about the best answer is
the tautologous "every material cause can only be studied by the study
of material causes."
If I propose that a supernatural agent caused a catastrophic world wide
flood then certainly it is obvious that such an event irrespective of
its initiating cause is purely materialistic and implies all sorts of
empirical consequences (e.g. errosional, depostional, rapid catastrophic
burial of living things, etc.) One can model such a purely materialist
event apart from its intiating cause. According to your methodology I
can see how well my model of this purely materialistic event agrees with
observations. One may also compare how well the flood model of
materialistic events compares with the purely naturalistic
uniformitarian model of materialistic events.
Creation scientists never claimed that its model of empirical
consequences entailed the inevitability of a supernatural creative
acts. Supernaturalism guides and sets limits on what sort of model of
empirical consequences can be developed. This is how presuppositions
are used. They are criticizable, they can be true or false, but they
are rarely if ever testable. Yet you and modern secular theorists, in
general, claim that EVERY material event necessitates a material cause.
This is philosophy not science and according to your demarcation
criteria should be severed.
****************************************
A Pagano
[This is part 3 of a rebuttal to Acker's defense of Naturalism.]
Pagano previously wrote:
The unscientific and arguably false philosophy of Naturalism has been
employed by the scientific community to render the christian faith as
only a comforting superstitious fiction which has little relevance to
the material world. This violates the Nicene Creed. The National
Academy of Sciences (see "Teaching about Evolution and the Nature of
Science") gives the general consensus opinion when they wrote,
"...religious faith and scientific knowledge, which are both useful and
important, are different." The National Academy of Sciences attempted
to solve the problem of the conflict between Naturalism and the
christian faith by suggesting that ALL the propositions of christian
faith are mutually exclusive of ALL the propositions of man's
conjectures. This is nonsense. The christian faith doesn't address
biology but neither does naturalism. However, for christians, our
conjectures about the world should be consistent with the truths of our
faith.
Acker replies:
1/12/1999 -- I fail to see why the axiom of naturalism cannot be used in
the scientific system of investigation called "biology".
Pagano rebuts:
Again Naturalism is not an axiom; it is not self evidently true; and
christians (jews, and moslems) have every reason to believe that it is
false.
And yes Naturalism can be presupposed and its guidance accepted in the
study of living things. However, is it's guidance valid over the range
of problems in origins? Such a claim is not self-evidently true. For
example, the presupposition that time and length are constant regardless
of the frame of reference appeared to be axiomatic, and proved fruitful
over a limited range of problems. However, such a presupposition lead
to false predictions and was superceded by Einstein's new presupposition
of relativity.
The point is that Naturalism's fruitfulness within the scope of
observable recurring events and experimentally repeatable processes is
little indication that it's guidance is valid over the range of problems
in origins during the course of unobserved prehistory. The refutation
of abiogenesis; the failures to explain how complex celestial bodies
formed from a difuse scattering of atoms; the very existance of matter,
space, and time; the failure to explain the detailed process which
produces complexity far superior to man's intelligent design from random
mistakes all argue for Naturalism's falsity and inadequacy.
*******************************************
Acker continues:
Furthermore, I agree with the NAS system. The process of inquiry
called theology address questions of interest in a different manner than
scientific method. Since the process used is different, the results of
such inquiry are likely to be different as well.
Pagano replies:
In order to accept this rhetorical solution to the logical conflict
between a supernatural Creator and Naturalism one must abandon logic,
and an objective absolute theory of truth. The National Academy of
Sciences is able to make such a rhetorical argument because they perhaps
take the stance that the God of the Christian, Jew and Moslem is
man-made and serves the limited purpose of providing solace to the
down-trodden and ignorant masses and guiding their lives. If this is
how they arrive at their "solution" then they are profoundly mistaken.
Naturalism is a universal proposition. Naturalism provides the
unequivocal guidance that EVERY material event has a purely material
cause. The intrusion of a supernatural Creator is neither necessary nor
required. In direct opposition to this the Christian, Jewish, and
Moslem Faiths which say uneqivocally that God is the Creator of the
material world and everything in it. In order to argue that these are
mutally exclusive one must abandon both logic and truth. Wouldn't you
agree?
**************************************************
Regards,
T Pagano
A Pagano
[This is part 4 of a rebuttal to Acker]
Acker previously wrote:
...The process of inquiry called theology address questions of interest
in a different manner than scientific method. Since the process used
is different, the results of such inquiry are likely to be different as
well.
Pagano replies:
While theology and biology do not study the same topic or employ the
same methodologies they are unified by the theory of truth and the
philosophy of logic. One can take the see-no-evil, hear-no-evil,
attitude of the National Academy of Sciences only at the risk of
abandoning both. True or truthlike propositions of any study which
intersect the propositions of other studies cannot be ignored;
conflicting propositions indicate that one or both are false.
********************************************
Pagano previously wrote:
Of course mainstream secular authorities deliberately presuppose the
metaphysical unscientific philosophy of Naturalism. Making such a
presupposition is not a crime and it has been fruitful. However, the
christian faith offers absolute objective truths which contradict and
argue for the falsity of Naturalism.
Acker replied:
1/12/1999 -- Surprisingly we agree here. The Christian faith indicates
that naturalism -- meaning that everything is explainable as purely a
result of natural cause -- is not true. However, I still argue from my
perspective as a Christian and a scientist that the axiom of naturalism
is still properly employed in scientific inquiry, and by doing so the
results obtained by the inquiry are correctly termed "scientific"
results.
Pagano responds:
I'm almost speechless; this is honesty which I have not seen in this
newsgroup in 36 months.
Science is more than applied naturalism. Since the aim of Science is
the pursuit of true explanations, the idea that the ONLY way that any
sort of scientific inquiry can proceed is to assume that there was and
is no supernatural intervention is weak at best. If you accept the truth
of the eyewitness observational reports of even a single supernatural
event from the new testament, then you already know that naturalism is
false.
It is simply false to assert that scientists explain all events by using
natural laws. Scientists also explain by citing causal entities,
processes, events, or actions. For example, cosmologists explain
certain aspects of the universe not only by using natural laws, but by
also citing the big bang as a single causal event. Some branches of
science like SETI, archeology, forensic science, psychology use personal
agency and various internal states of agents as part of their
description of causal entities, processes, events or actions. And
lastly scientists postulate ultimates or brute givens viewed as causal
entities, processes, events, or actions and for which no naturalistic
mechanism or how-question is even possible.
Regards,
T Pagano
A Pagano
[This is part 5 of a reply to Acker]
Pagano previously wrote:
To disguise the unscientific, untestable, and metaphysical character of
Naturalism modern authorities have asserted "a priori" that matter and
its properties are both necessary and sufficient to explain every
observation. But how does Acker or the modern scientific authorities
empirically test this claim? What repeatable laboratory experiments
demonstrate that matter and its properties are alone necessary and
sufficient to explain all events? There are no such empirical tests;
this claim is not scientific, but many, like Acker, have been led to
believe that it is.
Acker replies:
1/12/1999 - Once again, the claim/presupposition/axiom is not tested --
it is used. The "empirical test" that you desire is in the usage.
Pagano responds:
This is inconsistent. You applied empirical testablility to eliminate
the presupposition of supernaturalism yet you claim that "mere usage"
causes unscientific naturalism to "pass" this same test. Pleeeeze...
*********************************
Acker continues:
If events emerge that cannot be explained by "matter and its
properties", they are quite obvious.
Pagano replies:
I seriously doubt this. In order for it to be obvious---that is for one
to be completely certain---one would have to either be omnipotent or
have access to an oracle.
But this is not really a logical possibility since modern secular
theorists accept the truth of Naturalism.
***************************************************
Acker continued:
And they exist now -- gamma-ray bursts, for example, do not yet have an
agreed-upon mechanism that conforms to the known properties of matter
and energy and their interaction. Would you assert a supernatural
cause for gamma-ray bursts? If not, why not?
Pagano replies:
It is fallacious to argue that because creation scientists dispute the
verisimilitude of abiogenesis, and the creative powers of neoDarwinism
that they therefore dispute EVERY theory and presuppose that God is
direct agent for EVERY observation. This is the fallacious and false
argument which is routinely used to villify and marginalize the men not
their arguments. I don't think the existence of gamma rays has ever
been an issue.
Where have you been getting this nonsense?
************************************
Pagano previously wrote:
Then let us test this. Faithful christians believe that Jesus was born
to a woman who was a virgin, Jesus changed water into wine at a wedding,
He fed thousands with a few loaves of bread and fish, He cured those
with congenital illnesses, He brought the dead back to life, and He rose
from the dead, to name only a few. These were all actual events in our
material world which were observed by many and recorded. If so Acker
must be able to explain these events with purely naturalistic causes;
can he? If Naturalism fails here it may fail to be fruitful for other
inquiries.
Acker replied:
1/12/1999 - What is surprising about the miracles and events described
above is that scientific creationists do not attempt to address them in
the same manner in which they address the events of creation and the
Noachian Flood. If the latter events are miraculous and supernatural
manifestations of God, why do creationists attempt to explain them with
mundane "natural" causes?
Pagano replies:
First, the recorded observational reports of supernatural events found
in the new testament falsify naturalism. As a christian you must deal
with that. Next, that Mary conceived by the Holy Spirit has no further
empirical consequences for study. That water was changed into wine has
no further empirical consequences. Surely this is obvious.
However, a world wide catastrophic flood has all sorts of empirical
consequences that are left completely unanswered by Genesis. There
should be erosional, depositional, catastrophic burial events, and other
possible catastrophic geologic events which were precipitated by such an
event. Remember the modern secular theories propose that the
stratigraphic layers were largely produced from calm global-like
flooding over eons. The differences between the two theories are not
dramatic enough to characterize the creation science conjectures as
mundane.
****************************************
Acker continues:
As a Christian, I do NOT attempt to explain miracles with natural causes
UNLESS a natural mechanism employed by God is indicated, such as the
wind which blew for 12 hours prior to the Red Sea crossing. To attempt
to explain miracles with natural cause does two things: it negates the
symbolic meaning of the miracle and it cheapens it by denying that a
supernatural cause was necessary! (As an aside, this is why I
frequently don't understand why Scientific Creationists do what they
do.)
Pagano replies:
Creation scientists don't attempt to explain the miracle---that is the
supernatural action---with natural causes. Where in heaven would you
get such a notion? They attempt to determine and explain the empirical
consequences of such supernatural action.
The parting of the Red Sea is a supernatural event which again falsifies
Naturalism, but it is not an event with empirical consequences of a
magnitude that would be of interest or left any trace.
**********************************************
Pagano previously wrote:
Can Acker provide the relationship between "best" explanation and the
objectively "true" explanation? I couldn't care less what Acker claims
is "best." Best relative to what? I want to know what he claims is
objectively true.
Acker replied:
1/12/1999 -- I think my above response addresses what you're asking for
here. Because science has garnered a public perception as the "Supreme
Court" of inquiry, Scientific Creationists debase the miraculous and
symbolic nature of Scripture in an attempt to explain things "by
science". The added fact that they are frequently in flagrant error
makes things even worse.
Pagano responds:
Acker has evaded answering.
Scientists have garnered their position in American society from the
argument of authority not because they have consistently produced true
conjectures about our prehistory. We have a population who barely read
and have been instructed by a system more interested in their self
esteem than their ability to think for themselves.
These scientists can get very far by excluding the truth that God is the
Creator. They can get very far indeed, because science judges its
theories by relative rather than absolute standards, and so the "best"
naturalistic theory currently available can retain the status of
"scientific knowledge" even if it is at odds with a great deal of
evidence.
Acker argues that Creation scientists debase miracles because they
explain miraculous action with naturalistic explanation. His conclusion
is false because his premise is false. Creation scientists accept the
supernatural action as true and unexplanable, however, they do not take
such miracles as solely symbolic as the secular NAS would have us do.
If God caused a world wide catastrophic flood then such miraculous
action will have empirical consequences that can be tested for.
If creation scientists are in error then that makes them part of the
human race. But as christians they have not subjugated the truth that
God is Creator to a false humanly produced philosophy of Naturalism.
Regards,
T Pagano
Pim van Meurs
> If creation scientists are in error then that makes them part of the
> human race. But as christians they have not subjugated the truth that
> God is Creator to a false humanly produced philosophy of Naturalism.
>
ROTFL, you have already established what is the truth. How can you even
pretend that this still is science.
David Johnston
>
> [This is part 3 of a rebuttal to Acker's defense of Naturalism.]
>
> Pagano previously wrote:
> The unscientific and arguably false philosophy of Naturalism has been
> employed by the scientific community to render the christian faith as
> only a comforting superstitious fiction which has little relevance to
> the material world. This violates the Nicene Creed. The National
> Academy of Sciences (see "Teaching about Evolution and the Nature of
> Science") gives the general consensus opinion when they wrote,
> "...religious faith and scientific knowledge, which are both useful and
> important, are different." The National Academy of Sciences attempted
> to solve the problem of the conflict between Naturalism and the
> christian faith by suggesting that ALL the propositions of christian
> faith are mutually exclusive of ALL the propositions of man's
> conjectures. This is nonsense. The christian faith doesn't address
> biology but neither does naturalism. However, for christians, our
> conjectures about the world should be consistent with the truths of our
> faith.
>
> 1/12/1999 -- I fail to see why the axiom of naturalism cannot be used in
> the scientific system of investigation called "biology".
>
> Again Naturalism is not an axiom; it is not self evidently true; and
What is self-evidently true is that anything that is not natural can not
be investigated by scientific means.
> christians (jews, and moslems) have every reason to believe that it is
> false.
>
> And yes Naturalism can be presupposed and its guidance accepted in the
> study of living things. However, is it's guidance valid over the range
> of problems in origins? Such a claim is not self-evidently true. For
> example, the presupposition that time and length are constant regardless
> of the frame of reference appeared to be axiomatic, and proved fruitful
> over a limited range of problems. However, such a presupposition lead
> to false predictions and was superceded by Einstein's new presupposition
> of relativity.
>
> The point is that Naturalism's fruitfulness within the scope of
> observable recurring events and experimentally repeatable processes is
> little indication that it's guidance is valid over the range of problems
> in origins during the course of unobserved prehistory. The refutation
> of abiogenesis; the failures to explain how complex celestial bodies
Abiogenesis has not been refuted.
> formed from a difuse scattering of atoms; the very existance of matter,
> space, and time; the failure to explain the detailed process which
> produces complexity far superior to man's intelligent design from random
> mistakes all argue for Naturalism's falsity and inadequacy.
No they do not. Do you think that because there are unanswered questions
that Deism is false and invalid?
Thomas Paine
>Naturalism is a universal proposition.
Prove it has any connection to science!
You can run, but you cannot hide!
Fool.
Andrew MacRae
writes:
|
|
|
|[This is part 3 of a rebuttal to Acker's defense of Naturalism.]
|
|
|
|Pagano previously wrote:
|The unscientific and arguably false philosophy of Naturalism has been
|employed by the scientific community to render the christian faith as
|only a comforting superstitious fiction which has little relevance to
|the material world.
When did that happen? Last I checked, Christianity is thriving,
although it is only one of several faiths. Are you suggesting that it is
vulnerable to something derived from science?
|This violates the Nicene Creed. The National
|Academy of Sciences (see "Teaching about Evolution and the Nature of
|Science") gives the general consensus opinion when they wrote,
|"...religious faith and scientific knowledge, which are both useful and
|important, are different."
Yes.
|The National Academy of Sciences attempted
|to solve the problem of the conflict between Naturalism and the
|christian faith by suggesting that ALL the propositions of christian
|faith are mutually exclusive of ALL the propositions of man's
|conjectures. This is nonsense.
I agree. Your interpreation of what most scientists think about
religion and science and about what the NAS statement means is utter
nonsense. You are setting up ridiculous straw men and knocking them down.
All the propositions of christian faith are mutually exclusive of all the
propositions of man's conjectures? Oh please. How on Earth do you get
this stuff?
Perhaps that is true of *your* propositions of the Christian
faith, but those don't necessarily parallel *all* of the propositions of
other people, and perhaps your significant misunderstanding of man's
conjectures about prehistory (judging by your poor list of
"contradictions") is also a factor.
|The christian faith doesn't address
|biology but neither does naturalism.
Sure it does, but they are different perspectives and address
issues in different ways. All the statement says is that they are
different, not that they are completely non-overlapping in terms of what
they consider. How much, or if they do, is basically a matter of personal
interpretation. They potentially overlap a great deal, but this still
does not preclude two explanations -- one spiritual, one scientific --
that aren't mutually exclusive.
|However, for christians, our
|conjectures about the world should be consistent with the truths of our
|faith.
Yes. But which "truths of our faith"? For some Christians, there
is nothing inconsistent between the findings of science and their
religion. Your mileage may vary. That is a personal challenge for you,
not a reason to subject scientists, both religions and non-religious, to
your theological conundrums and hold them to your particular
interpretation of what science is about.
| Acker replies:
|1/12/1999 -- I fail to see why the axiom of naturalism cannot be used in
|the scientific system of investigation called "biology".
|
|
| Pagano rebuts:
|Again Naturalism is not an axiom; it is not self evidently true; and
|christians (jews, and moslems) have every reason to believe that it is
|false.
Is that it? Just true of false? Is there no possibility that
naturalism could apply most of the time, with the occasional, exceptional
miracle? Or that what we perceive as natural processes could actually be
the ever-present miracle of existence? I think you have narrowed the
field vastly to a simple, mutually-exclusive "naturalism applies to
everything at all times", or not at all, proposition. I invite you to
demonstrate that your simple dichotomy is applicable to the real world.
Are you saying that naturalism can not be applied or is never applicable?
If you are not saying that, then the methodology employed by science
clearly has some scope.
|And yes Naturalism can be presupposed and its guidance accepted in the
|study of living things. However, is it's guidance valid over the range
|of problems in origins? Such a claim is not self-evidently true.
And if it is not, so what? How does that change what constitutes
science? If all you are saying is that science has limited scope and does
not apply to everything, then you are saying the same thing that
scientists and many others have said for centuries, and, in fact, the same
thing as the NAS statement: they are different modes of study and have
different scopes of applicabilty.
|For
|example, the presupposition that time and length are constant regardless
|of the frame of reference appeared to be axiomatic, and proved fruitful
|over a limited range of problems. However, such a presupposition lead
|to false predictions and was superceded by Einstein's new presupposition
|of relativity.
Yes. In other words, it was testable -- just like the current
presumptions made about physical laws in all aspects of science and the
various problems it studies. Does that mean that these physical
presumptions are absolutely correct and applicable in any and all
circumstances? No. All that matters from a scientific standpoint is that
they are constantly and skeptically tested for validity, so that if
discrepancies like those that led to Einstein's relativity turn up, new
theories can be hypothesized and tested.
|The point is that Naturalism's fruitfulness within the scope of
|observable recurring events and experimentally repeatable processes is
|little indication that it's guidance is valid over the range of problems
|in origins during the course of unobserved prehistory.
Yes it does, because the same fruitfulness exists for
consideration of the range of problems in origins during the course of
unobserved prehistory. What are you trying to say here, Pagano? That
scientific methodology is fine in the present but is inapplicable and
prohibited from consideration of "unobserved prehistory"? Does scientific
investigation just cease and become invalid before a few thousand years
ago?
I can't see how, say, the current understanding of physics or
chemistry is any closer to the absolute truth than biology or geology with
respect to origins. Contrary to your implications, there is no
philosophical difference in the methodology, only practical issues, and
those same practical issues exist for non-human-reproducable and
unobserved events that occur all the time and in the recent, historical
past.
Can we reproduce a 1-kilometre asteriod impact with the Earth?
Does that mean we can't study the physical effects or model them with our
understanding of current physics? As near as I can tell, the dependency
you place on "unobserved prehistory" versus, presumably, observed history
is your sole means to distinguish between what you apparently will accept
as a valid scientific methodology, and what you will not. Is that
correct? If so, then it is a subtle and dubious distinction, in my
opinion, because I can't see how an unreproducable, unwitnessed event that
occurred in the distant past is any different from an unreproducable,
unwitnessed event that happened last week, as far as a *scientific*
investigation goes. The scientific method is the same.
How do we know the physical laws we are familiar with were not
temporarily and locally suspended while a particular event occurred last
week? Even if we were there to witness it, we might not perceive that
such a thing had happened. As a Christian, I presume that you do believe
that these temporary suspensions of what we perceive of consistent
physical laws can and do occur right now. So how is the science of the
present day any less prone to the same sorts of philosophical questions
about the applicablity of naturalism that the science about the distant
past is apparently subject to?
|The refutation
|of abiogenesis; the failures to explain how complex celestial bodies
|formed from a difuse scattering of atoms; the very existance of matter,
|space, and time; the failure to explain the detailed process which
|produces complexity far superior to man's intelligent design from random
|mistakes all argue for Naturalism's falsity and inadequacy.
What circular reasoning. Perhaps it is instead a good argument
for the limited understanding of the universe that humans have yet
attained in scientific matters? What you perceive as "failures" and
"refutations" are only interesting questions, and that is what science
thrives on, and what makes life interesting.
It would be most entertaining to see what your philosophical
deductions would have resulted in a few centuries ago. I suspect you
would have been talking about the many failures to explain the orbits of
the planets.
|*******************************************
|
|Acker continues:
|Furthermore, I agree with the NAS system. The process of inquiry
|called theology address questions of interest in a different manner than
|scientific method. Since the process used is different, the results of
|such inquiry are likely to be different as well.
|
| Pagano replies:
|In order to accept this rhetorical solution to the logical conflict
|between a supernatural Creator and Naturalism one must abandon logic,
|and an objective absolute theory of truth. The National Academy of
|Sciences is able to make such a rhetorical argument because they perhaps
|take the stance that the God of the Christian, Jew and Moslem is
|man-made and serves the limited purpose of providing solace to the
|down-trodden and ignorant masses and guiding their lives. If this is
|how they arrive at their "solution" then they are profoundly mistaken.
Yeah, if. But if not, as seems very likely, then what is your
point?
|Naturalism is a universal proposition.
Why? Why must it be? Is that how all scientists actually use it?
|Naturalism provides the
|unequivocal guidance that EVERY material event has a purely material
|cause.
Yes, it can, but people don't have to personally believe it is
that widely applicable. It isn't either "it applies to everything" or "it
applies to nothing," and even if it did apply to nothing, it has been a
fruitful exercise to apply it anyway to help understand the universe.
Generations of scientists who happen to be religious, and not, have done
so. Nothing says that an explanation derived by naturalistic means *must*
be the right answer, but guess what? Coming up with a naturalistic
explanation does not require that to be true before trying.
|The intrusion of a supernatural Creator is neither necessary nor
|required.
But not excluded either, and people may personally believe that a
supernatural Creator is necessary. That doesn't change what constitutes a
scientific explanation.
|In direct opposition to this the Christian, Jewish, and
|Moslem Faiths which say uneqivocally that God is the Creator of the
|material world and everything in it. In order to argue that these are
|mutally exclusive one must abandon both logic and truth. Wouldn't you
|agree?
No, because, empirically, many people don't find them mutually
exclusive. I refuse to accept your implication that such people have
abandoned both logic and truth. That you do find these issues mutually
exclusive is a personal challege to you, and not something that scientists
need concern themselves with unless you can come up with some valid
scientific rationale for your claims, something you have yet to do despite
feeble attempts at collecting "contradictions". Likewise, scientists are
not bound to adopt the philosophy that you foist upon them in order for
you to construct your peculiar philosophical arguments. Some people don't
see the conflict between science and religion that you do. If you think
they deny truth and their faith by doing so, then you have a theological
argument with them, not a scientific one.
-Andrew
mac...@agc.bio._NOSPAM_.ns.ca
A Pagano
[this is part 6 of a reply to Acker]
Pagano previously asked:
What argument of scientific creationism is fallacious?
Acker replied:
/12/1999 - I did not say that an argument of Scientific Creationism is
fallacious, I said that Scientific Creationism is fallacious. The
reason is that scientific creationists employ scientific method
incorrectly, such that their supposed "results" do
not stand up to scientific scrutiny.
Pagano responds:
Which "scientific method" might that be? I seriously doubt Acker will
be able to identify a lone scientific method. And even if there was a
single "scientific" method and if the creation scientist employed it
incorrectly that would not lead directly to the conclusion that it was
fallacious. This is a non sequitor.
What Acker and others mean when they say, "their supposed "results" do
not stand up to scientific scrutiny," is that creation science results
contradict purely naturalistic results. What this further means is that
one or both of them is wrong.
Acker will have to add a few more premises to establish fallaciousness
and to establish the claim "doesn't stand up to scutiny."
*********************************************
Pagano previously wrote:
...Adherents of scientific creationism don't attempt to provide "mock"
scientific explanations, but attempt to determine the empirical
implications of supernatural action and test for those implications.
Qualitatively this is little different from modern secular theorists.
They presuppose that Nature did it all, attempt to determine the
empirical implications of that presupposition, and test for them. They
never test for nor can they test the presupposition that Nature did it
all...
Acker replied:
1/12/1999 -- I'm going to concentrate on the middle paragraph above,
because that's precisely what scientific creationists do not do. They
do not test the empirical implications of supernatural action in a
scientific manner -- thus, their conclusions have no scientific
validity. Yet the creationists continue to assert that their
conclusions have EQUAL scientific validity with the results of
correctly-performed scientific inquiry. That, to use your word, is
nonsense.
Pagano replies:
Here's an argument that doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Modern secular
theorists don't exclude (1) supernatural causal acts or (2) the
empirical implications of supernatural action because of "scutiny,"
"invalidity," or "falsity." They exclude it because their
presupposition of naturalism excludes such a logical possibility.
Surely this is obvious. And let's keep focused on the type of problems
of particular interest; that is discovering the non recurring events of
prehistory.
Modern secular theorists often explain by citing UNEXPLAINED causal
entities, processes, events, or actions. Modern secular theorists
postulate these ultimates or brute givens viewed as causal entities,
processes, events, or actions for which no mechanism or how-question is
even possible. For example modern secular cosmologists explain aspects
of the universe by citing the "big bang" as a single causal event. They
don't explain it; it is assumed as a logical possibility and they
determine the EMPIRICAL CONSEQUENCES of such an UNEXPLAINED act.
Therefore if citing an unexplained causal event, like a supernatural
act, causes the determination and testing of logically possible
EMPIRICAL consequences invalid then all of your science should be
characterized as invalid. The very existance of matter is unexplained
but we can determine empirical consequences. The big bang is
unexplained but we can determine empirical consequences. Some
self-replicating molecule is unexplained but we can determine the
empirical consequences. The claim that the lack of explanation merely
represents deficiencies in our knowledge could equally apply to
supernatural acts.
Your argument is logically inconsistent. You apply a standard to
creation science conjectures which you do not apply to your own.
Naturalism doesn't even imply such a double standard. Naturalism simply
says that the only real causes, the only existing causes, the only
necessary causes in the ENTIRE history of the material world are purely
materialistic. You won't harmonize your religious faith with this so
easily. The truths of one or the other must be abandoned or
subjugated. Isn't this so?
*******************************************
[more to follow if time permits]
Regards,
T Pagano
A Pagano
[This is part 7 of a reply to Acker]
Pagano previously wrote:
This is essentially the line of reasoning used by the National Academy
of Sciences. They suggest that ALL the propositions of the christian
faith are mutually exclusive of all the propositions of the man's
conjectures. The argument goes something like this: The bible says
nothing specifically about biology, chemistry, etc. therefore the
christian faith and its propositions never intersect with those of man's
conjectures. BUT THIS IS FALSE. And further the presupposition that
"Nature did it all" says nothing specifically about biology, chemistry,
etc.. The bible and the christian faith are intimately involved with
material creation. The christian faith is more than some philosophy of
life like Budhism. As a result the attempt of Acker and the National
Academy of Sciences to place these propositions in two non intersecting
sets fails. Another problem with such an attempt is that it requires a
subjective theory of truth. Acker must argue that the propositions of
man's conjectures don't have to be logically consistent with true
propositions of the christian faith which address the material
creation. This is only sustainable if truth is neither absolute or
objective. Such a theory of truth is also antithetical to the
Chrisitian Faith.
Acker replied:
1/12/1999 - I will admit right here that what is written above is a
little hard to follow. So I will respond for myself: my Christian
faith includes the true propositions of the faith when I contemplate the
material creation as a Christian. When I investigate the natural world
as a scientist, despite whatever my faith tells me about the "true"
cause of a given observation, I must investigate the observation using
the axiom of natural causation because that is the only way to derive a
scientifically useful result.
Pagano responds:
Then you have abandoned truth and logic. You say you accept the
objective absolute truth that God is the Creator of everything.
Certainly this is what the Nicene Creed teaches. You also accept as
objectively and absolutely true (you say Naturalism is an axiom) that
matter and its properties are alone necessary and sufficient to explain
ALL of creation in space time.
It should be obvious that these are contradictory propositions. It
would seem that even a subjective theory of truth would not permit two
conflicting propositions to be held as true at the same time. How do
you deal with this?
Remember supernaturalism does not exclude matter and its properties.
For this reason it is doubtful if the inclusion of specific and limited
supernatural causal acts (similar in character to the big bang) would
change much of what we know from any of the natural sciences.
A Pagano
[This is part 8 of a reply to Acker]
Pagano previously wrote:
Actually Dawkins and Dennett (and possibly Gould) have had the
intellectually honesty to openly deny the necessity of supernatural
action. Modern secular theorists say unequivocally that they carry out
their investigations as if no supernatural action ever intruded into our
closed material universe and that matter and its properties are both
necessary and sufficient to explain all events. This is clearly a
denial that a supernatural creator acted in any way.
Acker replied:
1/12/1999 - The viewpoint results from the fact that the men above are
not Christians. You are invited to contrast their views with those of
Dr. Owen Gingerich, a noted astronomer.
Pagano responds:
You're wrong. The presupposition of Naturalism says that the only real
causes, the only existing causes, the only necessary causes for ALL the
events in space-time are purely material. Dawkins, Dennett, and Gould
are simply the few men who have had the intellectual honesty to say out
loud that this denies the existence of supernatural action. You on the
other hand attempt to hold two conflicting propositions as true at the
same time. They out of consistency do not.
Sorry never read anything by Gingerich.
****************************************
Acker continues:
But regarding the "denial that a supernatural creator acted in any
way": obviously I disagree.
Pagano responds:
By accepting Naturalism as axiomatic you conduct your discovery process
as if God the Creator never acted directly in His world. You have said
so repeatedly.
I have already disabused you of the notion that Creation scientists
suggest, imply or postulate that the Creator is DIRECTLY responsible for
every event. This is completely FALSE. They propose very specific
limited direct acts which leave an infinite amount of events to have
occurred secondarily and directly by His matter. If the supernatural
acts in the new testament are real and they occurred then the
possibility that God acted directly elsewhere is a real and logical
possibility; a possibility which you deny with your acceptance of
Naturalism.
***********************************************
Acker continues:
Science attempts to discover the minimum set of necessary conditions
required to bring about a given observation.
Pagano replies:
This is the attempt of "applied naturalism" not science. The aim of
science is to discover the truth about our world and to provide
solutions to our problems. The idea that there exists a "minimum set of
necessary conditions required to bring about a given observation" is
philosophy not science. Our education system K thru graduate have so
long taught that science is applied naturalism that you cannot see this.
*************************************
Acker continues:
Before relativity and Michelson-Morley, a "luminiferous ether" was
considered necessary for the propagation of electromagnetic energy
through a vacuum. First the ether was shown not to exist; and then it
was shown not to be necessary.
Pagano replies:
This is not proof of the unscientific untestable existential philosophy
that there EXISTS a purely materialistic cause for EVERY event in space
time. This is philosophy not science and as a christian you hold truths
which argue for this philosophy's falsity.
********************************************
Acker continues:
With regards to a supernatural creator, science cannot provide a way to
test for the existence of same, so it operates on the axiom that a
supernatural creator is not necessary to explain observations in the
"closed material universe". So far, the axiom has worked well for
science.
Pagano replies:
Applied naturalism can't provide a way to test for the existence, for
example, of the assumed causal event of the big bang. It is assumed as
a brute given and the empirical consequences determined and tested for.
The difference is that the philosophy of naturalism doesn't exclude big
bang as a logical possibility.
There is no methodological difference between assuming a "material
unexplained given" and assuming a "supernatural unexplained given." The
causal events in BOTH situations are left completely unexplained, but
the empirical consequences of BOTH types of unexplained causes CAN BE
determined and EMPIRICALLY tested for. The "real" difference is that
naturalism excludes a supernatural causal event as logically possible.
But this is a philosophical decision not a scientific one. And as a
christian you have truths which show this philosophical decision to be
false. Don't you?
****************************************
Thomas Paine
>
>
>
>[This is part 8 of a reply to Acker]
>
>
>Pagano previously wrote:
>intellectually honesty to openly deny the necessity of supernatural
>action. Modern secular theorists say unequivocally that they carry out
>their investigations as if no supernatural action ever intruded
Where's your evidence?
into our
>closed material universe and that matter and its properties are both
>necessary and sufficient to explain all events. This is clearly a
>denial that a supernatural creator acted in any way.
>
>
> Acker replied:
>1/12/1999 - The viewpoint results from the fact that the men above are
>not Christians. You are invited to contrast their views with those of
>Dr. Owen Gingerich, a noted astronomer.
>
>
>
> Pagano responds:
>You're wrong. The presupposition of Naturalism says that the only real
>causes, the only existing causes, the only necessary causes for ALL the
>events in space-time are purely material. Dawkins, Dennett, and Gould
>are simply the few men who have had the intellectual honesty to say out
>loud that this denies the existence of supernatural action. You on the
>other hand attempt to hold two conflicting propositions as true at the
>same time. They out of consistency do not.
Where's your evidence?
>
>Sorry never read anything by Gingerich.
>****************************************
>
>
>
>
>Acker continues:
>But regarding the "denial that a supernatural creator acted in any
>way": obviously I disagree.
>
>
> Pagano responds:
>By accepting Naturalism as axiomatic you conduct your discovery process
>as if God the Creator never acted directly in His world. You have said
>so repeatedly.
>
>I have already disabused you of the notion that Creation scientists
>suggest, imply or postulate that the Creator is DIRECTLY responsible for
>every event. This is completely FALSE.
Another lie!
Hence the use and need for the "pledge to the bible" at ICR!
They propose very specific
>limited direct acts which leave an infinite amount of events to have
>occurred secondarily and directly by His matter. If the supernatural
>acts in the new testament are real and they occurred then the
>possibility that God acted directly elsewhere is a real and logical
>possibility; a possibility which you deny with your acceptance of
>Naturalism.
>***********************************************
>
>
>
>
>Acker continues:
>Science attempts to discover the minimum set of necessary conditions
>required to bring about a given observation.
>
>
> Pagano replies:
>This is the attempt of "applied naturalism" not science. The aim of
>science is to discover the truth about our world and to provide
>solutions to our problems. The idea that there exists a "minimum set of
>necessary conditions required to bring about a given observation" is
>philosophy not science. Our education system K thru graduate have so
>long taught that science is applied naturalism that you cannot see this.
Where's your evidence?
>[more to follow if time permits]
>
>
Same crap, sans evidence, as always.
Thomas Paine
Is it just me, or does it seem like pagano is babbling more that usual?
I guess getting nailed, and the psychotic embarrassment of running away yelling
lies like "got you last" is taking its toll.
Face it pagano, you have further exposed yourself as a liar, a coward,
psychotic and delusion.
Of course, your frail ego responds by claiming victory, and that I folded.
In your dilusional state, you could do nothing else.
Just remember, the exposure of you as a liar and egomaniacal fraud was mostly
your own doing.
All I did was ask for evidence from you to support claims you made.
Your warped mindset did the rest.
A Pagano
The subject says it all.
Boikat
>
> The subject says it all.
It's your argument that failed, Pagano, not "the
person". Do you understand?
(I doubt Pangy will understand, but what the
hell.)
Boikat
A Pagano
[This is the final part of a reply to Acker]
Pagano previously wrote:
If we do assume that a supernatural creator acted in and on our material
universe the scientific method CAN determine and test for the EMPIRICAL
IMPLICATIONS of that supernatural action. The scientific method cannot
investigate the modern secular claim that "Nature is necessary and
sufficient for all events in our universe," but it can determine and
test for the EMPIRICAL IMPLICATIONS of this claim.
Acker replied:
1/12/1999 - How do you propose to use the scientific method to test the
empirical implications of supernatural action? Likewise for the
empirical implications of the "nature is necessary and sufficient"
claim?
Pagano responds:
Surely this is obvious for both. If I propose that a supernatural act
intiated a world wide catastrophic flood then such a flood event implies
all sorts of erosional, depositional and other subsequent materialistic
events which in principle can be tested for.
Likewise if modern secular theorists assume that some unexplained cosmic
egg existed and assume some completely unexplained causal "big bang
event" occurred then such events will imply the possibility of all sorts
of subsequent material events. These SUBSEQUENT material events can be
guessed at and in principle tested for.
*******************************************
Pagano previously wrote:
...But again the question for Acker is: "what empirical tests does he
conduct which tests the validity of Naturalism?" He should realize that
Naturalism is an unscientific untestable claim "about" Science not a
claim "of" Science. And even apart from the Christian Faith there are
arguments for its falsity.
Acker replied:
1/12/1999 - Thrice repeated, once heard is enough. The validity of
naturalism is only tested by its use as an axiom of scientific
investigation. If a result is found that conflicts with the axiom,
then the axiom is falsified.
Pagano responds:
Thrice repeated and each time fails the test of logic. It should be
noted that none of the laws of nature are inconsistent with the
christian faith nor does supernaturalism exclude such laws. Naturalism
is not a natural law and it is clearly inconsistent with the christian
faith. This should imply something to you.
You claimed that the test of scientific acceptability was empirical
testability. Naturalism fails this test. Naturalism is empirically
untestable; its philosophy not a scientific law or even law-like. This
double standard doesn't seem to occur to you or dawn on you.
How can scientists ever find a conjecture to conflict with naturalism if
naturalism is the standard by which modern secular theorists judge every
conjecture. Inconsistent conjectures are eliminated at the start.
Naturalism conflicts with the observational reports of supernatural
events of the new and old testament. This inconsistency should be real
for you.
Naturalism offers no guidance for the existence of matter; it offers
poor guidance for the appearance of life, for the appearance of design,
and for the appearance of complexity. Applied naturalism has no good
answers for any of these problems. Appeals to ignorance only go so far.
*************************************
Acker continued:
Returning to my analogy with Euclidean geometry, the parallel lines
axiom provides a self-consistent geometrical system. However, if the
axiom is different (as for Lobachevsky) a different self-consistent
geometrical system results.
Pagano replies:
Naturalism is not an axiom nor have I ever heard it referred to as such
by anyone but you. And as a christian you have every reason to believe
that it is false.
*************************************
Acker continued:
The axiom of naturalism is self-consistent with the results of
scientific investigation into the natural world I.e., naturalism is
consistent with natural cause.
Pagano replies:
It's only "consistent" because within modern science it is the standard
by which everything is judged. Every notion, suggestion, concept,
conjecture, and observation must be consistent with it or it is
rejected. There's nothing earth shattering or particularly enlightening
about this sort of consistency. It is consistency by convention.
Wouldn't you agree?
*************************************
Acker continued:
If a different axiom is used, then the results are for a different
system, which can be one in which supernatural cause is included.
However, this system will not be consistent with the results of inquiry
obtained using scientific method.
Pagano replies:
This is the rhetorical argument that has been told repeatedly by the NAS
and the modern secular scientific authorities with something to lose
both professionally and intellectually.
Some of the results will be different but by no means will all the
results be different. Supernaturalism does not exclude matter or its
properties; it does not exclude any of the natural laws, and is
consistent with all of them. Supernaturalism would reject some
conjectures as not logically possible, just as naturalism does, but the
vast majority of conjectures and methodologies would be unchanged.
*****************************************
Pagano previously wrote:
In effect what Acker says is: Supernatural action may indeed be true
but because modern secular theorists have chosen the unscientific
empirically untestable philosophy of Naturalism such action is
excluded. This is not a scientific decision but a purely philosophical
one. It should be added that supernaturalism does not exclude matter or
its properties, and it implies that matter and its properties are NOT
sufficient to explain all events.
Acker replied:
1/12/1999 - If naturalism is an axiom of scientific method, then the
use of the axiom provides boundaries for science. It is therefore not
unscientific, it defines what "scientific" means.
Pagano responds:
Naturalism is an untestable philosophical statement "about" science not
an axiom "of" science. If you believe naturalism is an axiom "of"
science then this places you outside any philosophy of science currently
in existence. If Naturalism is an axiom "of" science then it must be
empirically testable and refutable. What empirical test would you
conduct which could test the conjecture that there exists a purely
materialistic cause for every event in space time? The answer is:
absolutely none. You are refuted.
Accept naturalism if you chose, just don't delude yourself into
believing it is anything but philosophy which your christian faith
argues to be profoundly false.
*********************************************
Pagano previously wrote:
What Acker fails to realize is that he can't empirically test the
presupposition that "Nature did it" any better than I can test the
presupposition that "God did it." But we both can determine and test
the empirical implications of such presuppositions.
Acker replied:
1/12/1999 - I really want to know how this is proposed to be done.
You've asserted that it can be done several times.
Pagano responds:
Already asked and answered. If modern secular theorists propose "nature
did it" as with some unexplained causal event like big bang there will
be implied logically possible empirical consequences of such an
unexplained cause. In this case they conjecture that this unexplained
big bang will produce a diffuse scattering of atoms, radiation
signature, etc. Cannot these empirical consequences be tested for in
priniciple?
If I propose an unexplained supernatural causal event which produces a
world wide short term catastrophic flood there is logically implied
possible errosional, depositional and other subsequent purely material
events. The logically possible purely material consequences of this
unexplained causal events can be tested for, can't they?
************************************
Pagano previously wrote:
An important question for Acker is: What reasons are there for chosing
unscientific untestable Naturalism over unscientific untestable
Supernaturalism?
Acker replied:
1/12/1999 - The reason for using naturalism as an axiom of science is
that it produces a self-consistent model of nature in which all
observations are explainable by the closed set of matter, energy, and
the mechanisms by which they interact. Using supernaturalism as an axiom
produces a different model by which what we observe is explained. This
model is not amenable to scientific investigation, whereas the model
constructed using the axiom of naturalism IS amenable to scientific
investigation.
Pagano responds:
Naturalism is not an axiom; it has never been considered self-evidently
true. When it is even mentioned it is never referred to as an axiom.
It is only self consistent because it is the standard by which
everything is judged. Everything which is not consistent with
naturalism is excluded. This makes your claim of self consistency of
little value. Naturalism is falsified by your christian faith. Is this
argument of falsity of more value?
Presupposing supernaturalism changes some conjectures but leaves the
vast majority of scientific knowledge untouched. It does not exclude
matter and its properties and it is consistent with all natural laws.
******************************************
Acker continues:
1/12/1999 - I must agree that naturalism is inseparable from science,
since that's what I've been arguing continually.
Pagano replies:
It is only so by convention not necessity. And such convention is
historically recent. Science is not applied naturalism though this what
your argument amounts to. Naturalism is not a scientific proposition
about some purely materialistic phenomenon; it is an untestable
philosophical proposition about science. And it is falsified by the
observational reports of real supernatural events in both the old and
the new testament. Naturalism would and does exclude such events as
unreal and nonexistant. Is this what you believe?
***************************************
Acker continues:
It is clear from these last paragraphs that one of your concerns is that
the use of the axiom of naturalism in scientific inquiry allows some
individuals to extrapolate it into the philosophical realm.
Pagano responds:
Actually it isn't. My concern is that modern secular theorists have
hidden the philosophical and untestable character of Naturalism. In so
doing they have misled generations that science is simply "applied
naturalism." This is false. Science is the pursuit of objectively true
explanations for our material world not simply the pursuit of
naturalistic ones which may not exist.
**********************************
Acker continues:
To whit, because science "works", God should be excluded from
consideration in any area of human inquiry. I think individuals that
attempt this kind of argument are wrong to do so, but just because I
think that they are wrong doesn't mean that they are going to stop.
Pagano replies:
It is arguments like this that make atheists believe christians are
fools. Dawkins, Dennett and Gould all consistently and honestly argue
that "if" the philosophy of Naturalism is true then God the Creator is
excluded and unnecessary. I completely agree with this consistent
assessment of theirs.
On the other hand you attempt to hold the truth of a Creator and
Naturalism at the same time. What philosphy of logic do you employ to
rationally hold two inconsistent propositions as true at the same time?
Such logic eludes me.
**********************************
Acker finishes:
I think Scientific Creationists produce both bad science and bad
theology too, and they haven't stopped because of my opinion.
Pagano responds:
From what you have written so far about creation scientists it is
obvious that you haven't a clue what they propose, presuppose or
conjecture. You are merely parroting ad hominem falsities fashionable
in our times. But this is little more than an argument from ignorance.
Regards,
T Pagano
Ivar Ylvisaker
> [This is part 8 of a reply to Acker]
[snip]
>
> Acker continues:
> Science attempts to discover the minimum set of necessary conditions
> required to bring about a given observation.
>
> Pagano replies:
> This is the attempt of "applied naturalism" not science. The aim of
> science is to discover the truth about our world and to provide
> solutions to our problems. The idea that there exists a "minimum set of
> necessary conditions required to bring about a given observation" is
> philosophy not science. Our education system K thru graduate have so
> long taught that science is applied naturalism that you cannot see this.
>
I suspect that thoughtful scientists would deny that their goal is to
discover "truth." They probably wouldn't mind discovering "truth," but,
until they start getting certified emails from God describing the
truthfulness of their theories, they won't know for sure. What scientists
really do is discover what theories work. A theory works if the predictions
of the theory agree with observations. A theory can make good predictions
(most of the time) and still be wrong, e.g., Newton's laws. And a theory
that works is often useful in providing "solutions to our problems" even if
God would say that the theory isn't really true.
You're right; this is philosophy, not science.
Ivar
Dave Horn
[Posted and emailed]
A Pagano wrote in message <36A38A1D...@fast.net>...
>
>The subject says it all.
Notice: Not one comment is quoted...not one thing said...we don't even know
which message this is allegedly a "response" to...even checking "references"
under "properties" isn't much help.
You've tried this tactic once before, Pagano, and I responded by resending
several articles and asking you specifically what was "childish" or "ad
hominem" about them. I even went through specific statements and asked what
was "childish" or "ad hominem" about *them* -- each time. Typically, you
never replied.
Go ahead and cite any specific "childish" or "ad hominem" remark, Pagano,
and I'm sure any of us whom might have made that remark are willing to
explain it -- as if it would need explanation...you're the only one who
doesn't seem to get it. In my case, I already have on more than one
occasions and not once have you addressed it.
Still waiting, Pagano...
James S. Lovejoy
>
> Pagano is losing it...
>
Maybe it's Pagano's confession?
> [Posted and emailed]
>
> A Pagano wrote in message <36A38A1D...@fast.net>...
> >
> >The subject says it all.
> remainder snipped<
--
And beside this, giving all diligence, add to your faith virtue; and to
virtue knowledge 2 Peter 1:5
-
Stewart Dean
>
>
>The subject says it all.
>
What is this a follow up to?
There is a reason for quoting previous threads and using refences.
Please start using them.
Stewart Dean - ste...@webslave.dircon.co.uk
alife guide - http://www.webslave.dircon.co.uk/alife
Thomas Paine
You ran away from the argument, when you were nailed.
Still waiting.
(apparently I must take a number, because I see that many people are waiting
for you to respond to rebuttals to your insane, unsupported claims).
Thomas Paine
>
>which message this is allegedly a "response" to...even checking "references"
>under "properties" isn't much help.
>
>You've tried this tactic once before, Pagano, and I responded by resending
>several articles and asking you specifically what was "childish" or "ad
>hominem" about them. I even went through specific statements and asked what
>was "childish" or "ad hominem" about *them* -- each time. Typically, you
>never replied.
>
>Go ahead and cite any specific "childish" or "ad hominem" remark, Pagano,
>and I'm sure any of us whom might have made that remark are willing to
>explain it -- as if it would need explanation...you're the only one who
>doesn't seem to get it. In my case, I already have on more than one
>occasions and not once have you addressed it.
>
>Still waiting, Pagano...
I believe he is responding to my post.
What he doesn't realize, or admit, is that my remarks were descriptions, not
insults.
Thomas Paine
>
>
>[This is the final part of a reply to Acker]
Ahhhh.
Great!
I can turn the air conditioner off. It had to work overtime to contend with
all that hot air.
I'm really starting to wonder if what another poster said was true - that you
had a "creationist virus" in your brain.
You, like a coward, ran away from one discussion where you were challenged to
provide evidence of your outlandish claims, only to continue with the same
unfounded claims in this thread.
Delusional? Senile? Or perhaps you have Alzheimer's?
Other than some physical or psychological malady, the only other conclusion is
that you are consciously a liar, a coward and a pretentious egomaniac.
I have already concluded delusional and egomaniac already fit - since you have
become blind to the fool you showed yourself to be in our last discussion, and
now continue posting as though, via the fantasy world you live in, you should
be taken seriously.
Ivar Ylvisaker
I agree that it is convenient in discussions to distinguish between the
natural and the supernatural. All kinds of confusion can result if you mean
one of these and your listeners think that you referring to the other.
But science, so far as I can see, does not depend on any axiom of
naturalism. It does depend on the testing of hypotheses, on the
falsifiability of hypotheses, and so on. But if some one in Ireland
captures a (supernatural?) leprechaun, perhaps by getting it drunk, and
writes it up in Nature, what's unscientific about that?
The philosophy of naturalism is better characterized as irrelevant to
science.
I suppose that science does depend on the existence of some regularities in
nature. But this limited concept is not what people normally mean by
naturalism.
Ivar
dstev...@my-dejanews.com
mac...@agc.bio_NOSPAM_.ns.ca wrote:
> In article <36A244CE...@fast.net> A Pagano <apa...@fast.net>
> writes:
[snip]
> |This violates the Nicene Creed. The National
> |Academy of Sciences (see "Teaching about Evolution and the Nature of
> |Science") gives the general consensus opinion when they wrote,
> |"...religious faith and scientific knowledge, which are both useful and
> |important, are different."
>
> Yes.
>
> |The National Academy of Sciences attempted
> |to solve the problem of the conflict between Naturalism and the
> |christian faith by suggesting that ALL the propositions of christian
> |faith are mutually exclusive of ALL the propositions of man's
> |conjectures. This is nonsense.
>
> I agree. Your interpreation of what most scientists think about
> religion and science and about what the NAS statement means is utter
> nonsense. You are setting up ridiculous straw men and knocking them down.
> All the propositions of christian faith are mutually exclusive of all the
> propositions of man's conjectures? Oh please. How on Earth do you get
> this stuff?
>
> Perhaps that is true of *your* propositions of the Christian
> faith, but those don't necessarily parallel *all* of the propositions of
> other people, and perhaps your significant misunderstanding of man's
> conjectures about prehistory (judging by your poor list of
> "contradictions") is also a factor.
While the absurdity of Pagano's statement should be obvious, I can think of a
number of instances in which the propositions of the Christian faith and "the
propositions of man's conjectures" are in complete agreement:
1. - the world is a real place 2. - our senses can provide us with fairly
reliable information about the world 3. - other people experience the world
in much the same way that we do 4. - causes have effects
...and so on.
These conjectures may not apply to the Paganoverse, of course, because things
are so radically different there. Given Pagano's pronouncements about
"objective truth", for example, points 1 and 2 are probably invalid there,
since Pagano insists that the reality of the world is significantly different
from what it presents itself to be.
I can't tell if point 3 is valid there or not -- since Pagano is the only
person we've observed posting from the Paganoverse, it's impossible to
determine whether he perceives it in the same way as others (assuming any
others exist there).
[snip]
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Dan Abbott
>
> In article <36A244CE...@fast.net>, A Pagano <apa...@fast.net> wrote:
>
> >Naturalism is a universal proposition.
>
> Prove it has any connection to science!
What would you accept as proof?
> You can run, but you cannot hide!
> Fool.
Ad hominem.
Cheers,
-Dan Abbott
abb...@dakota.net
----------------------------------------------------------
Shlibinka trabanski on my enemies!
- The Signaturés of The Khanate (http://www.khanate.com)
hrgr...@my-dejanews.com
Dan Abbott <abb...@dakota.net> wrote:
> Thomas Paine wrote:
> >
> > In article <36A244CE...@fast.net>, A Pagano <apa...@fast.net> wrote:
> >
> > >Naturalism is a universal proposition.
> >
> > Prove it has any connection to science!
>
> What would you accept as proof?
>
> > You can run, but you cannot hide!
> > Fool.
>
> Ad hominem.
Veritas excusat omnes ad homines.
(unknown Latin author, 20th century B.C.)
HRG.
> Cheers,
>
> -Dan Abbott
> abb...@dakota.net
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> Shlibinka trabanski on my enemies!
>
> - The Signaturés of The Khanate (http://www.khanate.com)
>
>
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
Stewart Dean
>
>
>
>[This is part 3 of a rebuttal to Acker's defense of Naturalism.]
>
>
>
>Pagano previously wrote:
>The unscientific and arguably false philosophy of Naturalism has been
>employed by the scientific community to render the christian faith as
>only a comforting superstitious fiction which has little relevance to
>the material world.
How can science be unscientific - and who really cares about the so
called philosophy of naturalism? If by that we only go by what is
visisble then so be it. First sentence and you've lost to plot.
Could you also please learn to use a newsreader as it's very hard to
validate you quotations of others.
Science is not about personalities, governments, religion, unsupported
truths, conspiracies and a host of other things leveled at it. It is
about finding truth through observation. If we can't see it we can't
record it.
What our emotions tell us is not a substitute to observation.
goodr...@nns.com
Dan Abbott <abb...@dakota.net> wrote:
> Thomas Paine wrote:
> >
> > In article <36A244CE...@fast.net>, A Pagano <apa...@fast.net> wrote:
> >
> > >Naturalism is a universal proposition.
> >
> > Prove it has any connection to science!
>
> What would you accept as proof?
How about that it lends itself to empirical verification?
>
> > You can run, but you cannot hide!
> > Fool.
>
> Ad hominem.
>
A Pagano
goodr...@nns.com wrote:
>
> In article <36AE9861...@dakota.net>,
> Dan Abbott <abb...@dakota.net> wrote:
> > Thomas Paine wrote:
> > >
> > > In article <36A244CE...@fast.net>, A Pagano <apa...@fast.net> wrote:
Pagano previously wrote:
Naturalism is a universal proposition.
Paine replied:
Prove it has any connection to science!
Abbott asked:
What would you accept as proof?
Pagano responds:
I asked Paine the same question. In fact I told Paine I would attempt a
"proof" if he would "...define both "Science" and "Naturalism" in [his]
own terms. I'll also need to know what sort of "evidence" you consider
acceptable."
Paine refused to provide the definitions or what he would consider
acceptable evidence. Paine was apparently smart enough to realize that
if he offered the definitions used by modern secular theorists he would
refute his own argument (that is that Naturalism is not presupposed by
modern secular theorists). And if he offered definitions which excluded
the propositions of naturalism he would admit the logical possibility of
creationist conjectures. Seeing the dilemma Paine weakly replied that
such requests were irrelevent. In the vernacular, "he folded like a
cheap suit."
Fact of the matter is that Paine stands mostly outside the mainstream on
this issue. Few if any mainstream secular scientists deny Naturalism
and most assert affirmatively that Naturalism is a necessary component
of any scientific inquiry.
*******************************************
Pagano continues:
To both Abbott's and my question of Paine, "What sort of evidence would
be acceptable to prove that modern secular theorists presuppose the
unscientific philosophy of Naturalism?," goodrich replied, "How about
that it lends itself to empirical verification?"
Goodrich should realize that Naturalism is an unscientific untestable
philosophy not some scientific phenomenon. As a result it is not
empirically testable. This is the problem for Paine. You see he (and
Modern secular theorists) wield the sword of testability against
untestable presuppositions of creation scientists, but don't do so
against their own untestable presupposition of Naturalism. This is why
people like Paine resist admitting that such philosophy is presupposed
and guides modern secular theorists.
*********************************
ThomasPaine_II
>
>
>goodr...@nns.com wrote:
>>
>> In article <36AE9861...@dakota.net>,
>> Dan Abbott <abb...@dakota.net> wrote:
>> > Thomas Paine wrote:
>> > >
>> > > In article <36A244CE...@fast.net>, A Pagano <apa...@fast.net>
> wrote:
>Pagano previously wrote:
>Naturalism is a universal proposition.
>
>Paine replied:
>Prove it has any connection to science!
>
>Abbott asked:
>What would you accept as proof?
pagano ... I ignore abbot, so I didn't see this message. He plays mind games,
just as you do; but I assume he's in it for the game. You, IMHO, are worse in
that you really believe the crap you spout to the point of being delusion.
> Pagano responds:
>I asked Paine the same question. In fact I told Paine I would attempt a
>"proof" if he would "...define both "Science" and "Naturalism" in [his]
>own terms. I'll also need to know what sort of "evidence" you consider
>acceptable."
The problem is not what I would accept as evidence; it is what you would
offer; and so far, like in a majority of your other posts, you have offered
nothing.
Something made you come to the conclusion you did. If it was evidence, I wish
to see it; if it wasn't, then you must admit that what you are bellowing is
nothing more than an unsubstantiated opinion.
My definitions of science and naturalism, and what I would accept as proof had
nothing what-so-ever to do with your coming to your conclusions and ultimately
bellowing those out as though they were absolutes.
Asking me ridiculous questions is just a feeble song and dance routine to try
to get out of the fact that you have neither evidence nor the balls to admit
your weak position.
And then to claim victory because I saw through, and refused to play your
grade school games, was so ignorant and banal that I honestly thought you'd be
too embarrassed to show your face here again.
Apparently, along with honor, integrity, truth, logic, reason, and
intelligence .... embarrassment (at showing yourself a fool) is not one of your
traits.
>
>Paine refused to provide the definitions or what he would consider
>acceptable evidence. Paine was apparently smart enough to realize that
>if he offered the definitions used by modern secular theorists he would
>refute his own argument (that is that Naturalism is not presupposed by
>modern secular theorists). And if he offered definitions which excluded
>the propositions of naturalism he would admit the logical possibility of
>creationist conjectures. Seeing the dilemma Paine weakly replied that
>such requests were irrelevent. In the vernacular, "he folded like a
>cheap suit."
I'm still here. I'm still asking for the evidence. You still haven't provided
any.
I remember, as a child, watching wrestling and seeing the "set up" match
between one obviously big and strong wrestler against an obviously smaller and
weaker opponent. A part of the weaker opponent's ploy (show) was to taunt the
larger wrestler by saying things like "I'm gonna whoop your butt"... and "your
butt is mine" etc.
Funny thing is ... the weaker opponent always said things like this while
backing away from his opponent (out of fear).
The larger opponent, eventually, would get frustrated at this and call the
cowards bluff by standing in the middle of the ring and saying "here I am, why
are you running?"
The smaller guy would stand in a corner, hesitant about what to do. His bluff
had been called.
The larger opponent, after a time, would start towards the coward who,
immediately, would slip a leg outside the ring causing the referee to pause
the match.
pagano .. the coward is you.
You've bellowed these assertions for a long time.
You have been asked, many many times, for proof or evidence and have never
provided any.
I'm here. I didn't run away. I'm still asking for proof; and I'm not going to
play your song and dance game.
If you have evidence to support your crap, provide it. If not, then quit being
such a coward and admit that your opinion is only that, and has nothing to do
with the actions of real science.
>
>Fact of the matter is that Paine stands mostly outside the mainstream on
>this issue.
Prove it!
Assertions, without proof, are crap.
Few if any mainstream secular scientists deny Naturalism
>and most assert affirmatively that Naturalism is a necessary component
>of any scientific inquiry.
Prove it!
>Pagano continues:
>To both Abbott's and my question of Paine, "What sort of evidence would
>be acceptable to prove that modern secular theorists presuppose the
>unscientific philosophy of Naturalism?," goodrich replied, "How about
>that it lends itself to empirical verification?"
Answer my question, bozo.
What evidence do you have to prove mainstream science assumes naturalism?
Quit the f***in ballroom dancing!
>
>Goodrich should realize that Naturalism is an unscientific untestable
>philosophy not some scientific phenomenon. As a result it is not
>empirically testable. This is the problem for Paine. You see he (and
>Modern secular theorists) wield the sword of testability against
>untestable presuppositions of creation scientists, but don't do so
>against their own untestable presupposition of Naturalism. This is why
>people like Paine resist admitting that such philosophy is presupposed
>and guides modern secular theorists.
>*********************************
>
Evidence rules.....bullshit stinks.
And this is one of the worst smelling posts I've ever seen!
No evidence.
No proof.
No verification of bold assertions - made, challenged and never defended for
months.
Just more pagano crap.
And the oddest part of the pagano arrogance - he thinks others in T.O. don't
see him for the foolish coward that he shows with every post.
Thomas "dishy" Paine_II
Elmer Bataitis
> Goodrich should realize that Naturalism is an unscientific untestable
> philosophy not some scientific phenomenon. As a result it is not
> empirically testable.
Then nothing is testable. Then the universe is simply what we believe it
to be. Solipsism by Pagano.
**********************************************************
Elmer Bataitis “Hot dog! Smooch city here I come!”
Planetech Services -Hobbes
716-442-2884
**********************************************************
goodr...@nns.com
ste...@webslave.dircon.co.uk wrote:
> A Pagano <apa...@fast.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >
> >[This is part 3 of a rebuttal to Acker's defense of Naturalism.]
> >
> >
> >
> >Pagano previously wrote:
> >The unscientific and arguably false philosophy of Naturalism has been
> >employed by the scientific community to render the christian faith as
> >only a comforting superstitious fiction which has little relevance to
> >the material world.
>
> How can science be unscientific - and who really cares about the so
> called philosophy of naturalism? If by that we only go by what is
> visisble then so be it. First sentence and you've lost to plot.
>
> Could you also please learn to use a newsreader as it's very hard to
> validate you quotations of others.
>
> Science is not about personalities, governments, religion, unsupported
> truths, conspiracies and a host of other things leveled at it. It is
> about finding truth through observation. If we can't see it we can't
> record it.
And the production of living matter from non-living has not met your own
critera.
Stewart Dean
>In article <36af4c7f...@news.dircon.co.uk>,
> ste...@webslave.dircon.co.uk wrote:
>> Science is not about personalities, governments, religion, unsupported
>> truths, conspiracies and a host of other things leveled at it. It is
>> about finding truth through observation. If we can't see it we can't
>> record it.
>
>And the production of living matter from non-living has not met your own
>critera.
You mean have we not seen life originate. What does my Encyclopedia
say?
"biopoiesis - a process by which living organisms are thought to
develop from nonliving matter, and the basis of a theory on the origin
of life on Earth. According to this theory, conditions were such that,
at one time in Earth's history, life was created from nonliving
material, probably in the sea, which contained the necessary
chemicals. During this process, molecules slowly grouped, then
regrouped, forming ever more efficient means for energy transformation
and becoming capable of reproduction. "
Any thing not directly recordable can be detected by it's effects.
For example a god could be detected by searching for the point it
interfaces with our Universe.
The chemistry needed for Biopoiesis is not beyond our grasp but as we
have not recreated the process or even traced the whole process
(remembering the original 'experiment' took millions of years and a
world wide lab it's not likely we will) we cannot claim this theory
totally proven - despite recreation of key steps. Evidence is gathered
daily around the world (and very rarely off it) It's work in
progress - progress being the operative word.
Here's a nice level of introduction.
http://gened.emc.maricopa.edu/bio/bio181/BIOBK/BioBookTOC.html
Cheers
abb...@dakota.net
goodr...@nns.com wrote:
> In article <36AE9861...@dakota.net>,
> Dan Abbott <abb...@dakota.net> wrote:
> > Thomas Paine wrote:
> > >
> > > In article <36A244CE...@fast.net>, A Pagano <apa...@fast.net>
wrote:
> > >
> > >
> >
>
I don't understand that. It seems like you are asking for empirical evidenec
that science is connected to naturalism (in any way), but that's a nonsensical
request.
Cheers,
-Dan Abbott
abb...@dakota.net
----------------------------------------------------------
"They are Italians, not men."
-Pope Sylvester II
- The Signaturés of The Khanate (http://www.khanate.com)
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
abb...@dakota.net
nyli...@frontiernet.net wrote:
> A Pagano wrote:
>
> > Goodrich should realize that Naturalism is an unscientific untestable
> > philosophy not some scientific phenomenon. As a result it is not
> > empirically testable.
>
> Then nothing is testable.
Non sequitor.
> Then the universe is simply what we believe it to be.
Non sequitor.
> Solipsism by Pagano.
Ad hominum.
Logical fallacy count: 1 / sentence
ThomasPaine_II
(snip)
>> Science is not about personalities, governments, religion, unsupported
>> truths, conspiracies and a host of other things leveled at it. It is
>> about finding truth through observation. If we can't see it we can't
>> record it.
>
>And the production of living matter from non-living has not met your own
>critera.
The statement should have included (just to be specific and simple enough that
creationists could grasp the concept) "evidence"
No one saw the original biogenesis event, but there is some very convincing
logic, evidence of earth's history, and ongoing experiments that indicate how
it happened.
BTW... did you or anyone else see god create the universe?
A Pagano
Goodrich previously wrote:
Science is not about personalities, governments, religion, unsupported
truths, conspiracies and a host of other things leveled at it. It is
about finding truth through observation. If we can't see it we can't
record it. And the production of living matter from non-living has not
met your own critera.
Pagano replies to Goodrich:
Goodrich misunderstands the implications of the failure of abiogenesis.
The failure of abiogenesis is not evidence that unobserved prehistoric
unique non recurring events did not occur or that they are not logically
possible. Goodrich attempts to use the failure of abiogenesis as an
analogy to destroy all conjectures which propose unique non recurring
unobserved events. In effect he argues: If it ain't observed it don't
or didn't exist. If this is what he intends he stands mostly alone.
Man often conjectures unobservables to be real. Gravity fields are an
example. We only observe the empirical effects of gravity and we can
describe its effects, however, we do not observe the gravity field
itself or know what the field is. Gravity is an non observable field
whose effects can be subjected to repeatable tests. When one considers
unobserved prehistoric events which were likely to be unique and non
recurring assuming unobserved events, processes, and initial conditions
is unavoidable. If guessing at such unobservables is excluded science
becomes impossible.
********************************
Paine responds to Goodrich:
The statement should have included (just to be specific and simple
enough that creationists could grasp the concept) "evidence" No one saw
the original biogenesis event, but there is some very convincing logic,
evidence of earth's history, and ongoing experiments that indicate how
it happened.
Pagano responds:
Here Paine misunderstands the value of corroborative evidence in
relation to abiogenesis. Since every false theory has support such
support never tells us whether the theory is true or even probably
true. In contrast falsifications can logically imply the theory's
falsity. Abiogenesis is one of the most failed theories of all time. It
may be true that some precursor to life existed but the sort of
precursor explained by the theories conjoined under the label
abiogenesis has been falsified.
*********************************************
Paine offered:
BTW... did you or anyone else see god create the universe?
Pagano replies:
Nope, but its a distinct, rational, and logical possibility.
Regards,
T Pagano
ThomasPaine_II
>
>Goodrich previously wrote:
>Science is not about personalities, governments, religion, unsupported
>truths, conspiracies and a host of other things leveled at it. It is
>about finding truth through observation. If we can't see it we can't
>record it. And the production of living matter from non-living has not
>met your own critera.
>
>
> Pagano replies to Goodrich:
>Goodrich misunderstands the implications of the failure of abiogenesis.
>The failure of abiogenesis is not evidence that unobserved prehistoric
>unique non recurring events did not occur or that they are not logically
>possible. Goodrich attempts to use the failure of abiogenesis as an
>analogy to destroy all conjectures which propose unique non recurring
>unobserved events. In effect he argues: If it ain't observed it don't
>or didn't exist. If this is what he intends he stands mostly alone.
Whoa horse (es ass)!
He's using your argument, bozo!
The assertion that we can never be sure of what happened in the un-observed
past is something you blew out just a few short weeks ago.
He's saying the same things you did, and the argument you're using against him
are the same rebuttals that were used against you when you spouted that crap.
>
>Man often conjectures unobservables to be real. Gravity fields are an
>example. We only observe the empirical effects of gravity and we can
>describe its effects, however, we do not observe the gravity field
>itself or know what the field is. Gravity is an non observable field
>whose effects can be subjected to repeatable tests. When one considers
>unobserved prehistoric events which were likely to be unique and non
>recurring assuming unobserved events, processes, and initial conditions
>is unavoidable. If guessing at such unobservables is excluded science
>becomes impossible.
Guessing?
Still have to slip your twisted little lies in there.
Guess you forgot about that key word ... "evidence" again.
>Paine responds to Goodrich:
>The statement should have included (just to be specific and simple
>enough that creationists could grasp the concept) "evidence" No one saw
>the original biogenesis event, but there is some very convincing logic,
>evidence of earth's history, and ongoing experiments that indicate how
>it happened.
>
>
> Pagano responds:
>Here Paine misunderstands the value of corroborative evidence in
>relation to abiogenesis. Since every false theory has support such
>support never tells us whether the theory is true or even probably
>true.
I love the way you claim that I don't understand .... when your brain, from
the evidence of your posts, has a lot of hot air content and no space
for reality or evidence.
The previous post , something like ... Paine doesn't understanda mainstream
science.... that was a hoot.
What are your qualifications to know, describe, or even come close to
understanding mainstream science?
Remember, your the one who said that if the earth were old, the rivers would
have washed all the land away ... at the same time using the claim that if the
earth were old ... all the space dust would have settled to be several feet
deep.
This is about the level of third grade, certainly not mainstream, science.
(snip)
Elmer Bataitis
> In article <36B1CD...@frontiernet.net>,
> nyli...@frontiernet.net wrote:
> > A Pagano wrote:
> > > Goodrich should realize that Naturalism is an unscientific untestable
> > > philosophy not some scientific phenomenon. As a result it is not
> > > empirically testable.
> > Then nothing is testable.
> Non sequitor.
So? Why do you think this?
> > Then the universe is simply what we believe it to be.
> Non sequitor.
Really? Why do you think this?
> > Solipsism by Pagano.
> Ad hominum.
Sorry, I feel that this is a statemnet of fact. What do you believe is
the logical consequence of Pagano's thinking? He has stated many times
that nothing is testable and that even if it were we can learn nothing
from these tests.
abb...@dakota.net
nyli...@frontiernet.net wrote:
> abb...@dakota.net wrote:
>
> > In article <36B1CD...@frontiernet.net>,
> > nyli...@frontiernet.net wrote:
> > > A Pagano wrote:
>
> > > > Goodrich should realize that Naturalism is an unscientific untestable
> > > > philosophy not some scientific phenomenon. As a result it is not
> > > > empirically testable.
>
> > > Then nothing is testable.
>
> > Non sequitor.
>
> So? Why do you think this?
No argument was presented for the argument that "If naturalism is
unscientificaly testable, then nothing is testable."
> > > Then the universe is simply what we believe it to be.
>
> > Non sequitor.
>
> Really? Why do you think this?
No argumetn was presented for the argument taht "If naturalism is
unscientifically testable, then thee universe is what we believe it to be."
> > > Solipsism by Pagano.
>
> > Ad hominum.
>
> Sorry, I feel that this is a statemnet of fact. What do you believe is
> the logical consequence of Pagano's thinking? He has stated many times
> that nothing is testable and that even if it were we can learn nothing
> from these tests.
>
> **********************************************************
> Elmer Bataitis “Hot dog! Smooch city here I come!”
> Planetech Services -Hobbes
Would that be the author of _Leviathan_, or the cartoon cat? :-)
Cheers,
-Dan Abbott
abb...@dakota.net
----------------------------------------------------------
ActiveXCathedra
-fallout from the MS/RCC merger.
Elmer Bataitis
> In article <36B5C6...@frontiernet.net>,
> nyli...@frontiernet.net wrote:
> > abb...@dakota.net wrote:
> > > In article <36B1CD...@frontiernet.net>,
> > > nyli...@frontiernet.net wrote:
> > > > A Pagano wrote:
> > > > > Goodrich should realize that Naturalism is an unscientific untestable
> > > > > philosophy not some scientific phenomenon. As a result it is not
> > > > > empirically testable.
> > > > Then nothing is testable.
> > > Non sequitor.
> > So? Why do you think this?
> No argument was presented for the argument that "If naturalism is
> unscientificaly testable, then nothing is testable."
Why should I have to argue this? Naturalism is the only thing that *can*
be tested. Supernaturalism or spiritualism or any number of unevidenced
beliefs certainly can't be tested by definition.
> Would that be the author of _Leviathan_, or the cartoon cat? :-)
No wonder you're having problems here. Which do you think would have
said the phrase, “Hot dog! Smooch city here I come!”? ;-)
**********************************************************
Elmer Bataitis “Hot dog! Smooch city here I come!”
Planetech Services -Hobbes
716-442-2884
**********************************************************
A Pagano
Bataitis wrote:
Why should I have to argue this? Naturalism is the only thing that *can*
be tested. Supernaturalism or spiritualism or any number of unevidenced
beliefs certainly can't be tested by definition.
Pagano replies:
At least Bataitis doesn't deny naturalism. In any event Naturalism is a
metaphysical doctrine not a testable theory. It is a metaphysical
position holding that all phenomenon, events, and occurrences---in all
of space time---can be explained in terms of natural causes and natural
laws ALONE. It would be very interesting to see Bataitis devise and
conduct empirical tests for this.
Once Bataitis realizes that Naturalism cannot be empirically tested
he'll discover that if he tosses out supernaturalism for its
metaphysical character then out of consistency he must throw out
naturalism. Then what?
Paine solved this problem by denying that modern secular theorists
presuppose naturalism. How will Bataitis solve it? Perhaps he'll
ignore it.
Regards,
T Pagano
Elmer Bataitis
> Bataitis wrote:
> Why should I have to argue this? Naturalism is the only thing that *can*
> be tested. Supernaturalism or spiritualism or any number of unevidenced
> beliefs certainly can't be tested by definition.
> Pagano replies:
> At least Bataitis doesn't deny naturalism. In any event Naturalism is a
> metaphysical doctrine not a testable theory. It is a metaphysical
> position holding that all phenomenon, events, and occurrences---in all
> of space time---can be explained in terms of natural causes and natural
> laws ALONE. It would be very interesting to see Bataitis devise and
> conduct empirical tests for this.
Why should I? This is the default assumption anyone makes when they get
out of bed in the morning. Even you make this assumption: you are
arguing with me using *only* naturalistic assumptions (e.g.,that I will
respond to these glowing phosphor dots by interpreting them as words
sent by you to which I will respond in kind).
But you might be able to convince me that I'm wrong. Just show me
evidence otherwise. Say, for example, send me an argument transmitted by
you to me from some spiritual plane and we'll see what happens ;-)
A Pagano
Pagano previously wrote:
At least Bataitis doesn't deny naturalism. In any event Naturalism is a
metaphysical doctrine not a testable theory. It is a metaphysical
position holding that all phenomenon, events, and occurrences---in all
of space time---can be explained in terms of natural causes and natural
laws ALONE. It would be very interesting to see Bataitis devise and
conduct empirical tests for this.
Bataitis replied:
Why should I?
Pagano responds:
Because you claimed that it could be tested. If you recall you told
abb...@dakota.net, "...Why should I have to argue this? Naturalism is
the only thing that *can* be tested." How in the world can you test a
metaphysical philosophical doctrine?
***********************************
Bataitis continues:
This is the default assumption anyone makes when they get out of bed in
the morning.
Pagano responds:
It's not the default presupposition of everyone, but it most assuredly
is the dogmatically held presupposition of modern secular theorists. In
fact I have argued this continuously. But this was never the point of
my discussions about Naturalism. The point was that if evolutionists
exlude supernaturalism because it is untestable then out of consistency
they must exclude all untestable philosophies including Naturalism.
Naturalism is protected from the sword of testability because it has
intrinsic value apart from scientific discovery.
*************************************
Bataitis continues:
Even you make this assumption: you are arguing with me using *only*
naturalistic assumptions (e.g.,that I will respond to these glowing
phosphor dots by interpreting them as words sent by you to which I will
respond in kind).
Pagano replies:
I make no such a assumption and have every reason to believe the
philosophy of Naturalism is false. Naturalism is more than the mere
acceptance of natural law and natural cause. Natural laws themselves do
not exclude supernatural causation; the naturalistic tools of science do
not exclude supernatural causation. Only the untestable philosophy of
Naturalism excludes the possibility of supernatural causation in
prehistory and history.
Naturalism says that matter and its properties are "alone necessary and
sufficient" to explain "every" event, everywhere in the universe, from
the beginning of time until the end of time. This is a strong claim and
Bataitis cannot empirically test it. It is philosophical doctrine. It
is dogma.
*************************************
Bataitis wrote:
But you might be able to convince me that I'm wrong. Just show me
evidence otherwise. Say, for example, send me an argument transmitted by
you to me from some spiritual plane and we'll see what happens ;-)
Pagano replies:
Bataitis claimed that Naturalism was testable, again he told abbott,
"...Why should I have to argue this? Naturalism is the only thing that
*can* be tested."
I only asked Bataitis to propose the empirical tests. He refused to
defend his position saying only that I must disprove him. But that's
easy: A universal statement is empirically untestable. Basic
philosophy disproves you.
Regards,
T Pagano
abb...@dakota.net
nyli...@frontiernet.net wrote:
> abb...@dakota.net wrote:
>
> > In article <36B5C6...@frontiernet.net>,
> > nyli...@frontiernet.net wrote:
> > > abb...@dakota.net wrote:
>
> > > > In article <36B1CD...@frontiernet.net>,
> > > > nyli...@frontiernet.net wrote:
> > > > > A Pagano wrote:
>
> > > > > > Goodrich should realize that Naturalism is an unscientific
untestable
> > > > > > philosophy not some scientific phenomenon. As a result it is not
> > > > > > empirically testable.
>
> > > > > Then nothing is testable.
>
> > > > Non sequitor.
>
> > > So? Why do you think this?
>
> > No argument was presented for the argument that "If naturalism is
> > unscientificaly testable, then nothing is testable."
>
If you make an allegation, you should support it?
> Naturalism is the only thing that *can* be tested.
How did you get that?
> Supernaturalism or spiritualism or any number of unevidenced
> beliefs certainly can't be tested by definition.
By what standard definition is that true?
>
> > Would that be the author of _Leviathan_, or the cartoon cat? :-)
>
> No wonder you're having problems here. Which do you think would have
> said the phrase, “Hot dog! Smooch city here I come!”? ;-)
Well, after I heard Marx lived his later life as a comedian, nothing is
certain... :-)
John Wilkins
Marx recanted on his deathbed ;-)
--
John Wilkins, Head, Graphic Production, The Walter and Eliza Hall Institute
of Medical Research, Melbourne, Australia
<mailto:wil...@WEHI.EDU.AU><http://www.wehi.edu.au/~wilkins>
I do not make errors; reality fails to live up to my expectations
Elmer Bataitis
> Bataitis:
> Even you make this assumption: you are arguing with me using *only*
> naturalistic assumptions (e.g.,that I will respond to these glowing
> phosphor dots by interpreting them as words sent by you to which I will
> respond in kind).
> Naturalism says that matter and its properties are "alone necessary and
> sufficient" to explain "every" event, everywhere in the universe, from
> the beginning of time until the end of time. This is a strong claim and
> Bataitis cannot empirically test it. It is philosophical doctrine. It
> is dogma.
Then this claim of naturalism, its assumption or its philosohical
position can be easily refuted. Just show us a confirmable and testable
event anywhere in the universe and space-time that cannot be explained
by naturalism.
I'd still much prefer, and I think the readers of this thread would like
to see, if you could please present this evidence to us in a
*non-material* form ;-)
ThomasPaine_II
>
>
>
>Pagano previously wrote:
>At least Bataitis doesn't deny naturalism. In any event Naturalism is a
>metaphysical doctrine not a testable theory. It is a metaphysical
>position holding that all phenomenon, events, and occurrences---in all
>of space time---can be explained in terms of natural causes and natural
>laws ALONE. It would be very interesting to see Bataitis devise and
>conduct empirical tests for this.
Funny. Your paragraph doesn't mention anything about scientists or evolution.
Did you finally grasp the fact that science does not endorse or follow this
philosophical belief?
>
>
>Bataitis replied:
>Why should I?
>
>
> Pagano responds:
>Because you claimed that it could be tested. If you recall you told
>abb...@dakota.net, "...Why should I have to argue this? Naturalism is
>the only thing that *can* be tested." How in the world can you test a
>metaphysical philosophical doctrine?
>***********************************
>
>
>
>Bataitis continues:
>This is the default assumption anyone makes when they get out of bed in
>the morning.
>
>
> Pagano responds:
>It's not the default presupposition of everyone, but it most assuredly
>is the dogmatically held presupposition of modern secular theorists. In
>fact I have argued this continuously.
Bull shit.
You have never argued it ... you have only posted the assertion time and time
again ... without evidence.
You have linked this philosophy to science and evolution; not to "secular
theorists".
The philosophy may exist, but the link to science (your assertion) has never
been shown in spite of all your posturing and in spite of repeated requests for
evidence.
But this was never the point of
>my discussions about Naturalism. The point was that if evolutionists
>exlude supernaturalism because it is untestable then out of consistency
>they must exclude all untestable philosophies including Naturalism.
>Naturalism is protected from the sword of testability because it has
>intrinsic value apart from scientific discovery.
Evolutionists never included naturalism, and never totally excluded
supernaturalism (but they are smart enough not to spend millions of dollars
and years of time looking for an unproveable miracle - fantasy).
Couldn't resist the same old crap lies ... could you?
Well, I'm still here ... waiting for evidence.
(automaticpaganocrapsnip*on*)
Elmer Bataitis
A Pagano wrote:
Goodrich should realize that Naturalism is an unscientific untestable
philosophy not some scientific phenomenon. As a result it is not
empirically testable.
Bataitis wrote:
Then nothing is testable.
abbott:
Non sequitor.
Bataitis:
So? Why do you think this?
abbott:
No argument was presented for the argument that "If naturalism is
unscientificaly testable, then nothing is testable."
Bataitis:
Why should I have to argue this?
abbott:
If you make an allegation, you should support it?
OK. Here's my allegation. If there is no test for naturalism then there
is no test for anything. Now, to disprove my allegation all you have to
do is provide a scientific test that *DOES NOT* use anything material or
anything existing in this universe or space-time.
Good luck ;-)
Stew Dean
>
>
>
>Pagano previously wrote:
>At least Bataitis doesn't deny naturalism. In any event Naturalism is a
>metaphysical doctrine not a testable theory.
Lets boil this down.,
Which is the odd one out?
Truth can be found by.
a) Observation
b) Following what you feel..
c) Thinking, discussing and proposing.
d) Experimentation.
John Stockwell
>Because you claimed that it could be tested. If you recall you told
>abb...@dakota.net, "...Why should I have to argue this? Naturalism is
>the only thing that *can* be tested." How in the world can you test a
>metaphysical philosophical doctrine?
>***********************************
>
>
>Bataitis continues:
>This is the default assumption anyone makes when they get out of bed in
>the morning.
Stockwell:
Elmer's example shows that he is using "naturalism" in the sense of the
local application of empiricism that is applied in science. When you
go from the bedroom to the bathroom in the morning, you are reaffirming
that you tacitly assume that the local area of your universe is more or less
the same as it was when you went to sleep the night before. However, you
only care about the local portion of the universe. You are not making
some pronouncement regarding the "absolute nature of reality" etc.
You do this all on autopilot. You only become conscious, if say, something
is amiss from your standard model of that local part of the universe.
For example, if you turn on the faucet and no water comes out,
then you become conscious of there being a problem. However, even
Pagano the Longwinded Supernaturalist will assume that natural causes
are at work in such a situation, and see naturalistic solutions to his problem.
> Pagano responds:
>It's not the default presupposition of everyone, but it most assuredly
>is the dogmatically held presupposition of modern secular theorists.
Stockwell:
It is dogmatically assumed by your dog, when he goes to the place where
his bowl is normally kept when he is hungry, whether or not the bowl
is actually there.
> Pagano continues:
>In fact I have argued this continuously.
Stockwell:
Yes, we have noticed. You have defended your erroneous position more
dogmatically than your dog does his doggie bowl.
>Pagano continues.
>But this was never the point of
>my discussions about Naturalism. The point was that if evolutionists
>exlude supernaturalism because it is untestable then out of consistency
>they must exclude all untestable philosophies including Naturalism.
>Naturalism is protected from the sword of testability because it has
>intrinsic value apart from scientific discovery.
Stockwell:
However, as science (which includes everything Pagano call "evolution",
"darwinism", etc.) is _not_ grounded in such a philosophy, Pagano's argument
really has nothing to do with the issues. Science is not a worldview
philosophy, nor is it ruled by worldview philosophies. Of course, Pagano
is threatened by this, because the fact that science is not (and cannot,
be, if the scientific method is applied) ruled by his particular
supernatualistic philosophy, shows that his worldview philosophy is
not as all-inclusive as it is supposed to be. Bummer.
>Regards,
>T Pagano
John Stockwell | jo...@dix.Mines.EDU
Center for Wave Phenomena (The Home of Seismic Un*x)
Colorado School of Mines
Golden, CO 80401 | http://www.cwp.mines.edu/cwpcodes
voice: (303) 273-3049 | fax: (303) 273-3478.
Todd S. Greene
<36B9CADB...@fast.net>):
>Bataitis wrote:
>Why should I have to argue this? Naturalism is the only thing that *can*
>be tested. Supernaturalism or spiritualism or any number of unevidenced
>beliefs certainly can't be tested by definition.
>
>
> Pagano replies:
>At least Bataitis doesn't deny naturalism. In any event Naturalism is a
>metaphysical doctrine not a testable theory. It is a metaphysical
>position holding that all phenomenon, events, and occurrences---in all
>of space time---can be explained in terms of natural causes and natural
>laws ALONE. It would be very interesting to see Bataitis devise and
>conduct empirical tests for this.
>
>Once Bataitis realizes that Naturalism cannot be empirically tested
>he'll discover that if he tosses out supernaturalism for its
>metaphysical character then out of consistency he must throw out
>naturalism. Then what?
>
>Paine solved this problem by denying that modern secular theorists
>presuppose naturalism. How will Bataitis solve it? Perhaps he'll
>ignore it.
>
>
>Regards,
>T Pagano
You are a "closet naturalist," Tony.
Otherwise you would never even bring up the "testability" criterion. What do
you think it even means to be able to test something?
By the way, how about SN1987A and the history of the universe? You deny the
history that we directly observe right now. You claim that we can't make
"genuinely scientific" claims about the past because we can't observe it
directly, while you hypocritically deny the direct observations of the past
that we make right now.
Please admit your hypocrisy on this particular issue.
______________
Todd S. Greene
A Pagano
Pagano previously wrote:
Naturalism says that matter and its properties are "alone necessary and
sufficient" to explain "every" event, everywhere in the universe, from
the beginning of time until the end of time. This is a strong claim and
Bataitis cannot empirically test it. It is philosophical doctrine. It
is dogma.
Bataitis replied:
Then this claim of naturalism, its assumption or its philosohical
position can be easily refuted.
Pagano responds:
One may argue for Naturalism's falsity but this was NOT your assertion.
Bataitis asserted to Abbott: "Naturalism is the only thing that *can*
be tested." If it can be tested then propose the test to refute.
Otherwise take Paine's way out: deny naturalism.
*********************************
Bataitis continued:
Just show us a confirmable and testable event anywhere in the universe
and space-time that cannot be explained by naturalism.
Pagano responds:
This is your problem not mine. You are the evolutionist who asserted:
"Naturalism is
the only thing that *can* be tested." So it is Bataitis who must
defend his claim by offering the empirical test to refute. Bataitis is
in a corner and he knows it.
******************************************
Bataitis continued:
I'd still much prefer, and I think the readers of this thread would like
to see, if you could please present this evidence to us in a
*non-material* form ;-)
Pagano replies:
But the NON MATERIAL has nothing to do with your claim. Again Bataitis
asserted: "Naturalism is the only thing that *can* be tested."
Evolutionists exclude supernaturalism from scientific investigations
because it is empirically untestable and irrefutable. But
evolutionists, including Bataitis, cannot empirically test or refute
Naturalism. Using his own demarcation criteria of empirical
testablility and refutability Bataitis must exclude ALL empirically
untestable and irrefutable assumptions from science including
Naturalism.
How many more posts will Bataitis run from defending his assertion:
"Naturalism is the only thing that *can* be tested." I suggest you take
Paine's way out: deny naturalism.
Regards,
T Pagano
A Pagano
Pagano comments:
One will notice that Greene does nothing to save Bataitis from his
dilemma and the dilemma of all evolutionists.
**************************************
Greene wrote:
You are a "closet naturalist," Tony.
Pagano replies:
Greene's statement implies that naturalism is equivalent to natural
law. Unfortunately for him there is no such equivalence.
Creationists accept natural law and creationists accept that most
effects have natural causes. Creationists accept that naturalistic
tools assist the investigator in uncovering naturalistic causes which
exist. Natural law does NOT exclude supernaturalism. Natural laws
themselves say NOTHING about their range of validity over space time;
the untestable irrefutable metaphysics of uniformitarianism does this.
Naturalistic tools are also SILENT concerning the truth or falsity of
supernaturalism. The empirically untestable irrefutable philosophy of
Naturalism does this. These are all the dirty little secrets of the
modern secular theorist.
*******************************************
Greene wrote:
Otherwise you would never even bring up the "testability" criterion.
What do you think it even means to be able to test something?
Pagano replies:
Empirical testablility and refutability was a demarcation criteria
offered by Karl Popper to distinquish the scientific from the
unscientific. One must only presuppose metaphysical realism to employ
empirical testablility not Naturalism. Naturalism is not equivalent to
natural law. Surely this is obvious.
**************************************
Greene wrote:
By the way, how about SN1987A and the history of the universe?
Pagano replies:
That's what I asked you in a previous thread. In order to evaluate your
interpretation of the light from SN1987A I asked that you provide the
detailed history of events in space time including the birth of both the
earth and SN1987A. Then offer the empirical tests to refute this
proposed account. The problems exist in the details, don't they?
*********************************
Greene continues:
You deny the history that we directly observe right now.
Pagano replies:
Your observations are interpretations made in the light of your creation
story, they DO NOT speak for themselves. In order to evaluate your
interpretations one needs the detailed history of events in space time
including the birth of both the earth and SN1987A.
*********************************
Greene continues:
You claim that we can't make "genuinely scientific" claims about the
past because we can't observe it directly, while you hypocritically deny
the direct observations of the past that we make right now. Please
admit your hypocrisy on this particular issue.
Pagano replies:
The hallmark of unadulterated, pure, scientific investigation is
empirical testability and reproducibility of material events from
material causes. For unobserved prehistoric events, many of which were
unique and non recurring, this pure science is impossible.
I don't hypocrically deny direct observations of anything. I have
simply pointed out, consistent with the understanding of the philosophy
of science, that observations are always INTERPRETATIONS made in the
light of a theory or many theories. In order to evaluate the quality
and verisimilitude of your "interpretation" of the light from SN1987A
one needs the the detailed history of events in space time including the
birth of both the earth and SN1987A. Since you seem to know everything
about such unobserved history this should be a simple request to fill.
And lastly, Greene is under the mistaken impression that corroborations
of his creation story makes his story true or even probably true. Every
false theory in history had corroborations and Greene cannot relate the
number or quality of corroborations to the truth or even to some
calculus of probability that it is true. Perhaps Greene would care to
try.
Regards,
T Pagano
hrgr...@my-dejanews.com
Naturalism is testable, as Elmar Bataitis has pointed out. Falsifiability does
not mean that one has to present the blueprints of an experimental apparatus
which tests the theory. Popper never demanded that much.
> Greene wrote:
> By the way, how about SN1987A and the history of the universe?
>
> Pagano replies:
> That's what I asked you in a previous thread. In order to evaluate your
> interpretation of the light from SN1987A I asked that you provide the
> detailed history of events in space time including the birth of both the
> earth and SN1987A. Then offer the empirical tests to refute this
> proposed account. The problems exist in the details, don't they?
> *********************************
According to your requirements, to prove that you are communicating with me,
I need to present you with your and my total history, including childhood
diseases and high-school girl-friends ("the detailed history of events in
space- time"). Now is that silly or not ?
> Greene continues:
> You deny the history that we directly observe right now.
>
> Pagano replies:
> Your observations are interpretations made in the light of your creation
> story, they DO NOT speak for themselves. In order to evaluate your
> interpretations one needs the detailed history of events in space time
> including the birth of both the earth and SN1987A.
> *********************************
Nonsense. See above.
What does the observation of one particular event in space-time (the supernova
explosion) have to do with the birth of the earth (or with the *birth* of the
star which later created SN1987A )?
> Greene continues:
> You claim that we can't make "genuinely scientific" claims about the
> past because we can't observe it directly, while you hypocritically deny
> the direct observations of the past that we make right now. Please
> admit your hypocrisy on this particular issue.
>
> Pagano replies:
> The hallmark of unadulterated, pure, scientific investigation is
> empirical testability and reproducibility of material events from
> material causes. For unobserved prehistoric events, many of which were
> unique and non recurring, this pure science is impossible.
For the N+1th time: that an event happened in the past does not imply that we
cannot observe it right now - as often as we want. It is the reproducibility
of the observation that is important since it excludes subjective
interpretations through peer review. If you are is not happy with
Archeopterix can (in principle) study the specimens yourself.
Reconcile yourself to the fact that the definition of pure science has not
been entrusted to you.
> I don't hypocrically deny direct observations of anything. I have
> simply pointed out, consistent with the understanding of the philosophy
> of science, that observations are always INTERPRETATIONS made in the
> light of a theory or many theories.
And some interpretations are convincing (except to the wilfully ignorant).
Actually, the observation that there is a computer screen in front of you is
an interpretation. You *could* be wearing a virtual reality suit ....
(Come to think of it, you *are* probably wearing a virtual reality suit)
In order to evaluate the quality
> and verisimilitude of your "interpretation" of the light from SN1987A
> one needs the the detailed history of events in space time including the
> birth of both the earth and SN1987A.
Apparently astronomers do not concur with you. And it is their business to
"evaluate the quality and verisimilitude".....
Since you seem to know everything
> about such unobserved history this should be a simple request to fill.
Nonsense. See above.
> And lastly, Greene is under the mistaken impression that corroborations
> of his creation story makes his story true or even probably true. Every
> false theory in history had corroborations and Greene cannot relate the
> number or quality of corroborations to the truth or even to some
> calculus of probability that it is true. Perhaps Greene would care to
> try.
What does probability have to do with it ? The currently agreed theory is *by
definition* the best available approximation to the truth - until it is
*refined* (not falsified!) by a better approximation.
Do you propose any better way ?
And I am not talking about *subjective* absolute truth .....
HRG.
> Regards,
> T Pagano
ThomasPaine_II
Pagano fails to defend any assertion he has ever made by ignoring, running
away from requests for evidence.
> Pagano responds:
>One may argue for Naturalism's falsity but this was NOT your assertion.
>Bataitis asserted to Abbott: "Naturalism is the only thing that *can*
>be tested." If it can be tested then propose the test to refute.
>Otherwise take Paine's way out: deny naturalism.
Another pagano twisted, bull shit lie.
In one of my very first T.O. posts, to you - I acknowledged the existence
of the philosophy of naturalism.
What I have argued - what you have asserted - what you have never provided
evidence of -is your fantasy lie that science has adopted the philosophy of
naturalism.
Another lie, another pile of crap, another post without evidence.
and another obvious "pagano is a fool" post, with you supplying the evidence.
(snipusualpaganodancearoundrealityroutine)
Todd S. Greene
<36BC77F7...@fast.net>):
>Pagano comments:
>One will notice that Greene does nothing to save Bataitis from his
>dilemma and the dilemma of all evolutionists.
>*************************************************
>
>
>Greene wrote:
>You are a "closet naturalist," Tony.
>
>
>Pagano replies:
>Greene's statement implies that naturalism is equivalent to natural
>law. Unfortunately for him there is no such equivalence.
>
>Creationists accept natural law and creationists accept that most
>effects have natural causes. Creationists accept that naturalistic
>tools assist the investigator in uncovering naturalistic causes which
>exist. Natural law does NOT exclude supernaturalism. Natural laws
>themselves say NOTHING about their range of validity over space time;
>the untestable irrefutable metaphysics of uniformitarianism does this.
>Naturalistic tools are also SILENT concerning the truth or falsity of
>supernaturalism. The empirically untestable irrefutable philosophy of
>Naturalism does this. These are all the dirty little secrets of the
>modern secular theorist.
Actually, all it means is that if it's untestable, if there is no "reason" for
it, then all you have is pure imagination, or religious mythology, or whatever
you want to call it. But not science.
Creationists certainly do not accept this.
Example: Every organism, plant, animal, whatever, comes about by some natural
(non-miraculous, non-supernatural) process. Every "natural" thing we observe
(today, or that has been observed in the past in enough detail to make such a
determination) that we are trying to find an explanation for and have found an
explanation for (or intermediate explanations for) are known to occur
"naturally." (By the way, I am not here discounting in any way science for
examing non-natural things; see my posts in "Creationists: Put Up or Shut Up"
with Mark Nutter.)
Now creationists, with no "reason," and with no testability for their ideas,
posit a "supernatural process" for things we observe today that do not occur
by any kind of "supernatural process." (I.e., pure imagination.)
>*************************************************
>
>
>Greene wrote:
>Otherwise you would never even bring up the "testability" criterion.
>What do you think it even means to be able to test something?
>
>
>Pagano replies:
>Empirical testablility and refutability was a demarcation criteria
>offered by Karl Popper to distinquish the scientific from the
>unscientific. One must only presuppose metaphysical realism to employ
>empirical testablility not Naturalism. Naturalism is not equivalent to
>natural law. Surely this is obvious.
Obvious? Not equivalent, but not distinct. See my comments in the previous
section.
>*************************************************
>
>
>Greene wrote:
>By the way, how about SN1987A and the history of the universe?
>
>Pagano replies:
>That's what I asked you in a previous thread. In order to evaluate your
>interpretation of the light from SN1987A I asked that you provide the
>detailed history of events in space time including the birth of both the
>earth and SN1987A. Then offer the empirical tests to refute this
>proposed account. The problems exist in the details, don't they?
Yes. They certainly do. See below.
>*************************************************
>
>
>Greene continues:
>You deny the history that we directly observe right now.
>
>
>Pagano replies:
>Your observations are interpretations made in the light of your creation
>story, they DO NOT speak for themselves. In order to evaluate your
>interpretations one needs the detailed history of events in space time
>including the birth of both the earth and SN1987A.
I don't accept your formulation of the wording. I would say:
Our interpretations are based on what we believe we know about reality now,
based on detailed examinations. Things like the speed of light and the
distance of the Large Magellanic Cloud (the closest galaxy in the universe,
outside of the Milky Way itself).
We have reasons to believe that the speed of light is approximately 186,000
miles per second. We have no reason to believe that the speed of light
changes. Indeed, we have a testable, and tested, theory of relativity based on
this idea.
>*************************************************
>
>
>Greene continues:
>You claim that we can't make "genuinely scientific" claims about the
>past because we can't observe it directly, while you hypocritically deny
>the direct observations of the past that we make right now. Please
>admit your hypocrisy on this particular issue.
>
>
> Pagano replies:
>The hallmark of unadulterated, pure, scientific investigation is
>empirical testability and reproducibility of material events from
>material causes. For unobserved prehistoric events, many of which were
>unique and non recurring, this pure science is impossible.
Tony, you are totally, completely, and gloriously wrong!!!
>I don't hypocrically deny direct observations of anything.
You just did.
>I have
>simply pointed out, consistent with the understanding of the philosophy
>of science, that observations are always INTERPRETATIONS made in the
>light of a theory or many theories. In order to evaluate the quality
>and verisimilitude of your "interpretation" of the light from SN1987A
>one needs the the detailed history of events in space time including the
>birth of both the earth and SN1987A. Since you seem to know everything
>about such unobserved history this should be a simple request to fill.
Right now, we (by which I mean people with the proper technological
instrumentation) are observing the unfolding events of that star in the LMC
that went supernova in 1987. In the present, we are observing events all over
the universe, seeing these events in "prehistoric time shells" because of the
fact that it takes the light (actually, electromagnetic energy across the
spectrum) from these events such fantastically long periods of time to cover
these almost incomprehensibly vast distances.
Without any reason whatsoever (i.e., with no testability), you claim that all
of this, the entire, vast panorama of the universe, is one gigantic, divine
mirage.
Don't try to claim that your personal imagination is the same as reality. You
need reasons, you need evidence, and you need interpretations that are subject
to testability, among other things. (Actually, falsifiability, in and of
itself, is not sufficient. See explanations such as those by Philip Kitcher in
his book *Abusing Science*.)
>And lastly, Greene is under the mistaken impression that corroborations
>of his creation story makes his story true or even probably true.
Thank you for at least admitting that non-YEC (i.e., ancient universe) has
corroborations.
>Every
>false theory in history had corroborations and Greene cannot relate the
>number or quality of corroborations to the truth or even to some
>calculus of probability that it is true. Perhaps Greene would care to
>try.
Actually, I would make the point that every good theory also has
corroborations. Our understanding of reality is, no pun intended,
evolutionary. The earth really is spherical, it really does revolve around the
sun, despite any historical "corroborations" to the contrary. And we really do
observe events in the LMC, right now, that occurred about 150,000 years ago.
Tony, you can't just abstractly point to false ideas of the past to, somehow,
discredit all ideas of the present regarding the nature of various aspects of
reality. That doesn't work.
Surely you don't really believe the earth is flat, do you?
By the way, I do thank you for at least attempting a response to the point
that with astronomy we directly observe the distant past. Unfortunately,
everything you have said seems to imply (without you directly saying so) that
you are an omphalicist, just as Mark Nutter is.
Maybe you could clearly confirm or disconfirm this seeming implication.
>*************************************************
>
>Regards,
>T Pagano
-------------------------------------------------------
Todd S. Greene
"People believe what they want
to believe and close their eyes to what they don't
want to believe. They need to think the world is the
way they'd like it to be because having to face up
to the reality that it isn't would be too
uncomfortable. So they carry on pretending because
it makes them feel better."
[James P. Hogan, Code of the Lifemaker, 1983]
Elmer Bataitis
> Pagano previously wrote:
> Naturalism says that matter and its properties are "alone necessary and
> sufficient" to explain "every" event, everywhere in the universe, from
> the beginning of time until the end of time. This is a strong claim and
> Bataitis cannot empirically test it. It is philosophical doctrine. It
> is dogma.
> Bataitis replied:
> Then this claim of naturalism, its assumption or its philosohical
> position can be easily refuted.
> Pagano responds:
> One may argue for Naturalism's falsity but this was NOT your assertion.
> Bataitis asserted to Abbott: "Naturalism is the only thing that *can*
> be tested." If it can be tested then propose the test to refute.
> Otherwise take Paine's way out: deny naturalism.
> *********************************
Nope. I defended my assertion. Naturalism (or what is known as naive
empiricism) is the only *TESTABLE* assertion about the universe. No
other assertion about the universe *is* testable. I have tried to point
this out to you by trying to get you to give us a *TESTABLE* assertion
in any way other than through the use of naturalism. You have been
supremely unable to do so. You still persist in trying to show I am
wrong by only using methods derived from *YOUR OWN* assumption that:
"matter and its properties are "alone necessary and sufficient" to
explain "every" event, everywhere in the universe, from the beginning of
time until the end of time.
Every time you post a claim that "naturalism" is *untestable*, you are
reinforcing your own denial of this claim ;-)
Stew Dean
>
>
>
>Pagano comments:
>One will notice that Greene does nothing to save Bataitis from his
>dilemma and the dilemma of all evolutionists.
>**************************************
>
>
>
>
>
>Greene wrote:
>You are a "closet naturalist," Tony.
>
>
> Pagano replies:
>Greene's statement implies that naturalism is equivalent to natural
>law. Unfortunately for him there is no such equivalence.
>
>Creationists accept natural law and creationists accept that most
>effects have natural causes. Creationists accept that naturalistic
>tools assist the investigator in uncovering naturalistic causes which
>exist. Natural law does NOT exclude supernaturalism. Natural laws
>themselves say NOTHING about their range of validity over space time;
>the untestable irrefutable metaphysics of uniformitarianism does this.
>Naturalistic tools are also SILENT concerning the truth or falsity of
>supernaturalism. The empirically untestable irrefutable philosophy of
>Naturalism does this. These are all the dirty little secrets of the
>modern secular theorist.
There's one massive flaw in your thinking. If the 'supernatural' in
any way interacts with the 'natural' then it stops being untestable.
To put it another way even if we can't see the hand of god we can see
it's fingerprints.
Many things in science, espeically at the lower scales, are not
measurably directly, instead we use the results to measure it.
Now if there is a supernatural world and it interacts _in any way_
with the natural world we can trace back the cause and effect to a
point where there is no cause.
This is using the sceintific method as accepted _independently_ the
world over. Science cannot be a conspiracy as the majority is
uncontrolled and the controlled (ie milatary research) is often out
striped by those with less resources but better minds. For example
compare the funding in UK to US and compare the percentage of break
throughs. Once a good idea gets out it spreads like wildfire. Bad
ideas fizzle out - like creationism. Once 'everyone' beleived god
created earth. These days the percentages continue to drop as we know
more about the world around us.
The tides coming in and shouting at it won't make it stop.
Stephen Bracker
Stew Dean wrote in message <36c0e1d0...@news.dircon.co.uk>...
[snipped Pagano and Greene]
[spelling corrected]
>There's one massive flaw in your thinking. If the 'supernatural' in
>any way interacts with the 'natural' then it stops being untestable.
>To put it another way even if we can't see the hand of god we can see
>its fingerprints.
>
>Many things in science, especially at the lower scales, are not
>measurably directly; instead we use the results to measure it.
>Now if there is a supernatural world and it interacts _in any way_
>with the natural world we can trace back the cause and effect to a
>point where there is no cause.
This is going too far in my view. I think I could rather easily
construct a little device that would allow a supernatural agent (God
or whoever) to intervene occasionally in the natural world, while it
would be impossible *in principle* for any scientific experiment to
detect the intervention. For example, the "Quantum Execution" device,
similar to that used on innumerable Schrodinger's Cats. For simplicity
(you'd probably want to do it a bit differently in the real world): A
perfectly efficient counter of radioactive disintegrations, a single
radioactive atom with a one-minute halflife which may be inserted into
said counter for a prescribed time, and an apparatus which, upon
detection of a radioactive disintegration by the counter, dispatches a
convicted murderer. And the murderer himself -- arrested, tried,
convicted and sentenced to only one minute of quantum execution
because the victim wasn't very well liked -- is known by God to be
innocent (or maybe He just didn't like the victim either).
Now a naturalistic understanding of this device is that the murderer
has a 50% chance of being snuffed. Numerous pre-execution tests reveal
that yes, out of 100 trials, 50 +/- a-few triggered the device while
the rest did not. Thus it should surprise no one that when the actual
quantum execution is carried out, the murderer is not dispatched. God
knows that He has prevented it, but there is absolutely no way that
you or I can find that out.
Is there any way that we can test the radioactive atom to see whether
"it's about to disintegrate", and thus to infer supernatural agency?
Physicists firmly believe not, and for very good reasons. Radioactive
atoms "die" (decay) but they don't "age". In terms of measurable
causation, the disintegration or not of the atom (hence the execution
or not of the murderer) is an event without a determinative cause,
whether or not God has acted.
Now clearly, there are limits on how often God can do this. For
example, if He abhors executions in general, He cannot forestall 50
executions in a row without tipping His hand. Even a particularly
wicked murderer, sentenced to 20 minutes of quantum execution, has
only about a chance in a million of walking away, and some of us would
be a little suspicious if this happened even once. So God must
restrain Himself, intervening in only a statistically plausible
manner. But nonetheless, the strong form of naturalism -- that *any*
supernatural interference is potentially detectable and subject to
being incorporated in the natural order -- is in my view
insupportable. (I am not, of course, claiming personal belief in a God
who acts this way, only defending the scientific possibility of His
existence.)
You may object that there seems to be no "handle" by which God can
grab and control an atom in this manner, but that is a claim quite
beyond the power of science to confirm or deny. We are limited to
interpreting what we can observe; we are in no position to claim that
there may not be "handles" which, though inaccessible to us (either to
manipulate or even to observe), are nonetheless subject to
supernatural control.
The integrity and utility of science is in no way compromised by the
acts of such a God. If one considers it "bad news" that science cannot
exclude Him, the good news is that He seems never to act so forcefully
or carelessly that the natural order is detectably violated, so all
our efforts to characterize natural process seem not to be in vain.
That growing realization is my understanding of the "tide" that's
coming in (see below).
>This is using the scientific method as accepted _independently_ the
>world over. Science cannot be a conspiracy as the majority is
>uncontrolled and the controlled (ie military research) is often out
>striped by those with less resources but better minds. For example
>compare the funding in UK to US and compare the percentage of break-
>throughs. Once a good idea gets out it spreads like wildfire. Bad
>ideas fizzle out - like creationism. Once 'everyone' believed god
>created earth. These days the percentages continue to drop as we
know
>more about the world around us.
>
>The tides coming in and shouting at it won't make it stop.
>
>Stewart Dean - ste...@webslave.dircon.co.uk
Regards,
Steve Bracker - bra...@junction.net
A Pagano
Pagano previously wrote:
One may argue for Naturalism's falsity but this was NOT your assertion.
Bataitis asserted to Abbott: "Naturalism is the only thing that *can*
be tested." If it can be tested then propose the test to refute.
Otherwise take Paine's way out: deny naturalism.
Bataitis replied:
Nope. I defended my assertion. Naturalism (or what is known as naive
empiricism) is the only *TESTABLE* assertion about the universe.
Pagano responds:
You have unequivocally been claiming that "Naturalism" not "naive
empiricism" was empirically testable. They are not equivalent labels.
Now, Bataitis, having seen himself in a corner, attempts to define his
way out. But does he escape? I doubt it. There are two problems for
Bataitis: (1) "Naturalism" is not equivalent to "empiricism" and (2)
"empiricism" is no more "testable" than is "naturalism." Remember that
empiricism is the philosophical view that ALL knowledge is derived from
sense experience alone. How your adjective "naive" modifies this
definition is not clear. In any event what empirical tests would
Bataitis offer to attempt to refute the philosophical principle of
empiricism. How many posts will it take for him Not to provide these
tests.
Hopefully its becoming clear to Bataitis that while modern secular
theorists exclude metaphysical presuppositions of the creationist
because of empirical _un_testability they do not expose their own
metaphysical presuppositions to the same test. How does Bataitis
justify such a double standard? I have asked this question repeatedly
to him and others without answer.
*******************************
Bataitis wrote:
No other assertion about the universe *is* testable.
Pagano replies:
How exactly is empiricism testable? How does Bataitis "empirically"
test the theory that ALL knowledge is derived from sense experience
alone? What empirical tests to refute could we conduct which would
place empiricism in the "scientific" camp as opposed to the
"unscientific" category? And as with naturalism there are good reasons
to believe that the philosophy of empiricism is false.
***************************************************
Bataitis wrote:
I have tried to point this out to you by trying to get you to give us a
*TESTABLE* assertion in any way other than through the use of
naturalism. You have been supremely unable to do so.
Pagano replies:
This isn't clear, but what Bataitis seems to be saying is that unless
one presupposes the truth of Naturalism and/or Empiricism then genuine
inquiry about the world cannot be conducted. Even if this theory of
knowledge were true it wouldn't be empirically testable and "that" has
been my point.
Supernatural Creative acts may be true, but such acts are excluded from
the secularist's base of knowledge because of _un_testability. The
sword of empirical testablility eliminates every untestable
presupposition of the creation scientist as _un_scientific. Under this
sword Naturalism and Empiricism must be eliminated.
A DIRECT ANSWER TO BATAITIS---REALISM
I do not need to presuppose the truth of the metaphysical theories of
Naturalism or Empiricism to conduct genuine inquiry about the world. I
only need presuppose the truth of Realism. Realism is the metaphysical
notion that things, entities, causes, forces, propensities exist
independent of what we think and independent of our senses. A
consequence of realism in this sense is that things, entities, forces,
and propensities are there to be discovered and that ignorance and error
are possible. Under realism one can focus on deduction and checking
(that is attempts to refute) the empirical consequences implied by a
theory given the initial conditions regardless of how such theories
arise. Realism does not artificially restrict existence of things,
forces, propensities, or entities of any sort because it is presupposed
that they can exist independent of our senses and they can have
empirical consequences where we can employ our senses.
****************************************
Bataitis wrote:
You still persist in trying to show I am wrong by only using methods
derived from *YOUR OWN* assumption that: "matter and its properties are
"alone necessary and sufficient" to explain "every" event, everywhere in
the universe, from the beginning of time until the end of time.
Pagano replies:
Bataitis again is defining away his problems. Perhaps I should suggest
that he invest in a good dictionary of philosophy.
In any event the definition I offer for "naturalism" is the one offered
by some philosophers and it is logically implied by every other
definition employed by the others. Naturalism proposes far more than
the tautologous claim that empirical effects can only be studied by the
study of empirical effects. Empiricism proposes far more than the
trivial proposition that we can learn something about the material world
with our senses.
**********************************
Bataitis wrote:
Every time you post a claim that "naturalism" is *untestable*, you are
reinforcing your own denial of this claim ;-)
Pagano responds:
Fact of the matter is that Naturalism is empirically untestable and you
have yet to offer a single test to refute. I suggest you go to the
nearest philosophy department of the nearest university and resolve your
misunderstanding of naturalism's and empiricism's metaphysical
character.
As I mention above perhaps Bataitis doesn't deny Naturalism's
untestablility, but asserts that the only way empirically testable
theories about the world can originate is if one presupposes the truth
of naturalism and/or empiricism. While there may be arguments for the
truth of this metaphysical view, arguments of truth and falsity are not
what exclude supernaturalism which is in the same class of propositions
as Naturalism and Empiricism.
Regards,
T Pagano
Elmer Bataitis
> I do not need to presuppose the truth of the metaphysical theories of
> Naturalism or Empiricism to conduct genuine inquiry about the world.
Bataitis replies:
Pagano's own definition of NATURALISM sinks him: "...matter and its
properties are "alone necessary and sufficient" to explain "every"
event, everywhere in the universe, from the beginning of time until the
end of time." Even Empiricism is defined as, "the view that experience,
especially of the senses, is the only source of knowledge."
> I only need presuppose the truth of Realism. Realism is the metaphysical
> notion that things, entities, causes, forces, propensities exist
> independent of what we think and independent of our senses.
Bataitis replies:
Demonstrate to anyone the existence of things, entities, causes, forces,
propensities independent of their senses. I doubt you can do so.
> Bataitis wrote:
> You still persist in trying to show I am wrong by only using methods
> derived from *YOUR OWN* assumption that: "matter and its properties are
> "alone necessary and sufficient" to explain "every" event, everywhere in
> the universe, from the beginning of time until the end of time.
> Pagano replies:
> Bataitis again is defining away his problems. Perhaps I should suggest
> that he invest in a good dictionary of philosophy.
Bataitis replies:
Hey, quit complaining, I was using your definition ;-)
> Bataitis wrote:
> Every time you post a claim that "naturalism" is *untestable*, you are
> reinforcing your own denial of this claim ;-)
> Pagano responds:
> Fact of the matter is that Naturalism is empirically untestable and you
> have yet to offer a single test to refute.
Bataitis replies:
The simplest test to belie naturalism's or empiricism's validity for is
for you to come up with an argument that does not rely on the use of my
senses, in any way, shape, or form and is totally independent of the
universe and space-time. Good luck.
> I suggest you go to the
> nearest philosophy department of the nearest university and resolve your
> misunderstanding of naturalism's and empiricism's metaphysical
> character.
Bataitis replies:
Hey, just show me I'm wrong using the above criteria.
Good Luck again ;-)
ThomasPaine_II
>Pagano previously wrote:
>One may argue for Naturalism's falsity but this was NOT your assertion.
>Bataitis asserted to Abbott: "Naturalism is the only thing that *can*
>be tested." If it can be tested then propose the test to refute.
>Otherwise take Paine's way out: deny naturalism.
As stated before, this is another pagano lie.
I recognized "naturalism" a long time ago ... and admitted it - in a post to
pagano.
What I deny is that naturalism is a foundation belief of science.
This, pagano has claimed on numerous posts.
This is what I, and others, have repeatedly asked for proof and evidence
about.
The proof and evidence has never been produced; but the claims and assertions
are still made.
This is why pagano is a fraud, coward, liar, etc. etc.etc.
Plus the fact that he would rather (for the second time) state this lie about
me in posts to others rather than face me with it.
Richard Keatinge
<nyli...@frontiernet.net> writes
>A Pagano wrote:
>
>> I do not need to presuppose the truth of the metaphysical theories of
>> Naturalism or Empiricism to conduct genuine inquiry about the world.
Just as well, since real scientists don't either.
>
>Bataitis replies:
>Pagano's own definition of NATURALISM sinks him: "...matter and its
>properties are "alone necessary and sufficient" to explain "every"
>event, everywhere in the universe, from the beginning of time until the
>end of time." Even Empiricism is defined as, "the view that experience,
>especially of the senses, is the only source of knowledge."
>
>> I only need presuppose the truth of Realism. Realism is the metaphysical
>> notion that things, entities, causes, forces, propensities exist
>> independent of what we think and independent of our senses.
(snip)
>
>> Pagano responds:
>> Fact of the matter is that Naturalism is empirically untestable and you
>> have yet to offer a single test to refute.
>
>Bataitis replies:
>The simplest test to belie naturalism's or empiricism's validity for is
>for you to come up with an argument that does not rely on the use of my
>senses, in any way, shape, or form and is totally independent of the
>universe and space-time. Good luck.
I think that the above contains some sort of point, and since it's the
only sensible one that I've noticed Pagano making, it may be worth
celebrating. Science is based on the assumptions that the real universe
exists, that it sometimes follows some sort of rules, and that our
senses can report something relevant to those rules. As Elmer points
out in the above paragraph, these assumptions are untestable. So
science does rest on untestable assumptions.
Of course, Pagano relies on those particular assumptions every time he
posts another load of rubbish, or opens his Bible, so I think that all
of us take the assumptions of science more or less for granted. Just
don't get them confused with Pagano's idiosyncratic ideas about
Naturalism. You *can* have science and religion too. If you want to.
>
>> I suggest you go to the
>> nearest philosophy department of the nearest university and resolve your
>> misunderstanding of naturalism's and empiricism's metaphysical
>> character.
And I suggest, Pagano, that you find out what scientists actually assume
in order to do their jobs. It does not, in general, include the ideas
that you ascribe.
--
Richard Keatinge
homepage http://www.keatinge.demon.co.uk
A Pagano
Pagano previously wrote:
...I do not need to presuppose the truth of the metaphysical theories of
Naturalism or Empiricism to conduct genuine inquiry about the world.
Bataitis replies:
Pagano's own definition of NATURALISM sinks him: "...matter and its
properties are "alone necessary and sufficient" to explain "every"
event, everywhere in the universe, from the beginning of time until the
end of time." Even Empiricism is defined as, "the view that experience,
especially of the senses, is the only source of knowledge."
Pagano responds:
Bataitis's arguments are getting worse rather than better. It is HE who
argues for the acceptance of both "naturalism" and "empiricism" not I.
In fact, Bataitis, in his previous thread, equates "naturalism" and
"naive empiricism." They are not equivalent.
Empiricism was the fashion around the 1940s by the logical positivists,
but has faded like most "best available" subjective fashions, only some
principle of empiricism remains. Naturalism is in fashion. Again, for
Bataitis, they are NOT equivalent.
Therefore, if Bataitis finds some inconsistency between "naturalism" and
"empiricism" this is a problem for him not I since he equates them and
defends them. Surely this is obvious. I argue that they are both
false.
******************************
Pagano previously wrote:
I only need presuppose the truth of Realism. Realism is the
metaphysical notion that things, entities, causes, forces, propensities
exist independent of what we think and independent of our senses.
Bataitis replies:
Demonstrate to anyone the existence of things, entities, causes, forces,
propensities independent of their senses. I doubt you can do so.
Pagano responds:
I never claimed that I could. Please reread and note that I presuppose
METAPHYSICAL realism. I don't propose some "scientific" realism.
However, secularists like you presuppose Naturalism and Empiricism which
are in the same class of metaphysical concepts as Realism and
Supernaturalism. You then castigate creationists for presupposing
supernaturalism all the while retaining your own metaphysics of
naturalism and empiricism. This is inconsistent, and hypocritical.
****************************************
Bataitis previously asserted:
You still persist in trying to show I am wrong by only using methods
derived from *YOUR OWN* assumption that: "matter and its properties are
"alone necessary and sufficient" to explain "every" event, everywhere in
the universe, from the beginning of time until the end of time.
Pagano replied:
Bataitis again is defining away his problems. Perhaps I should suggest
that he invest in a good dictionary of philosophy.
Bataitis responded:
Hey, quit complaining, I was using your definition ;-)
Pagano rebuts:
No you weren't. You claimed that I rebutted you with a definition of my
own creation which you imply is non standard. Of course your definition
of "naturalism" is "naive empiricism." No definition of naturalism, of
which I am aware, "includes" or implies the truth of "empiricism."
******************************
Bataitis previously wrote:
Every time you post a claim that "naturalism" is *untestable*, you are
reinforcing your own denial of this claim ;-)
Pagano previously replied:
Fact of the matter is that Naturalism is empirically untestable and you
have yet to offer a single test to refute.
Bataitis responds:
The simplest test to belie naturalism's or empiricism's validity for is
for you to come up with an argument that does not rely on the use of my
senses, in any way, shape, or form and is totally independent of the
universe and space-time. Good luck.
Pagano rebuts:
We can neither see, touch, smell, taste or hear a number of conjectural
forces, propensities, entities, and brute unexplained causal entities in
our body of knowledge. Empiricism has not been in fashion for a number
of years only some priniciple of empiricism remains. Please disabuse
yourself of the false notion that Naturalism and Empiricism are
equivalent. But this is completely beside the point; this is not at
issue.
Bataitis has consistently tried to change the issue of the discussion.
The truth or falsity of Naturalism was never at issue. Modern secular
theorists DO NOT exclude supernaturalism because it is false. They
exclude it because it is empirically untestable. But Naturalism and
empiricism are empirically untestable. Bataitis has shown his utter
failure to argue otherwise.
Therefore if naturalism is not excluded from the body of science for its
untestability either modern secular theorists treat naturalism as a
dogmatic faith or they employ some other criteria. Or they are simply
being irrational. This is what Bataitis has been asked repeatedly to
counter argue.
I'll give Bataitis one more opportunity to argue what is at issue.
Regards,
T Pagano
ThomasPaine_II
>Naturalism or Empiricism to conduct genuine inquiry about the world.
You do not conduct inquiries - you make bold, unproven, assertions without
pre or post supportive evidence.
The issue, here, is your lack of ability to tell or even recognize the truth.
Not the truth of science, not the truth of any particular philosophy ... but
the truth of pagano.
Truth is a stranger to you.
Evidence is a concept you obviously know nothing about.
Honesty is beyond your reach.
And the closest you ever got to integrity was probably watching a movie that
included honorable actions.
You're a fraud - a liar - uneducated - dishonorable - and a clown.
And don't try to brush this off in your your usual manner as undeserved
insults; they are simple, and obvious, conclusions from from your posts, your
actions, and the responses to you and your posts from many members in T.O..
Dave Horn
[Snip]
Pagano, you have been caught in lies, evasions, and sophistry again just
this week. That you can come back so quickly and presume to go after Elmer
in your own, inimitable, pompous fashion is a testament to your arrogance.
Elmer will clean your clock on these issues; and I am still waiting for your
evidence that HIV is not the causative agent for AIDS. (While you're at it,
you can feel free to show me where I ever said that I read *all* of Mike's
references). I will remind you of that, and others as the "What Pagano
Won't Answer" series continues for as long as I see you post here...
You're a fraud, Pagano; and I'm still waiting...
ZeldaG
>From: "Dave Horn" <dh...@henge.com>
>Date: 2/13/99 12:05 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <0a31f481520...@msn.com>
>
I just don't understand why you folks bother with the likes of Pagano and
Nando. Their arguments lack anything resembling credible intellection.
It's very simple. When they have something that is credible and substantive,
THEN respond. Just ignore them otherwise. They are not worth your time.
Stephen Bracker
Richard Keatinge wrote in message ...
>In article <36C339...@frontiernet.net>, Elmer Bataitis
><nyli...@frontiernet.net> writes
>>A Pagano wrote:
>>
of
>>> Naturalism or Empiricism to conduct genuine inquiry about the
world.
>
>
>>
>>Pagano's own definition of NATURALISM sinks him: "...matter and its
>>properties are "alone necessary and sufficient" to explain "every"
>>event, everywhere in the universe, from the beginning of time until
the
>>end of time." Even Empiricism is defined as, "the view that
experience,
>>especially of the senses, is the only source of knowledge."
>>
metaphysical
>>> notion that things, entities, causes, forces, propensities exist
>>> independent of what we think and independent of our senses.
>
>
>>
>>> Pagano responds:
>>> Fact of the matter is that Naturalism is empirically untestable
and you
>>> have yet to offer a single test to refute.
>>
>>The simplest test to belie naturalism's or empiricism's validity for
is
>>for you to come up with an argument that does not rely on the use of
my
>>senses, in any way, shape, or form and is totally independent of the
>>universe and space-time. Good luck.
>
Yes, and even then we want to be careful about the nature of
“assumptions”. (Sorry if this sounds a little like Clinton quibbling
about the meaning of the word “is”, but....)
When I “assume” that the real universe exists, that its components
sometimes interact according to rules, and that my senses and mind
sometimes permit me to say something sensible about those rules, what
I’m really saying is that I’m agreeing with myself *to act as though
those things are true*. I’m *not* making even a tentative
metaphysical assertion about the “real true nature” of the universe.
It appears that there exists a world which has regularities that many
of us can agree about. I can get together with some friends, order in
pizza and a keg, time some balls rolling down inclined planes, and
find that until the keg becomes too light, we all appear to be
agreeing, within agreed-upon observational errors, about what’s going
on with the inclined plane and the balls.
I suppose that the world might have been different. We might live in a
world where even with the keg untapped, my friends and I could arrive
at no coherent picture of what’s going on. That might be because the
world is a disorderly chaotic place or because our senses and our
brains aren’t up to detecting and recognizing the order. It’s
interesting to speculate on whether a really chaotic disorderly
universe could exist, and whether or not humankind would ever have
developed the means to sense and formulate theories about order if
there were no order (hence no selective advantage to being able to
detect it), but never mind that. I find that my friends and I can
agree about the details of a seemingly orderly subset of the universe,
and derive some general rules about that subset’s order, and that’s
*all* I need to encourage myself to do science.
Might the “real world” be a delusion? Might the order we sense be a
fabrication, perhaps a fiction composed by a gremlin only when he sees
someone watching? Might yesterday’s experiments, and the log books
describing them, be the overnight plaything of some mad deity with
insomnia? Might every component of the world be inhabited by its own
demon, and all the order in the universe be the harmony resulting when
all those demons play from a single great score? Might the rules of
order all change tomorrow? Is it possible that Jehovah created the
world 6400 years ago, but did so in a manner guaranteed to delude a
portion of His creatures into believing it to be much older? Is the
tangible world merely a vast stage set on which some grand play is
being worked out by actors with built-in scripts and meagre ability to
appreciate the story line? Possible, all quite possible. Very few
scientists would assert, as a matter of metaphysical certainty, that
any of these notions can be absolutely ruled out.
However, unlike some folks, we scientists do find it possible to carry
on, to live life *as if* RK’s three “assumptions” are true. In fact,
we dedicate ourselves to so doing. It has worked well in the past, or
so it seems. Based on the experience of the past few years, in which
yesterday’s rules seem to keep working today for each new day, I’m
willing to live as though that will continue to be the case. How
philosophically untidy! Well, it’s the nature of the beast, I’m
afraid. We seem not to be creatures deeply rooted in academic
philosophy; our intelligence, our very way of thinking, derives from
the needs of an organism striving to survive and reproduce in the real
world. Why abandon what seems to have worked so well? Should we wait
to flee the tiger until the philosophical justifications for so doing
are all settled?
Now, the Bible-believing Christian is beset with all these same
difficulties and more. Is the Bible last week’s effort by a malevolent
demon, bent on deluding us about the true nature of deity? Is last
year’s personal revelation merely a figment, a vestige of the world’s
creation late last month? Is the hymn that pleases God today an
abomination in His sight on even-numbered days? Is every evidence of
design, of purpose, of benevolence, merely the idle pastime of an
utterly indifferent or even malevolent pantheon? Are yesterday’s Gods
the same as today’s, or has a whole new shift come on duty? Who can
tell? Once you give up realism, order, and some confidence in one’s
own senses, the universe can seem to be a pretty bizarre, chaotic,
unpredictable place. The same broom that sweeps out science is almost
certain to take theology right out the door with it.
Indeed, the problem the theologian faces is even worse. Replace my
friends and our inclined plane with a pack of theologians and whatever
apparatus they choose, and (weapons having been checked at the door)
there is precious little hope that a common description of deity will
emerge. People have been trying to arrive at the One True Nature of
God for some millennia now, and not only has there not emerged a
common view, but the phase space of possible God-models has hardly
been reduced in volume at all. Practically every notion that was
viable in 1000 BCE still has its advocates today, and if anything, the
list of candidates throwing their hats in the ring is growing ever
longer. Here we lack not only the metaphysical certainty of reality,
but even the superficial appearance of reality. It’s a Potemkin
Village without even the facade.
Pagano’s attack on science is nothing but a quixotic attack on a straw
man of his own fabrication, a delusion that I suspect is based on
Phillip Johnson or someone equally ignorant of science and scientists.
RK’s advice to Pagano -- that he take a moment to find out what real
scientists find it necessary to “assume” about the world -- will
doubtless fall on deaf ears, but it’s good advice.
Regards,
Steve Bracker
Stew Dean
<ric...@keatinge.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <36C339...@frontiernet.net>, Elmer Bataitis
><nyli...@frontiernet.net> writes
>>> Pagano responds:
>>> Fact of the matter is that Naturalism is empirically untestable and you
>>> have yet to offer a single test to refute.
>>
>>Bataitis replies:
>>The simplest test to belie naturalism's or empiricism's validity for is
>>for you to come up with an argument that does not rely on the use of my
>>senses, in any way, shape, or form and is totally independent of the
>>universe and space-time. Good luck.
>
>I think that the above contains some sort of point, and since it's the
>only sensible one that I've noticed Pagano making, it may be worth
>celebrating. Science is based on the assumptions that the real universe
>exists, that it sometimes follows some sort of rules, and that our
>senses can report something relevant to those rules. As Elmer points
>out in the above paragraph, these assumptions are untestable. So
>science does rest on untestable assumptions.
>
I think it all comes down to the use of Ochums rasor. In essense the
simplest possible solution is the likliest as it require the fewest
gaps to be filled in.
All we see and hear could be an illusion - but if they are why are
they?
There could be a god who created heaven and earth but if so where did
this god come from and what's the point of a god anyway?
And lastly we all could be a simulation inside a massive computer -
but we'd never have a way to find out. And this computer could be in
a simulated world in another computer and this computer courld be....
This is as likely as anything this Tony chap can invent.
>Of course, Pagano relies on those particular assumptions every time he
>posts another load of rubbish, or opens his Bible, so I think that all
>of us take the assumptions of science more or less for granted. Just
>don't get them confused with Pagano's idiosyncratic ideas about
>Naturalism. You *can* have science and religion too. If you want to.
Exactly - it's one thing saying we'll never know everything because
some things are unmessarable - it's another to then turn around and
claim you do know somethings which are unmessarable. As you have no
evidence, no reason based on what is messarable and extrapolated and
no origin for the idea you might as well say the moon is made out of
cheese.
>>> I suggest you go to the
>>> nearest philosophy department of the nearest university and resolve your
>>> misunderstanding of naturalism's and empiricism's metaphysical
>>> character.
>
>And I suggest, Pagano, that you find out what scientists actually assume
>in order to do their jobs. It does not, in general, include the ideas
>that you ascribe.
The assumption is that we can trust our senses - and, come to that,
our own minds. Probably the reason no one person is in charge of
science as we know each of us is wrong about quite a few things.
A Pagano
Pagano previously wrote to Bataitis:
I do not need to presuppose the truth of the metaphysical theories of
Naturalism or Empiricism to conduct genuine inquiry about the world.
Keatinge replies:
Just as well, since real scientists don't either.
Pagano replies:
Bataitis argued for "empiricism" not I.
Keatinge argues that "real" scientists don't presuppose the truth of the
metaphysical doctrine of naturalism. It is certainly true that the
majority of "real" scientists refuse to discuss it at all. Modern
secular theorists took their "purely naturalistic framework" and
subsumed this framework under the label "science." This isn't so much a
denial of Naturalism as it is a veil hiding Naturalism.
So far none of the arguments advanced in support of a purely
naturalistic definition of science has provided a non circular
justification for such a limitation. Keatinge's denial of Naturalism is
equally weak.
**************************************
Pagano previously wrote to Bataitis:
I only need presuppose the truth of Realism. Realism is the
metaphysical notion that things, entities, causes, forces, propensities
exist independent of what we think and independent of our senses.
[snip]
Bataitis previously wrote:
The simplest test to belie naturalism's or empiricism's validity for is
for you to come up with an argument that does not rely on the use of my
senses, in any way, shape, or form and is totally independent of the
universe and space-time. Good luck.
Keatinge replies:
I think that the above contains some sort of point, and since it's the
only sensible one that I've noticed Pagano making, it may be worth
celebrating. Science is based on the assumptions that the real universe
exists, that it sometimes follows some sort of rules, and that our
senses can report something relevant to those rules.
Pagano replies:
DOES REALISM HELP KEATINGE'S ARGUMENT?
First, Metaphysical realism (or ontological realism), which Keatinge
appears to defend, does not specifically presuppose that a real universe
exists. It is a far more general metaphysical doctrine. It proposes
that entities exist independent of what we think. And what we think is
based upon, among other things, our senses. There are at least two
consequences of metaphysical realism: (1) entities are there to be
discovered and (2) our ability to see, hear, smell, touch, and taste has
no bearing on the existence of any entities. The untestable philosophy
of Realism does not imply the truth of a purely naturalistic framework.
And it does not exclude the logical possibility of supernatural acts in
our material world.
DOES UNIFORMITARIANISM HELP KEATINGE'S ARGUMENT?
Second, Metaphysical realism says nothing about regularities. The
metaphysical presupposition of uniformitarianism covers the uniformity
of natural law and the uniformity of processes. The untestable
philosophy of Uniformitarianism does not imply the truth of some purely
naturalistic framework. And it does not exclude the logical possibility
of supernatural acts in our material world.
DOES SOME METHODOLOGICAL PRINCIPLE OF EMPIRICISM HELP KEATINGE'S
ARGUMENT?
Third, "that our senses can report something relevant to those [laws and
processes]" is merely some variation of the methodological principle of
empiricism. This methodological principle neither implies the truth of
Keatinge's purely naturalistic framework nor does it exclude the
possibility of supernatural acts in our material world.
ONLY NATURALISM SAVES KEATINGE'S PURELY NATURALISITIC SCIENCE.
And lastly the only presupposition which implies the truth of Keatinge's
purely naturalistic science is the untestable philosophy of Naturalism.
Only Naturalism denies the existence of supernatural acts in our
material world.
***************************************
Keatinge continues:
As Elmer points out in the above paragraph, these assumptions are
untestable. So science does rest on untestable assumptions.
Pagano replies:
Keatinge fails again. Above Bataitis talks about the validity of
Naturalism not its testability. Unfortunately the issue that was before
he and I was not Naturalism's truth, falsity, or validity, but its
empirical testability. He asserted that it was testable. Bataitis
never admitted that science presupposed unscientific doctrines.
If science does rest on untestable metaphysical presuppositions and
Naturalism isn't one of them then on what basis does Keatinge's science
exclude the metaphysical presupposition of supernaturalism?
****************************************
Keatinge continues:
Of course, Pagano relies on those particular assumptions every time he
posts another load of rubbish, or opens his Bible, so I think that all
of us take the assumptions of science more or less for granted.
Pagano replies:
Keatinge generally never identifies the rubbish. I have never denied
that metaphysical presuppositions are part of any framework of
discovery, but this is not the issue. The issue is: on what basis is
one untestable presupposition included and supernaturalism excluded? If
Keatinge includes one or several untestable presuppositions then what
rules or criteria does he employ to exclude others like supernaturalism?
Whether presuppositions are taken for granted is no indication that they
are true or that they are uncriticizable. Surely this is obvious, but
Keatinge has made perfectly clear on a number of occasions that he as
little interest in the objective truth and has demonstrated on others
his interest in defending his ideology.
*******************************************
Keatinge continues:
Just don't get them confused with Pagano's idiosyncratic ideas about
Naturalism.
Pagano replies:
If my defining terms of Naturalism are non standard then offer the
commonly held defining terms?
Keatinge's argument is weak. We discovered that either individually or
conjoined the untestable doctrines of realism and uniformitarianism, and
some methodological principle of empiricism do not imply the truth of
Keatinge's purely naturalistic framework and do not exclude the logical
possibility of supernatural acts. We discovered that Naturalism "is"
subsumed under the label "science" and as such is not denied but is
merely veiled. Only naturalism implies the truth of Keatinge's purely
naturalistic science. Only naturalism denies the logical possibility of
supernatural acts.
******************************************
Keatinge continues:
You *can* have science and religion too. If you want to.
Pagano replies:
Keatinge has no problem here because he doesn't believe that truth is
objective or absolute. And Keatinge has made his disdain for
christianity no secret. So if chrisitianity has a true proposition
which contradicts a proposition contained in his purely naturalistic
science then this doesn't present a problem for him. However, it should
for christians and there are approximately one billion christians
worldwide.
The National Academy of Sciences solution is to suggest that while
religion and science are both of value they are separate and their
propositions have NO relationship to each other whatsoever.
Unfortunately for the NAS and Keatinge the christian faith does make
propositions about our material world and these propositions are related
to some propositions of science via the philosophy of logic. Science
and religious faith can coexist but contradictions cannot be ignored.
*********************************
Pagano previously wrote to Bataitis:
I suggest you go to the nearest philosophy department of the nearest
university and resolve your misunderstanding of naturalism's and
empiricism's metaphysical character.
Keatinge replied:
And I suggest, Pagano, that you find out what scientists actually assume
in order to do their jobs. It does not, in general, include the ideas
that you ascribe.
Pagano replies:
Keatinge denies Naturalism but realism and uniformitarianism don't imply
his purely naturalistic framework and don't exclude supernaturalism.
Keatinge's methodological principle of empiricism also doesn't imply his
purely naturalistic framework. This being the case how does Keatinge
justify his purely naturalistic framework?
Keatinge periodically pops up to castigate me with his weak arguments.
This time he sent me a direct cc soliciting a reply. Let's see if he
can defend his weak argument. But I won't hold my breath.
Regards,
T Pagano
Mike Dunford
[snip]
> DOES UNIFORMITARIANISM HELP KEATINGE'S ARGUMENT?
> Second, Metaphysical realism says nothing about regularities. The
> metaphysical presupposition of uniformitarianism covers the uniformity
> of natural law and the uniformity of processes. The untestable
> philosophy of Uniformitarianism does not imply the truth of some purely
> naturalistic framework. And it does not exclude the logical possibility
> of supernatural acts in our material world.
You are using that "untestable" word again in connection with
uniformitarianism. It is really starting to get frustrating. I have lost
count of the exact number of times that I have pointed out to you that
uniformitarianism is in fact falsifiable. However, a quick check of my
outbox reveals at least the following two posts this year, copies of
both of which were emailed to you. In neither case did the email bounce.
For your reference:
http://x6.dejanews.com/[ST_rn=ps]/getdoc.xp?AN=430756561.1
(1/9/99 Thread: The Aim of Science and Uniformitarianism)
http://x6.dejanews.com/[ST_rn=ps]/getdoc.xp?AN=441832060.1
(2/7/99 Thread: Demarkation Criteria, Uniformitarianism, Catastrophism )
In both cases I pointed out, as I will again, that the prnciple of
uniformitarianism depends on the concept of uniform natural law and that
uniform natural law is obviously falsified if a natural law changes. In
fact, in the second of the posts listed above I gave you some specific
observations AT YOUR REQUEST that would falsify uniform natural law. You
did not respond to either of these posts, yet you continue to
pontificate about "untestable uniformitarianism."
For your convienience, I will again list some specific observations
which would falsify the idea of uniform natural laws.
1: Pressure x Volume not equal to #moles x R (gas law constant) x
Temperature in degrees Kelvin
2: Planetary orbits no longer covering equal areas in equal time
3: gravity no longer following the inverse-square relationship
4: Chemical reactions spontaneously proceeding at conditions where they
should not (water boiling at 0 C and 1 atm)
These are just a few examples. There are, of course, others but these
should be sufficient.
The time has come for you to put up, or shut up. Before you again use
the phrase, "untestable philosophy of Uniformitarianism," again explain
why none of these specific empirical observations would falsify the idea
of uniform natural laws.
-Mike
[snip]
ThomasPaine_II
> Pagano replies:
>Bataitis argued for "empiricism" not I.
You don't argue for anything; you just bellow fabrications and run.
>
>Keatinge argues that "real" scientists don't presuppose the truth of the
>metaphysical doctrine of naturalism. It is certainly true that the
>majority of "real" scientists refuse to discuss it at all. Modern
>secular theorists took their "purely naturalistic framework" and
>subsumed this framework under the label "science." This isn't so much a
>denial of Naturalism as it is a veil hiding Naturalism.
And, once again, for the Nth time.
Do you have any evidence of this?
I didn't think so .... clown.
(snip more unsupported pagano crap)
Andrew MacRae
writes:
|A Pagano baldly asserted:
|[snip]
|
|> DOES UNIFORMITARIANISM HELP KEATINGE'S ARGUMENT?
|> Second, Metaphysical realism says nothing about regularities. The
|> metaphysical presupposition of uniformitarianism covers the uniformity
|> of natural law and the uniformity of processes. The untestable
|> philosophy of Uniformitarianism does not imply the truth of some purely
|> naturalistic framework. And it does not exclude the logical
|> possibility of supernatural acts in our material world.
|
|You are using that "untestable" word again in connection with
|uniformitarianism. It is really starting to get frustrating. I have lost
|count of the exact number of times that I have pointed out to you that
|uniformitarianism is in fact falsifiable.
Well, if it makes you feel any better, I also directed him to at
least two papers where the possibility of falsifying uniformitarianism
(for gravity and for radioactive decay) was explicitly tested for Earth
history, and I referred him indirectly to recent evidence that some
physical constants actually were slightly different early in the history
of the universe (although these conclusions are still tentative, and are
for times that long pre-date Earth history). On top of that, I really
wonder what Pagano is talking about, because geologists have no qualms
about talking of processes that are quite different from today, *IF* there
is evidence for their occurrence. For example:
Pfluger, F. and Gresse, P.G., 1996. Microbial sand chips -- a
non-actualistic sedimentary structure. Sedimentary Geology, v.102,
p.263-274.
One wonders how a paper with a title like that could even get
published, if what Pagano claims were true.
|However, a quick check of my
|outbox reveals at least the following two posts this year, copies of
|both of which were emailed to you. In neither case did the email bounce.
|
|For your reference:
|http://x6.dejanews.com/[ST_rn=ps]/getdoc.xp?AN=430756561.1
|(1/9/99 Thread: The Aim of Science and Uniformitarianism)
|http://x6.dejanews.com/[ST_rn=ps]/getdoc.xp?AN=441832060.1
|(2/7/99 Thread: Demarkation Criteria, Uniformitarianism, Catastrophism )
|
|In both cases I pointed out, as I will again, that the prnciple of
|uniformitarianism depends on the concept of uniform natural law
It *hypothesizes* it, and tests it. To this date, no indications
of significant change in physical laws in Earth history have yet to be
detected. It isn't an assumption, it is a hypothesis that is yet to be
falsified for Earth history, for physical laws (although some processes
that depend upon those laws certainly have changed over time -- see
above).
|and that
|uniform natural law is obviously falsified if a natural law changes. In
|fact, in the second of the posts listed above I gave you some specific
|observations AT YOUR REQUEST that would falsify uniform natural law. You
|did not respond to either of these posts, yet you continue to
|pontificate about "untestable uniformitarianism."
Silly, isn't it, given that it is both theoretically testable
*and* actually tested in the printed literature?
|For your convienience, I will again list some specific observations
|which would falsify the idea of uniform natural laws.
|
|1: Pressure x Volume not equal to #moles x R (gas law constant) x
|Temperature in degrees Kelvin
|
|2: Planetary orbits no longer covering equal areas in equal time
|
|3: gravity no longer following the inverse-square relationship
|
|4: Chemical reactions spontaneously proceeding at conditions where they
|should not (water boiling at 0 C and 1 atm)
|
|These are just a few examples. There are, of course, others but these
|should be sufficient.
|
|The time has come for you to put up, or shut up. Before you again use
|the phrase, "untestable philosophy of Uniformitarianism," again explain
|why none of these specific empirical observations would falsify the idea
|of uniform natural laws.
Oh, now you have done it. You have been rude, which probably
means Pagano will say something along the lines of "such anger", and then
casually neglect the real issue again.
Pagano, if uniformitarianism is an "untestable philosophy", then
what does this paper mean, which I have previously referred you to (refer
to: http://www.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?AN=405236926 ):
Stewart, A.D., 1976. Quantitative limits to paleogravity. Journal of the
Geological Society of Londong, v.133, p.281-291.
Were the authors trying to test the untestable?
Mike, before you waste too much time trying to explain the problem
to him, you might want to review my and others' previous attempts, mostly
last November, if you haven't read them before. I have also previously
directed him to:
Shea, J.H., 1983. Creationism, uniformitarianism, geology, and science.
Journal of Geological Education, v.31, p.105-110.
Which talks about some of the common misconceptions about the
concept, of which there are many (so I can't really blame people for being
confused).
-Andrew
mac...@agc.bio._NOSPAM_.ns.ca
A Pagano
The notion that laws are uniform in all of space time is untestable.
Your faq is nothing more than tired arguments which you have already
offered. They are easily criticized and mostly false. However, since
uniformitarianism is of interest and I shall provide harsh criticism for
faq in due time.
And lastly Keatinge does not deny that scientists presuppose untestable
doctrines. He included the assumed regularity of nature as one of
them. As such you don't help his cause. Save your defense for your
faq.
Regards,
T Pagano
Elmer Bataitis
> Therefore, if Bataitis finds some inconsistency between "naturalism" and
> "empiricism" this is a problem for him not I since he equates them and
> defends them. Surely this is obvious. I argue that they are both
> false.
Yet you persist in using *ONLY* "naturalism" and "empiricism" to argue
the point. Don't you get the point that to deny the validity of
something and yet still use it doesn't bespeak much grasp of logic.
Try using "supernaturalism" or any other method that does *NOT* involve
the use of matter and its properties nor use the experience of the
senses, nor uses any other part of the universe or space-time to argue
the point.
But you never do this. You continue to use exactly those methods, and
*only* those methods whose validity you deny.
Sheest.
Elmer Bataitis
> Bataitis responds:
> The simplest test to belie naturalism's or empiricism's validity for is
> for you to come up with an argument that does not rely on the use of my
> senses, in any way, shape, or form and is totally independent of the
> universe and space-time. Good luck.
> Pagano rebuts:
> We can neither see, touch, smell, taste or hear a number of conjectural
> forces, propensities, entities, and brute unexplained causal entities in
> our body of knowledge.
What evidence can you present that any of them exist outside of and are
independent of the universe and space-time?
;-)
Mike Dunford
[snip]
> |In both cases I pointed out, as I will again, that the prnciple of
> |uniformitarianism depends on the concept of uniform natural law
>
> It *hypothesizes* it, and tests it. To this date, no indications
> of significant change in physical laws in Earth history have yet to be
> detected. It isn't an assumption, it is a hypothesis that is yet to be
> falsified for Earth history, for physical laws (although some processes
> that depend upon those laws certainly have changed over time -- see
> above).
Thanks. That's what I've been groping towards, both here and in my FAQ.
I knew what I was looking for, but couldn't come up with the right
words.
> |and that
> |uniform natural law is obviously falsified if a natural law changes. In
> |fact, in the second of the posts listed above I gave you some specific
> |observations AT YOUR REQUEST that would falsify uniform natural law. You
> |did not respond to either of these posts, yet you continue to
> |pontificate about "untestable uniformitarianism."
>
> Silly, isn't it, given that it is both theoretically testable
> *and* actually tested in the printed literature?
Yup. More to the point, it really gets frustrating when you post
specifics at his request, he ignores them, then restates his assertion
in a diferent thread a week later.
> |For your convienience, I will again list some specific observations
> |which would falsify the idea of uniform natural laws.
[snip]
> |These are just a few examples. There are, of course, others but these
> |should be sufficient.
> |
> |The time has come for you to put up, or shut up. Before you again use
> |the phrase, "untestable philosophy of Uniformitarianism," again explain
> |why none of these specific empirical observations would falsify the idea
> |of uniform natural laws.
>
> Oh, now you have done it. You have been rude, which probably
> means Pagano will say something along the lines of "such anger", and then
> casually neglect the real issue again.
I know, but I couldn't really think of a polite way to say "put up or
shut up," and that's what I _really_, _really_ wanted to say at that
point.
[snip]
> Mike, before you waste too much time trying to explain the problem
> to him, you might want to review my and others' previous attempts, mostly
> last November, if you haven't read them before.
[snip]
Thanks for the refs -- I hadn't seen any of them before, as far as I can
tell. As far as the previous attempts go, I realize that I am much more
likely to hit the jackpot on last Wednesday's lotto than I am to get
Pagano to change his mind or admit error on this. I just don't have the
kind of personality that lets me ignore repeated errors.
--Mike
Mike Dunford
A Pagano wrote:
>
> The notion that laws are uniform in all of space time is untestable.
Again, I just posted four specific observations that would falsify that
hypothesis. You have in the past requested that I provide such, yet each
time that I have done so, you have ignored them. You continue to make
the unsupported assertion that the hypothesis that laws are uniform is
untestable. Answer the question or stop making the assertion: How do the
observations that I listed fail to potentially falsify the hypothesis
that laws are uniform.
> Your faq is nothing more than tired arguments which you have already
> offered. They are easily criticized and mostly false. However, since
> uniformitarianism is of interest and I shall provide harsh criticism for
> faq in due time.
My FAQ is irrelevant to the present discussion. In fact, I never
mentioned the FAQ, and did not refer to it in the posts cited.
Answer the question, Pagano. Why wouldn't repeatable observations that
pressure x volume no longer = #moles x R x temp(Kelvin) falsify the
hypothesis that laws are uniform in all of space-time?
> And lastly Keatinge does not deny that scientists presuppose untestable
> doctrines. He included the assumed regularity of nature as one of
> them.
If that is the case, then Keatinge is wrong. The hypothesis that laws
are uniform is testable.
> As such you don't help his cause.
Irrelevant. I was not attempting to help Keatinge. I was pointing out to
you an error that you persistantly continue to make despite repeated
correction.
> Save your defense for your faq.
When I see a specific criticism, I'll defend the FAQ. Please be so kind
as to cc my email if you post a reply to that.
-Mike
>
> Regards,
> T Pagano
David Johnston
>
> The notion that laws are uniform in all of space time is untestable.
However the universe certainly looks pretty uniform in general.
Richard Keatinge
>
>
>
>Pagano previously wrote to Bataitis:
>I do not need to presuppose the truth of the metaphysical theories of
>Naturalism or Empiricism to conduct genuine inquiry about the world.
>
>
>Keatinge replies:
>Just as well, since real scientists don't either.
>
>
> Pagano replies:
>Bataitis argued for "empiricism" not I.
>
>Keatinge argues that "real" scientists don't presuppose the truth of the
>metaphysical doctrine of naturalism. It is certainly true that the
>majority of "real" scientists refuse to discuss it at all. Modern
>secular theorists took their "purely naturalistic framework" and
>subsumed this framework under the label "science." This isn't so much a
>denial of Naturalism as it is a veil hiding Naturalism.
Like so much other stuff directed at Pagano, it meant what it said. Not
what Pagano thought it implied. A pity really, as I'm trying to use
simple words and keep this short and sweet. To repeat, the only bits of
the universe that scientific method can investigate are those bits with
some degree of regularity, where observable cause leads to observable
effect. Given that, we do tend to assume that there is some regularity
in what we're investigating. But there might not be, and the regularity
certainly doesn't have to assume any specific form that we presently
assume.
>
>So far none of the arguments advanced in support of a purely
>naturalistic definition of science has provided a non circular
>justification for such a limitation. Keatinge's denial of Naturalism is
>equally weak.
I simply observe that your version of Naturalism is not necessary in
order to do science, nor is it held by most scientists.
Good, that's correct. Things exist, regardless of whether or not we can
sense them.
>And it does not exclude the logical possibility of supernatural acts in
>our material world.
Indeed it doesn't.
>
>DOES UNIFORMITARIANISM HELP KEATINGE'S ARGUMENT?
>Second, Metaphysical realism says nothing about regularities. The
>metaphysical presupposition of uniformitarianism covers the uniformity
>of natural law and the uniformity of processes.
Again, I don't think that this version of uniformitarianism has been a
live issue since some time in the career of the late great Charles
Lyell. It is not a general or widespread or necessary assumption of
modern science.
>The untestable
>philosophy of Uniformitarianism does not imply the truth of some purely
>naturalistic framework. And it does not exclude the logical possibility
>of supernatural acts in our material world.
Indeed, such things have merely not been attested by good evidence.
>
>DOES SOME METHODOLOGICAL PRINCIPLE OF EMPIRICISM HELP KEATINGE'S
>ARGUMENT?
>Third, "that our senses can report something relevant to those [laws and
>processes]" is merely some variation of the methodological principle of
>empiricism. This methodological principle neither implies the truth of
>Keatinge's purely naturalistic framework nor does it exclude the
>possibility of supernatural acts in our material world.
So far, moderately good. Indeed, some version of this is a separate
assumption. That's why I enumerated it separately.
>
>ONLY NATURALISM SAVES KEATINGE'S PURELY NATURALISITIC SCIENCE.
>And lastly the only presupposition which implies the truth of Keatinge's
>purely naturalistic science is the untestable philosophy of Naturalism.
>Only Naturalism denies the existence of supernatural acts in our
>material world.
And I simply note that, although there could (according to the ideas
that I presently hold) be good evidence of such acts, and there should
be if some versions of Christianity were true, there isn't.
>***************************************
>
>
>
>
>Keatinge continues:
>As Elmer points out in the above paragraph, these assumptions are
>untestable. So science does rest on untestable assumptions.
>
>
> Pagano replies:
>Keatinge fails again. Above Bataitis talks about the validity of
>Naturalism not its testability. Unfortunately the issue that was before
>he and I was not Naturalism's truth, falsity, or validity, but its
>empirical testability. He asserted that it was testable. Bataitis
>never admitted that science presupposed unscientific doctrines.
I was trying to be tactful, and not to make too many assumptions about
the inside of Elmer's head.
>
>If science does rest on untestable metaphysical presuppositions and
>Naturalism isn't one of them then on what basis does Keatinge's science
>exclude the metaphysical presupposition of supernaturalism?
If you mean the idea that supernatural occurrences are possible, it
doesn't. Nor do I. If you have some other definition of
"supernaturalism" - I surmise that it includes your personal version of
Christianity - this is probably a good place to trot it out.
>****************************************
>
>
>
>
>
>Keatinge continues:
>Of course, Pagano relies on those particular assumptions every time he
>posts another load of rubbish, or opens his Bible, so I think that all
>of us take the assumptions of science more or less for granted.
>
>
> Pagano replies:
>Keatinge generally never identifies the rubbish.
Just reread any of your posts.
>I have never denied
>that metaphysical presuppositions are part of any framework of
>discovery, but this is not the issue. The issue is: on what basis is
>one untestable presupposition included and supernaturalism excluded? If
>Keatinge includes one or several untestable presuppositions then what
>rules or criteria does he employ to exclude others like supernaturalism?
To repeat, I don't exclude the supernatural a priori. I do exclude odd
claims with grossly-insufficient evidence.
>
>Whether presuppositions are taken for granted is no indication that they
>are true or that they are uncriticizable. Surely this is obvious, but
>Keatinge has made perfectly clear on a number of occasions that he as
>little interest in the objective truth and has demonstrated on others
>his interest in defending his ideology.
>*******************************************
>
>
>
>
>Keatinge continues:
>Just don't get them confused with Pagano's idiosyncratic ideas about
>Naturalism.
>
>
> Pagano replies:
>If my defining terms of Naturalism are non standard then offer the
>commonly held defining terms?
I can't be bothered. I repeat, neither I nor most scientists of my
acquaintance hold your version of Naturalism. I am not really interested
in arguing further about the term.
>
>Keatinge's argument is weak. We discovered that either individually or
>conjoined the untestable doctrines of realism and uniformitarianism, and
>some methodological principle of empiricism do not imply the truth of
>Keatinge's purely naturalistic framework
Get it straight, this is *your* purely natural framework. You are
arguing with a figment of your imagination.
>and do not exclude the logical
>possibility of supernatural acts. We discovered that Naturalism "is"
>subsumed under the label "science" and as such is not denied but is
>merely veiled.
Or not, as the case turns out to be.
>Only Paganonaturalism implies the truth of Keatinge's purely
>naturalistic science. Only Paganonaturalism denies the logical
>possibility of supernatural acts.
With two minor changes the Paganoparagraph makes sense.
>******************************************
>
>
>
>
>Keatinge continues:
>You *can* have science and religion too. If you want to.
>
>
> Pagano replies:
>Keatinge has no problem here because he doesn't believe that truth is
>objective or absolute.
As I've said before, I do hold that the Universe is doing it all
correctly, truthfully if you like. The truth is out there! Getting at
some approximate description of it is difficult, but only science
appears to offer any serious prospect of progress.
>And Keatinge has made his disdain for
>christianity no secret.
It is based on my acquaintance with Christians like you and various
creationists. You may be comforted to know that I think very well
indeed of many other religionists of various sorts, Christians included.
But I have developed a low esteem for religions that contradict reality
and tell lies to cover up the discrepancy. Various minority sects of
Christianity, among others, seem to fall into this category. If I were
still a Christian I would find you and them deeply embarrassing.
>So if chrisitianity has a true proposition
>which contradicts a proposition contained in his purely naturalistic
>science then this doesn't present a problem for him. However, it should
>for christians and there are approximately one billion christians
>worldwide.
>
>The National Academy of Sciences solution is to suggest that while
>religion and science are both of value they are separate and their
>propositions have NO relationship to each other whatsoever.
>Unfortunately for the NAS and Keatinge the christian faith does make
>propositions about our material world and these propositions are related
>to some propositions of science via the philosophy of logic. Science
>and religious faith can coexist but contradictions cannot be ignored.
You seem to have coped by repeating some standard creationist idiocies.
Might you not do better to discard those bits of your faith that more
blatantly contradict observable reality? You may find, as do many other
Christians, that the residuum is deeply satisfying, and so is your
unbiased exploration of God's universe.
>*********************************
>
>
>
>Pagano previously wrote to Bataitis:
>I suggest you go to the nearest philosophy department of the nearest
>university and resolve your misunderstanding of naturalism's and
>empiricism's metaphysical character.
>
>
>Keatinge replied:
>And I suggest, Pagano, that you find out what scientists actually assume
>in order to do their jobs. It does not, in general, include the ideas
>that you ascribe.
>
>
> Pagano replies:
>Keatinge denies Naturalism but realism and uniformitarianism don't imply
>his purely naturalistic framework and don't exclude supernaturalism.
>Keatinge's methodological principle of empiricism also doesn't imply his
>purely naturalistic framework. This being the case how does Keatinge
>justify his purely naturalistic framework?
For the umpteenth time, Pagano, I *don't use one*.
>
>Keatinge periodically pops up to castigate me with his weak arguments.
>This time he sent me a direct cc soliciting a reply. Let's see if he
>can defend his weak argument. But I won't hold my breath.
Nor will I. I suspect that I would turn blue a long time before Pagano
understands the simple points that I make above.
In article <36C83530...@fast.net>, A Pagano <apa...@fast.net>
writes
>
>
>The notion that laws are uniform in all of space time is untestable.
>Your faq is nothing more than tired arguments which you have already
>offered. They are easily criticized and mostly false. However, since
>uniformitarianism is of interest and I shall provide harsh criticism for
>faq in due time.
<sarcasm> I'm sure that Mike Dunford's bottom is tingling in
anticipation. </sarcasm>
>
>And lastly Keatinge does not deny that scientists presuppose untestable
>doctrines. He included the assumed regularity of nature as one of
>them.
This doesn't imply that all or any natural laws are necessarily
invariant, as other and wiser posters have pointed out. Just that we can
find out, from sensory data, something about causes and effects.
>As such you don't help his cause.
Actually he did, but I doubt that he cares much anyway.
>Save your defense for your
>faq.
--
Richard Keatinge
Official Howler Monkey,
Karl Crawford Reader in Remedial Education,
University of Ediacara
Current research interest: the organic basis of irreducible idiocy
Dave Oldridge
<apa...@fast.net> wrote:
>
>
>The notion that laws are uniform in all of space time is untestable.
It may be untestable, but, on the other hand we have knowledge of
fairly large chunks of space and time and no large scale exceptions
are visible in those areas.
>Your faq is nothing more than tired arguments which you have already
>offered. They are easily criticized and mostly false. However, since
>uniformitarianism is of interest and I shall provide harsh criticism for
>faq in due time.
In other words: "Don't confuse me with faqs. I've got my mind made up
already!"
>And lastly Keatinge does not deny that scientists presuppose untestable
>doctrines. He included the assumed regularity of nature as one of
>them. As such you don't help his cause. Save your defense for your
>faq.
While it would be foolish to presuppose that the laws of physics
remain the same in ALL of space-time, it seems foolish to suppose that
they change much once the universe is actually born from the
primordial singularity that it sprang from. Certainly there is no
compelling evidence that they change....
So, I suppose one can treat the non-changing of the laws of physics
(at least in general) as just another theory. But it is a theory
that, so far, has not been disproven by any observations (unless you
want to cite divine miracles which don't PROVABLY violate the laws of
physics but may operate through them in unprecedented ways).
Dave Oldridge
Sysop, Coastal Watch BBS
telnet://bbs.coastalw.com
ICQ 1800667
dold...@ocean.coastalw.com
Kevin Anthoney
<mathem...@usenet.nospam.fogey.com> wrote:
>>>A Pagano pounded silicon into:
>
> > The notion that laws are uniform in all of space time is
> > untestable.
>
>This is incorrect. There are many aspects of physical laws that can
>be tested for nonuniformity. Paul Adrian Michael Dirac, as you've
>been told before, formulated several tests for variations in
>gravity. Various people have checked on the speed of light over time.
>The 3 degree background radiation provides yet another test, and, in
>fact, demonstrates *nonuniform* laws must have at one time operated.
>
Ooh! Oooh! Pedant points!
<ahem>
It's Paul Adrien Maurice Dirac.
When can I pick up my award?
>We also now have, in some cases, several hundred years of observations
>from which very careful analysis of the 'uniformity' of certain laws
>can be performed.
>
>
>
>--
>
>that is all
>
Kevin Anthoney
kant...@freenet.co.uk
A Pagano
Pagano previously wrote:
Bataitis argued for "empiricism" not I. Keatinge argues that "real"
scientists don't presuppose the truth of the metaphysical doctrine of
naturalism. It is certainly true that the majority of "real" scientists
refuse to discuss it at all. Modern secular theorists took their
"purely naturalistic framework" and subsumed this framework under the
label "science." This isn't so much a denial of Naturalism as it is a
veil hiding Naturalism.
Keatinge rebutted:
Like so much other stuff directed at Pagano, it meant what it said. Not
what Pagano thought it implied.
Pagano rebuts:
What "it" was, was a simple denial that modern secular theorists
presupposed the untestable philosophies of empiricism and naturalism.
First, I don't believe the majority of secular theorists presuppose the
philosophy of empiricism either, this was Bataitis's contribution. I
counter argued Keatinge's simple denial of Naturalism by noting that the
"purely naturalistic framework" subsumed under the label "Science" is
equivalent to Naturalism. Keatinge's rebuttal is careful to completely
avoid the discussion of naturalism.
Keatinge's defense below is that Naturalism is not presupposed by modern
secular theorists, but they do presuppose some principle of empiricism
(not the philosophy of empiricism) which can only be used to probe
processes which occur with regularity. This excludes far more than
supernatural causation particularly when one considers a purported 4.6
billion years with no observers. See below.
*****************************************
Keatinge continued:
A pity really, as I'm trying to use simple words and keep this short and
sweet. To repeat, the only bits of the universe that scientific method
can investigate are those bits with some degree of regularity, where
observable cause leads to observable effect. Given that, we do tend to
assume that there is some regularity in what we're investigating. But
there might not be, and the regularity certainly doesn't have to assume
any specific form that we presently assume.
Pagano responds:
Clarity is indeed a virtue and Keatinge's writing is clear enough.
Having denied Naturalism he inserts in its place some principle of
empiricism which is only capable of probing regular processes. If this
were true the study of origins would come to a screeching halt. Not
only would such a presupposition exclude supernatural causation but it
would exclude every material cause which was unique, non recurring,
and/or unobservable.
I would argue that the "purely naturalistic framework" of the modern
secular theorist says far more than some weak principle of empiricism---
that is, that some observable causes lead to some observable effects.
They proclaim unabashedly that all events in space time can be explained
(eventually) with reference to matter and its properties alone.
And for a 4.6 billion year prehistory (no observers) how does Keatinge
know which processes occurred with regularity and which did not? Based
upon a limited sampling from 4000 years of recorded history? He alludes
to the fact that perhaps modern secular theorists assume the truth of
some doctrine of the uniformity of processes to solve this problem. Of
course his brethren have denied this presupposition for as long as I've
been here.
And Keatinge implies with his principle of empiricism limited to probing
regular processes that all unique non recurring events in the earth's
4.6 billion year history are unapproachable. This would eliminate the
big bang, unique meteoric impacts conjectured to cause extinctions, the
unique events of abiogenesis, and the countless unique events leading to
the tree of common descent to name only a few.
Has Keatinge really defended his denial of Naturalism? I think he might
even admit that beyond his denial he refuses to address Naturalism at
all. Otherwise it would have been much shorter for him to have simply
argued that Naturalism was false.
****************************************
[the rest deleted since the crux of the matter lies above.]
Regards,
T Pagano
Elmer Bataitis
> Not only would such a presupposition exclude supernatural causation but it
> would exclude every material cause which was unique, non recurring,
> and/or unobservable.
Name any material cause which is *NOT* unique.
Name any unique material cause which recurrs.
And, if electromagnetic radiation emitted by the event is able to reach
us, name any material event, in all of the universe and space-time,
which is unobservable.
ThomasPaine_II
>
>
>
>
>
>Pagano previously wrote:
>Bataitis argued for "empiricism" not I. Keatinge argues that "real"
>scientists don't presuppose the truth of the metaphysical doctrine of
>naturalism. It is certainly true that the majority of "real" scientists
>refuse to discuss it at all. Modern secular theorists took their
>"purely naturalistic framework" and subsumed this framework under the
>label "science." This isn't so much a denial of Naturalism as it is a
>veil hiding Naturalism.
>
>what Pagano thought it implied.
>
>
>What "it" was, was a simple denial that modern secular theorists
>presupposed the untestable philosophies of empiricism and naturalism.
>First, I don't believe the majority of secular theorists presuppose the
>philosophy of empiricism either, this was Bataitis's contribution. I
>counter argued Keatinge's simple denial of Naturalism by noting that the
>"purely naturalistic framework" subsumed under the label "Science" is
>equivalent to Naturalism. Keatinge's rebuttal is careful to completely
>avoid the discussion of naturalism.
>
>Keatinge's defense below is that Naturalism is not presupposed by modern
>secular theorists, but they do presuppose some principle of empiricism
>(not the philosophy of empiricism) which can only be used to probe
>processes which occur with regularity. This excludes far more than
>supernatural causation particularly when one considers a purported 4.6
>billion years with no observers. See below.
Hey! pagano! Fraud!
Still waiting for evidence that the philosophy of naturalism has anything to
do with science/evolution.
The crap still spews forth, but the evidence is nowhere to be found.
Evan W. Steeg
A Pagano wrote in message <36CA4E58...@fast.net>...
> [stuff deleted]
It occurs to me that there may be a way -- at least in theory -- of making
some progress on these debates with Pagano. Let us presume -- against
strong evidence to the contrary -- that Pagano is truly interested in
elucidating and perhaps broadening and strengthening the philosophical
underpinnings of science. (Rather than, say, just stabbing randomly in the
dark in hope of weakening society's trust of science and reason in order
that his own particular favorite ancient religious story might gain more
adherents).
If we assume that, and also assume that "evolutionists" are also
interested in foundations (and not in merely propping up a decaying and
incorrect theory under attack), then I would suggest that we might recast
this debate into a probabilistic, especially Bayesian framework. Here's
why: To put it a bit simplistically, Pagano claims that scientists (or at
least the "secular humanist" variety) do their work *assuming* particular
nastily untestable and weakly supported metaphysical philosophies as
"Naturalism" and "Uniformitarianism" (and, covertly, "atheism"). Many of
us who actually *do* science claim that we do not make, nor require such
assumptions, or at least, not extremist, abolutist versions of such
assumptions. Let's leave aside Pagano's obviously deceitful quote-mining
from die-hard atheist humanist and Marxist ideologues and consider what the
majority of scientists actually do in their day-to-day working life. Is
there a way to reconcile a contention that "naturalism/uniformitarianism is
assumed" with a contention that it is not assumed absolutely? Yes:
Bayesian reasoning. Attach Bayesian priors to any such "background"
assumptions that support the inference of theories from evidence, including
"uniformity" in time or space, linearity, dependence/independence among
variables, etc. Perfectly straightforward, rational methods exist for
specifying, ranking and weighting prior assumptions, evidence, data that
supports or contradicts a theory, and the final resulting deductive or
inductive results. Moreover, it can be argued persuasively that such
methods, although formal (and hence difficult for novices or
"unmathematical" people to learn) in fact capture what we mean intuitively
by "sound reasoning", "reasonable estimate" and so forth.
This is hardly a novel idea, of course. I'd recommend the expository
books and articles by I.J. Good on the general use of such principles
(though Good is not considered an extreme Bayesian by other Bayesians or
their filthy, heretical "frequentist" opponents :) I'm not well versed on
Bayesian approaches to the philosophy of science per se, though I've seen
bits here and there (including in the works of Good). (I've a fair amount
of experience, and megabytes of references, with Bayesian approaches to
machine induction, AI and KDD, and can supply refs on request. The work of
Michael Jordan (no, the *other* one), David MacKay, Radford Neal and Wray
Buntine stand out).
I'm NOT volunteering to lead this discussion! But I point to this area
of work, because in it lies the means for exploring, and perhaps
strengthening, the reliance of modern evolutionary biological (and other
scientific) theories upon various regularity assumptions -- metaphysical,
religious or otherwise. Among other things, Bayesianism allows one to
leverage -- in a principled and explicit (hence honest) way -- some degree
of evidenced (observed) regularity (e.g,, uniformity of the speed of light)
into "soft" (and revocable) assumptions of larger degrees of regularity.
Bayesian methods also allow for a neat treatment of Occam's Razor, by the
way.
I'm not a formalist (you may have noticed by now that I'm repelled by
nearly every "ism", especially when taken to extremes), and don't think that
all debate ought to be mathematized. But without a more principled and
explicit way to talk about regularity assumptions and how they're actually
used in science (formally and informally), the Pagano Debates are just so
much hot, stinky air: "Did not!" "Did too!", ......
Evan
Richard Keatinge
>
>
>
>
>
>Pagano previously wrote:
>Bataitis argued for "empiricism" not I. Keatinge argues that "real"
>scientists don't presuppose the truth of the metaphysical doctrine of
>naturalism. It is certainly true that the majority of "real" scientists
>refuse to discuss it at all. Modern secular theorists took their
>"purely naturalistic framework" and subsumed this framework under the
>label "science." This isn't so much a denial of Naturalism as it is a
>veil hiding Naturalism.
>
>Like so much other stuff directed at Pagano, it meant what it said. Not
>what Pagano thought it implied.
>
>
> Pagano rebuts:
>What "it" was, was a simple denial that modern secular theorists
>presupposed the untestable philosophies of empiricism and naturalism.
>First, I don't believe the majority of secular theorists presuppose the
>philosophy of empiricism either, this was Bataitis's contribution. I
>counter argued Keatinge's simple denial of Naturalism by noting that the
>"purely naturalistic framework" subsumed under the label "Science" is
>equivalent to Naturalism. Keatinge's rebuttal is careful to completely
>avoid the discussion of naturalism.
>
>Keatinge's defense below is that Naturalism is not presupposed by modern
>secular theorists, but they do presuppose some principle of empiricism
>(not the philosophy of empiricism) which can only be used to probe
>processes which occur with regularity. This excludes far more than
>supernatural causation
Far less, actually. Multiplying loaves and fishes for example, is
something that could, in principle, be empirically investigated. I would
require rather good evidence to believe that it happened and that a
supernatural cause is implied, but it's possible in principle.
>particularly when one considers a purported 4.6
>billion years with no observers. See below.
>*****************************************
>
>
>
>
>
>Keatinge continued:
>A pity really, as I'm trying to use simple words and keep this short and
>sweet. To repeat, the only bits of the universe that scientific method
>can investigate are those bits with some degree of regularity, where
>observable cause leads to observable effect. Given that, we do tend to
>assume that there is some regularity in what we're investigating. But
>there might not be, and the regularity certainly doesn't have to assume
>any specific form that we presently assume.
>
>
> Pagano responds:
>Clarity is indeed a virtue and Keatinge's writing is clear enough.
Thank you.
>Having denied Naturalism he inserts in its place some principle of
>empiricism which is only capable of probing regular processes. If this
>were true the study of origins would come to a screeching halt. Not
>only would such a presupposition exclude supernatural causation but it
>would exclude every material cause which was unique, non recurring,
>and/or unobservable.
No. Insofar as the concept is useful, such causes merely tend to be
harder to investigate.
>
>I would argue that the "purely naturalistic framework" of the modern
>secular theorist says far more than some weak principle of empiricism---
>that is, that some observable causes lead to some observable effects.
>They proclaim unabashedly that all events in space time can be explained
>(eventually) with reference to matter and its properties alone.
Well, this pragmatist doesn't. I merely suspect that it does. You seem
rather shy about producing evidence to the contrary.
>
>
>And for a 4.6 billion year prehistory (no observers) how does Keatinge
>know which processes occurred with regularity and which did not? Based
>upon a limited sampling from 4000 years of recorded history? He alludes
>to the fact that perhaps modern secular theorists assume the truth of
>some doctrine of the uniformity of processes to solve this problem. Of
>course his brethren have denied this presupposition for as long as I've
>been here.
>
>And Keatinge implies with his principle of empiricism limited to probing
>regular processes that all unique non recurring events in the earth's
>4.6 billion year history are unapproachable.
No I don't. After all, all events are unique and non recurring. I've
never typed these particular words before. But a number of abstractions
connected to them (such as "keyboard", "computer", "Usenet", and
"talk.origins") may be defined as recurring events or meaningful
entities, if you like. If you want to make a few commonplace
assumptions, that is. The point is that these are the same assumptions
that lie behind statements such as "evolution is a fact" and "the earth
is some 4.6 billion years old". The difference is in more work, not in
metaphysics, unless Pagano can come up with some much better arguments
than he's yet produced.
>This would eliminate the
>big bang, unique meteoric impacts conjectured to cause extinctions, the
>unique events of abiogenesis, and the countless unique events leading to
>the tree of common descent to name only a few.
>
>Has Keatinge really defended his denial of Naturalism? I think he might
>even admit that beyond his denial he refuses to address Naturalism at
>all. Otherwise it would have been much shorter for him to have simply
>argued that Naturalism was false.
Paganonaturalism I don't care about. I suspect that very few other
people care about it either.
>****************************************
>
>
>
>[the rest deleted since the crux of the matter lies above.]
Good. In a way, it does. To put it in a nutshell, the conventional
history of life and the Earth is constrained by lots of evidence, given
the sort of assumptions that we all use to have breakfast in the
mornings. Either it's real, or someone planted it, presumably with
intent to deceive. I assume the former. Pagano seems to assume the
latter, although he's never been very clear on this. So, Pagano, is your
god a liar?
A Pagano
Pagano previously wrote to Keatinge:
What "it" was, was a simple denial that modern secular theorists
presupposed the untestable philosophies of empiricism and naturalism.
First, I don't believe the majority of secular theorists presuppose the
philosophy of empiricism either, this was Bataitis's contribution. I
counter argued Keatinge's simple denial of Naturalism by noting that the
"purely naturalistic framework" subsumed under the label "Science" is
equivalent to Naturalism. Keatinge's rebuttal is careful to completely
avoid the discussion of naturalism.
Keatinge's defense below is that Naturalism is not presupposed by modern
secular theorists, but they do presuppose some principle of empiricism
(not the philosophy of empiricism) which can only be used to probe
processes which occur with regularity. This excludes FAR MORE than
supernatural causation
Keatinge responded:
Far less, actually.
Pagano rebuts:
Less than supernatural causation? Keatinge previously wrote: "To
repeat, the ONLY BITS OF THE UNIVERSE that scientific method can
investigate are those bits with some degree of regularity, where
OBSERVABLE cause leads to observable effect." [emphasis not in original]
By using the adjective "only" Keatinge restricted the class of causes or
processes which were approachable by scientists to those which *alone*
occur with some regularity. Keatinge makes this understanding more
clear by saying that this class must also be observable.
Unique non recurring events of prehistory do not occur with regularity.
"Prehistory" means these events were not observed. This undoubtedly
excludes supernatural acts and much of what scientists now attempt to
discover about prehistory. Modern secular theorists, in fact,
continuously investigate, assume the existence of, and offer guesses at
the empirical consequences of unobserved (and unobservable) unique
events, causes and processes like abiogenesis, big bang, gravitational
perturbations which caused a diffuse scattering of atoms to coalesce
into complex stars, and the innumerable unique events which purportedly
caused mutation events leading to new systems, new structures, and new
creatures to name only a few.
Keatinge's replacement for Naturalism excludes too much. Naturalism's
guidance and limitations explains exactly what modern secular theoriests
include and exclude from the conduct of their investigations.
******************************************
Keatinge continues:
Multiplying loaves and fishes for example, is something that could, in
principle, be empirically investigated.
Pagano replies:
Not according to your replacement for Naturalism. Your replacement for
Naturalism says that the ONLY processes which can be approached by
scientists are those which occur with some regularity and where
OBSERVABLE CAUSES produce observable effects. The multiplication of
loaves and fish was a UNIQUE event which DID NOT occur with regularity
and the cause was NOT OBSERVABLE. Surely this is obvious.
**************************************
Keatinge continues:
I would require rather good evidence to believe that it happened and
that a supernatural cause is implied, but it's possible in principle.
Pagano replies:
This is what creation scientists have argued since the 1960's but they
are called fools and idiots. But this is NOT possible according to your
replacement for naturalism---that is your principle that scientists can
only investigate processes which occur with some regularity and for
which observable causes produce observable effects.
**********************************
[snip]
Pagano previously wrote:
Having denied Naturalism he inserts in its place some principle of
empiricism which is only capable of probing regular processes. If this
were true the study of origins would come to a screeching halt. Not
only would such a presupposition exclude supernatural causation but it
would exclude every material cause which was unique, non recurring,
nd/or unobservable.
Keatinge replied:
No. Insofar as the concept is useful, such causes merely tend to be
harder to investigate.
Pagano responds:
This was not Keatinge's replacement for Naturalism. Keatinge argued
that Naturalism was not presupposed by modern secular theorists but the
following was: [BEGIN QUOTE FROM KEATINGE] "To repeat, the ONLY bits of
the universe that scientific method can investigate are those bits with
some degree of regularity, where OBSERVABLE CAUSE leads to observable
effect." [END QUOTE FROM KEATINGE, emphasis mine]
Keatinge's replacement for naturalism DOESN'T include but specifically
and categorically EXCLUDES "harder" to investigate causes and processes
like unique nonrecurring prehistoric (no observers) events and
supernatural ones.
**********************************
Pagano previously wrote:
I would argue that the "purely naturalistic framework" of the modern
secular theorist says far more than some weak principle of
empiricism---that is, that some observable causes lead to some
observable effects. They proclaim unabashedly that all events in space
time can be explained (eventually) with reference to matter and its
properties alone.
Keatinge replied:
Well, this pragmatist doesn't. I merely suspect that it does. You seem
rather shy about producing evidence to the contrary.
Pagano responds:
It's not a matter of pragmatism. The purely naturalistic framework
subsumed under the label "science" by modern secular theorists is
metaphysical and is equivalent to the philosophy of Naturalism. It is a
guess about how one can approach the investigation of our world. Such
a metaphysical presuppostion of Naturalism explains the modern secular
approach to investigations---that is it includes all the possibilities
they include and excludes all the possibilies they exclude. What more
evidence is necessary. Your replacement fails in this regard.
*******************************
Pagano previously wrote:
And Keatinge implies with his principle of empiricism limited to probing
regular processes that all unique non recurring events in the earth's
4.6 billion year history are unapproachable.
Keatinge replied:
No I don't.
Pagano responds:
Yes you did. [BEGIN QUOTE FROM KEATINGE] "To repeat, the ONLY bits of
the universe that scientific method can investigate are those bits with
some degree of regularity, where OBSERVABLE cause leads to observable
effect." [END QUOTE FROM KEATINGE, emphasis mine]
**************************************
Keatinge continues:
After all, all events are unique and non recurring.
Pagano replies:
As in previous occassions Keatinge jumps from one side of the fence to
the other depending on which side offers the most cover. He argues on
one side that scientists can ****ONLY*** investigate processes which
occur with some regularity. And when this fails he says well maybe
there isn't always regularity. He can't hold these two inconsistent
positions at the same time. "Only" is restrictive, so he makes the jump
from one position to the other (uniformity of processes to uniqueness of
processes) which ever will offer the most cover.
When I pointed out that his replacement for Naturalism excluded the
unique non recurring events which modern secular theorists DO in fact
include in their investigations he jumped over to the creationist side
of the fence. With regard to geologic prehistory Keatinge's statement
("After all, all events are unique and non recurring.") is made by the
proponents of special creation and flood geology not modern secular
theorists.
In order for evolutionists to explain natural prehistory with certainty
regularity-uniformity is required.
***********************************
Keatinge wrote:
I've never typed these particular words before. But a number of
abstractions connected to them (such as "keyboard", "computer",
"Usenet", and "talk.origins") may be defined as recurring events or
meaningful entities, if you like.
Pagano replies:
These actions are explained by psychologists and scientists in other
related fields, in part, by referring to the internal states of agents
and intelligent agency. Such causes are excluded as logically possible
in what modern secular theorists describe as the "hard" basic sciences.
This is one of several inconsistencies within the modern secular
framework which creation scientists have pointed out.
Nonetheless naturalism is the only presupposition which best explains
the approach and framework which modern secular theorists take and
employ in investigating the world. It would guide modern secular
theorists to include everything they include and exclude everything they
exclude. So far Keatinge hasn't offered a better replacement. He does
explain farther below why he believes the discussion of presuppositions
and naturalism in particular is perhaps irrelevent or of little
concern. I believe he is mistaken, but at least he offers a rational
argument.
********************************
Keatinge wrote:
If you want to make a few commonplace assumptions, that is. The point is
that these are the same assumptions that lie behind statements such as
"evolution is a fact" and "the earth is some 4.6 billion years old".
The difference is in more work, not in metaphysics, unless Pagano can
come up with some much better arguments than he's yet produced.
Pagano replies:
Both "evolution is fact" and "the earth is some 4.6 billion years old"
are NOT assumptions or presuppositions. "Evolution is fact" is a
proposition which is, according to evolutionists, empirically testable.
"The earth is some 4.6 billion years old" is a conjecture which is also
empirically testable. Presuppositions are offered to assist, guide, and
limit the direction of investigations; they are not empirically
testable. Surely this is obvious.
********************************
[snip]
Pagano previously wrote:
Has Keatinge really defended his denial of Naturalism? I think he might
even admit that beyond his denial he refuses to address Naturalism at
all. Otherwise it would have been much shorter for him to have simply
argued that Naturalism was false.
Keatinge replied:
Pagano naturalism I don't care about. I suspect that very few other
people care about it either.
Pagano responds:
Now we're getting somewhere.
The bottom line is this: Naturalism best explains the conduct of modern
secular theorists in their approach to scientific discovery. I believe
this is indisputable. There exists good rational arguments for the
falsity of naturalism. If naturalism is false then some of the
possibilities it guides theorists to include should be excluded and vice
versa. The idea that very few people care about the presuppositions
which provide critical guidance and limitations to the conduct of
investigations is possibly the weak "ignorance is bliss" argument. But
this would be wrong and Keatinge explains why farther below.
*************************************
Pagano previously wrote:
[the rest deleted since the crux of the matter lies above.]
Keatinge replied:
Good. In a way, it does. To put it in a nutshell, the conventional
history of life and the Earth is constrained by lots of evidence,...
Pagano replies:
This is where the problem in Keatinge's thinking lies...finally.
Keatinge claims that the observations-in-hand constrain the logically
possible explanations for natural prehistory to the one true theory (or
theories) offered by modern secular theorists. If this were true then
scientific discovery would be one of simply gathering the requisite
number of observations and those observations-in-hand through some
logical process would lead to the one true possibility.
This is why Keatinge and many of his brethren don't care about
presuppositions. Under their philosophy of science the evidence is all
that is necessary; everything else is derived from the requisite set of
evidence. The problem with this philosophy is Keatinge can NEVER know
when he has obtained the requisite---that is the minimally
necessary---number of observations to arrive at the one true theory.
Also this notion is refuted by a history of discoveries in the history
of science and would be disputed by a wealth of doctrines in the
philosophy of science. ****It isn't the observations-in-hand that
constrain the number of possible explanations, it is the
presuppositions, the assumptions, the initial conditions and the
theories offered by scientists which constrains the interpretation of
the evidence.****
********************************
Keatinge wrote:
given the sort of assumptions that we all use to have breakfast in the
mornings.
Pagano replies:
The presuppositions that we bring to the breakfast table where objects,
causes, processes, effects are observable are not the same ones which
modern secular theorists offer to guide and limit their efforts in
discovering a prehistory which was undoubtedly and largely composed of
unique non recurring events which were not observed and will never be
observed. You trivialize the tremendous difficulties involved in
uncovering unique non recurring events.
*******************************
Keatinge wrote:
Either it's real, or someone planted it, presumably with intent to
deceive. I assume the former. Pagano seems to assume the latter,
although he's never been very clear on this. So, Pagano, is your god a
liar?
Pagano replies:
Ahh...the ever popular deceiving god argument. It's validity depends
upon the truth of Keatinge's philosophy of science which I've briefly
argued is false. Keatinge claims that some requisite number of
observations is capable of constraining all the logically possible
theories (which is a very large number or perhaps infinite) down to the
one true theory.
The deceiving god argument goes something like this: If Keatinge's
"philosophy of science" is true AND if "specific supernatural creative
acts occurred" is true then the evidence is a deception by some
deceiving god. Since christians balk at a deceiving god Keatinge and
his brethren think creationists are left with the only
possibility---that is that "supernatural acts occurred" is false. His
argument is valid if and only if his "philosophy of science" is true.
There is every reason to believe it is false.
Let's look at my usual example, but there are numerous others. Under
Keatinge's philosophy of science the overwhelming number of
corroborative observations contrained all the logically possible
explanations down to just Newton's theory. In other words the evidence
lead logically somehow to the one true theory. Unfortunately as more
observations were made Newton's theory failed to explain some of the
evidence which it claimed to explain. Keatinge's philosophy of science
fails here.
Einstein's theory explained the evidence which refuted Newton's. The
additional evidence did not lead via any known process to Einstein's
theory. It was a creation, an invention, of Einstein's. This example
and numerous others show the failure and falsity of Keatinge's
philosophy of science. Keatinge and his brethren have no way of
knowing when they have reached the necessary number of observations such
that all the logically possible explanations have been constrained down
to the one true theory.
Since Keatinge's philosophy of science is false his conclusion of a
deceiving god is false. And this makes his notion that presuppositions
are irrelevent or of little concern misguided. This brings naturalism
back into the front of the discussion.
Regards,
T Pagano
Richard Keatinge
writes
>
>
>
>
>
Or, alternatively, they do and did.
>"Prehistory" means these events were not observed. This undoubtedly
>excludes supernatural acts and much of what scientists now attempt to
>discover about prehistory.
Oh dear, here goes Pagano again. Each leaf fall is a unique and
nonrecurring event, and also an example of a class of events which can
be rationally investigated.
>Modern secular theorists, in fact,
>continuously investigate, assume the existence of, and offer guesses at
>the empirical consequences of unobserved (and unobservable) unique
>events, causes and processes like abiogenesis, big bang, gravitational
>perturbations which caused a diffuse scattering of atoms to coalesce
>into complex stars, and the innumerable unique events which purportedly
>caused mutation events leading to new systems, new structures, and new
>creatures to name only a few.
>
>Keatinge's replacement for Naturalism excludes too much. Naturalism's
>guidance and limitations explains exactly what modern secular theoriests
>include and exclude from the conduct of their investigations.
Pagano, I am rapidly giving up hope of ever getting you to think out of
your own tiny little categories. I would like you to recall that the
rest of us don't think like that.
>******************************************
>
>
>
>
>Keatinge continues:
>Multiplying loaves and fishes for example, is something that could, in
>principle, be empirically investigated.
>
>
> Pagano replies:
>Not according to your replacement for Naturalism. Your replacement for
>Naturalism says that the ONLY processes which can be approached by
>scientists are those which occur with some regularity and where
>OBSERVABLE CAUSES produce observable effects. The multiplication of
>loaves and fish was a UNIQUE event which DID NOT occur with regularity
>and the cause was NOT OBSERVABLE. Surely this is obvious.
No, dear. I can't be bothered to explain again, but if you can't
imagine how such a thing can be rationally investigated (and if
necessary ascribed to a previously-unknown cause), you're on your own.
>**************************************
>
>
>
>
>Keatinge continues:
>I would require rather good evidence to believe that it happened and
>that a supernatural cause is implied, but it's possible in principle.
>
>
> Pagano replies:
>This is what creation scientists have argued since the 1960's but they
>are called fools and idiots.
And rightly - although not on the rare occasions when they say something
sensible.
>But this is NOT possible according to your
>replacement for naturalism---that is your principle that scientists can
>only investigate processes which occur with some regularity and for
>which observable causes produce observable effects.
...Unlike Pagano, I sometimes get tired of repeating myself.
>**********************************
>
>
>
>[snip]
>
>
>
>
>Pagano previously wrote:
>Having denied Naturalism he inserts in its place some principle of
>empiricism which is only capable of probing regular processes. If this
>were true the study of origins would come to a screeching halt. Not
>only would such a presupposition exclude supernatural causation but it
>would exclude every material cause which was unique, non recurring,
>nd/or unobservable.
>
>Keatinge replied:
>No. Insofar as the concept is useful, such causes merely tend to be
>harder to investigate.
>
>
> Pagano responds:
>This was not Keatinge's replacement for Naturalism. Keatinge argued
>that Naturalism was not presupposed by modern secular theorists but the
>following was: [BEGIN QUOTE FROM KEATINGE] "To repeat, the ONLY bits of
>the universe that scientific method can investigate are those bits with
>some degree of regularity, where OBSERVABLE CAUSE leads to observable
>effect." [END QUOTE FROM KEATINGE, emphasis mine]
>
>Keatinge's replacement for naturalism DOESN'T include but specifically
>and categorically EXCLUDES "harder" to investigate causes and processes
>like unique nonrecurring prehistoric (no observers) events and
>supernatural ones.
No dear, it doesn't.
>**********************************
>
>
>
>
>
>Pagano previously wrote:
>I would argue that the "purely naturalistic framework" of the modern
>secular theorist says far more than some weak principle of
>empiricism---that is, that some observable causes lead to some
>observable effects. They proclaim unabashedly that all events in space
>time can be explained (eventually) with reference to matter and its
>properties alone.
Have you ever managed to quote from someone who has actually proclaimed
such a thing? For me, and for most scientists of my personal
acquaintance, it is a tentative and rebuttable conclusion, not a
philosophical assumption.
>
>
>Keatinge replied:
>Well, this pragmatist doesn't. I merely suspect that it does. You seem
>rather shy about producing evidence to the contrary.
>
>
>
> Pagano responds:
>It's not a matter of pragmatism. The purely naturalistic framework
>subsumed under the label "science" by modern secular theorists is
>metaphysical and is equivalent to the philosophy of Naturalism.
You have provided no evidence for this.
>It is a
>guess about how one can approach the investigation of our world.
To the extent that you are right, one assumes for purposes of
investigation that unknown events have investigatable causes. This can,
of course, be demonstrated to be wrong; even Pagano, in his remarkably
silly posts on the evidence against conventional geology, seems to
realize that.
>Such
>a metaphysical presuppostion of Naturalism explains the modern secular
>approach to investigations---that is it includes all the possibilities
>they include and excludes all the possibilies they exclude. What more
>evidence is necessary.
Well, scientists don't generally assume Paganonaturalism, don't need it,
and many (at least the religious ones) assume it to be untrue. This is
rather good evidence that Pagano is definitively wrong.
>Your replacement fails in this regard.
>*******************************
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Pagano previously wrote:
>And Keatinge implies with his principle of empiricism limited to probing
>regular processes that all unique non recurring events in the earth's
>4.6 billion year history are unapproachable.
>
>
>Keatinge replied:
>No I don't.
>
>
> Pagano responds:
>Yes you did. [BEGIN QUOTE FROM KEATINGE] "To repeat, the ONLY bits of
>the universe that scientific method can investigate are those bits with
>some degree of regularity, where OBSERVABLE cause leads to observable
>effect." [END QUOTE FROM KEATINGE, emphasis mine]
>**************************************
>
>
>
>
>Keatinge continues:
>After all, all events are unique and non recurring.
>
>
> Pagano replies:
>As in previous occassions Keatinge jumps from one side of the fence to
>the other depending on which side offers the most cover. He argues on
>one side that scientists can ****ONLY*** investigate processes which
>occur with some regularity. And when this fails he says well maybe
>there isn't always regularity.
By Om, maybe Pagano's getting something. Irregularity, the supernatural
if you like, *is* scientifically demonstrable. If only by exclusion. The
finding that "something we don't understand is going on" is perfectly
compatible with science.
>He can't hold these two inconsistent
>positions at the same time. "Only" is restrictive, so he makes the jump
>from one position to the other (uniformity of processes to uniqueness of
>processes) which ever will offer the most cover.
Fortunately you are arguing as before against an approach that exists
mainly in your own imagination.
>
>When I pointed out that his replacement for Naturalism excluded the
>unique non recurring events which modern secular theorists DO in fact
>include in their investigations he jumped over to the creationist side
>of the fence. With regard to geologic prehistory Keatinge's statement
>("After all, all events are unique and non recurring.") is made by the
>proponents of special creation and flood geology not modern secular
>theorists.
>
>In order for evolutionists to explain natural prehistory with certainty
I have lost count of the number of times that Pagano has been told that
science does not purport to offer certainty.
>regularity-uniformity is required.
>***********************************
>
>
>
>Keatinge wrote:
>I've never typed these particular words before. But a number of
>abstractions connected to them (such as "keyboard", "computer",
>"Usenet", and "talk.origins") may be defined as recurring events or
>meaningful entities, if you like.
>
>
> Pagano replies:
>These actions are explained by psychologists and scientists in other
>related fields, in part, by referring to the internal states of agents
>and intelligent agency. Such causes are excluded as logically possible
>in what modern secular theorists describe as the "hard" basic sciences.
>This is one of several inconsistencies within the modern secular
>framework which creation scientists have pointed out.
Ah, you're talking about the modern "creation science" framework again,
I see. Fortunately, neither its philosophy nor its practice have much to
do with real science.
>
>Nonetheless naturalism is the only presupposition which best explains
>the approach and framework which modern secular theorists take and
>employ in investigating the world.
Actually, it is your personal fantasy about what scientists do. You have
taken a moderate and rebuttable working assumption and elevated it to a
philosophical principle. It is a philosophical principle only to
"creation scientists".
>It would guide modern secular
>theorists to include everything they include and exclude everything they
>exclude. So far Keatinge hasn't offered a better replacement. He does
>explain farther below why he believes the discussion of presuppositions
>and naturalism in particular is perhaps irrelevent or of little
>concern. I believe he is mistaken, but at least he offers a rational
>argument.
Thank you.
>********************************
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Keatinge wrote:
>If you want to make a few commonplace assumptions, that is. The point is
>that these are the same assumptions that lie behind statements such as
>"evolution is a fact" and "the earth is some 4.6 billion years old".
>The difference is in more work, not in metaphysics, unless Pagano can
>come up with some much better arguments than he's yet produced.
>
>
> Pagano replies:
>Both "evolution is fact" and "the earth is some 4.6 billion years old"
>are NOT assumptions or presuppositions. "Evolution is fact" is a
>proposition which is, according to evolutionists, empirically testable.
>"The earth is some 4.6 billion years old" is a conjecture which is also
>empirically testable. Presuppositions are offered to assist, guide, and
>limit the direction of investigations; they are not empirically
>testable. Surely this is obvious.
Yes.
>********************************
>
>[snip]
>
>
>
>
>Pagano previously wrote:
>Has Keatinge really defended his denial of Naturalism? I think he might
>even admit that beyond his denial he refuses to address Naturalism at
>all. Otherwise it would have been much shorter for him to have simply
>argued that Naturalism was false.
No, because I suspect that it is true. The point is that I admit the
possibility that it might not be, and believe that a scientific approach
can delineate the areas where it might be wrong.
>
>
>Keatinge replied:
>Pagano naturalism I don't care about. I suspect that very few other
>people care about it either.
>
>
> Pagano responds:
>Now we're getting somewhere.
>
>The bottom line is this: Naturalism best explains the conduct of modern
>secular theorists in their approach to scientific discovery. I believe
>this is indisputable. There exists good rational arguments for the
>falsity of naturalism. If naturalism is false then some of the
>possibilities it guides theorists to include should be excluded and vice
>versa. The idea that very few people care about the presuppositions
>which provide critical guidance and limitations to the conduct of
>investigations is possibly the weak "ignorance is bliss" argument. But
>this would be wrong and Keatinge explains why farther below.
I agree that presuppositions are important. But not with
Paganonaturalism.
>*************************************
>
>
>
>Pagano previously wrote:
>[the rest deleted since the crux of the matter lies above.]
>
>
>Keatinge replied:
>Good. In a way, it does. To put it in a nutshell, the conventional
>history of life and the Earth is constrained by lots of evidence,...
>
>
>
>
> Pagano replies:
>This is where the problem in Keatinge's thinking lies...finally.
>
>Keatinge claims that the observations-in-hand constrain the logically
>possible explanations for natural prehistory
OK so far...
>to the one true theory
No.
>(or
>theories) offered by modern secular theorists. If this were true then
>scientific discovery would be one of simply gathering the requisite
>number of observations and those observations-in-hand through some
>logical process would lead to the one true possibility.
Again, this is not part of the modern philosophy of science, nor of my
ideas.
>
>
>This is why Keatinge and many of his brethren don't care about
>presuppositions.
Well, only in the sense that most of them don't care about the theory of
digestion. For most, it is an issue long since settled, at least within
pragmatic limits.
>Under their philosophy of science the evidence is all
>that is necessary; everything else is derived from the requisite set of
>evidence. The problem with this philosophy
Again, this is Paganophilosophy, not mine.
>is Keatinge can NEVER know
>when he has obtained the requisite---that is the minimally
>necessary---number of observations to arrive at the one true theory.
>
>Also this notion is refuted by a history of discoveries in the history
>of science and would be disputed by a wealth of doctrines in the
>philosophy of science. ****It isn't the observations-in-hand that
>constrain the number of possible explanations, it is the
>presuppositions, the assumptions, the initial conditions and the
>theories offered by scientists which constrains the interpretation of
>the evidence.****
Indeed.
>********************************
>
>
>
>Keatinge wrote:
>given the sort of assumptions that we all use to have breakfast in the
>mornings.
>
>
>
> Pagano replies:
>The presuppositions that we bring to the breakfast table where objects,
>causes, processes, effects are observable
I doubt that you have observed a digestive enzyme. And each meal is a
unique and nonrecurring phenomenon, except for coprophagists.
>are not the same ones which
>modern secular theorists offer to guide and limit their efforts in
>discovering a prehistory which was undoubtedly and largely composed of
>unique non recurring events which were not observed and will never be
>observed. You trivialize the tremendous difficulties involved in
>uncovering unique non recurring events.
No I don't!
>*******************************
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Keatinge wrote:
>Either it's real, or someone planted it, presumably with intent to
>deceive. I assume the former. Pagano seems to assume the latter,
>although he's never been very clear on this. So, Pagano, is your god a
>liar?
>
>
> Pagano replies:
>Ahh...the ever popular deceiving god argument. It's validity depends
>upon the truth of Keatinge's philosophy of science which I've briefly
>argued is false.
No, it's your philosophy of science which is - well, false may be the
wrong word to apply to philosophy, but it certainly does not describe
the actual thoughts of most scientists.
>Keatinge claims that some requisite number of
>observations is capable of constraining all the logically possible
>theories (which is a very large number or perhaps infinite) down to the
>one true theory.
I do not, nor have I ever done so.
>
>The deceiving god argument goes something like this: If Keatinge's
>"philosophy of science" is true AND if "specific supernatural creative
>acts occurred" is true then the evidence is a deception by some
>deceiving god.
No, it goes like this: God made us, including our abilities and desire
to investigate His creation, and he also made an external world which
displays a number of regularities. These regularities seem to give us
good reason to suppose that it's worthwhile to see what, if any,
regularities lie behind new and unexplained phenomena. The results of
this scientific investigation lead us to suppose that certain stories in
old books, supposed by some to be the infallible word of God, are
definitely and seriously wrong.
>Since christians balk at a deceiving god Keatinge and
>his brethren think creationists are left with the only
>possibility---that is that "supernatural acts occurred" is false. His
>argument is valid if and only if his "philosophy of science" is true.
>There is every reason to believe it is false.
Again, it's Pagano's philosophy, not mine.
>
>
>Let's look at my usual example, but there are numerous others. Under
>Keatinge's philosophy of science the overwhelming number of
>corroborative observations contrained all the logically possible
>explanations down to just Newton's theory.
But, of course, it didn't. "All" it did was make Newton's theory a very
very useful guide to an important regularity of the universe, and make
other theories seem extremely unsatisfactory. Biblical literalism was
similarly outmoded when early modern geology got under way.
>In other words the evidence
>lead logically somehow to the one true theory. Unfortunately as more
>observations were made Newton's theory failed to explain some of the
>evidence which it claimed to explain. Keatinge's philosophy of science
>fails here.
Yours may well fail, mine doesn't.
>
>Einstein's theory explained the evidence which refuted Newton's. The
>additional evidence did not lead via any known process to Einstein's
>theory. It was a creation, an invention, of Einstein's. This example
>and numerous others show the failure and falsity of Keatinge's
>philosophy of science. Keatinge and his brethren have no way of
>knowing when they have reached the necessary number of observations such
>that all the logically possible explanations have been constrained down
>to the one true theory.
Actually, my philosophy of science denies that such a thing is possible.
>
>Since Keatinge's philosophy of science is false his conclusion of a
>deceiving god is false. And this makes his notion that presuppositions
>are irrelevent or of little concern misguided. This brings naturalism
>back into the front of the discussion.
I think that I have probably had enough of discussing Pagano's fantasies
and projections. And I am busy. What I might do is save this post, which
I think illuminates our discussion rather well, and regurgipost it if he
issues more of the same old stuff.
--
Richard Keatinge homepage http://www.keatinge.demon.co.uk
The Quirmian philosopher Ventre said, "Possibly the gods exist, and possibly
they do not. So why not believe in them in any case? If it's all true you'll
go to a lovely place when you die, and if it isn't then you've lost nothing,
right?" When he died he woke up in a circle of gods holding nasty-looking
sticks and one of them said "We're going to show you what we think of Mr Clever
Dick in these parts..."
- thanks to Terry Pratchett
Kalandros M
All of which are either happening today (i.e. mutation events) or have
left indelible marks on the universe (like the big bang). Which means
that science can study them ALL.
I disagree. Science TRIES to explain everything using matter and its
properties. The overall success of science at explaining the world
means that quite a bit of the universe is dependent only on matter
and its properties.
Which is tested at almost every turn.
Science can not determine super-natural influences. Therefore it doesn't
make sense to try to include them in science.
>
>
> Pagano previously wrote:
> [the rest deleted since the crux of the matter lies above.]
>
> Keatinge replied:
> Good. In a way, it does. To put it in a nutshell, the conventional
> history of life and the Earth is constrained by lots of evidence,...
>
> Pagano replies:
> This is where the problem in Keatinge's thinking lies...finally.
>
> Keatinge claims that the observations-in-hand constrain the logically
> possible explanations for natural prehistory to the one true theory (or
> theories) offered by modern secular theorists. If this were true then
> scientific discovery would be one of simply gathering the requisite
> number of observations and those observations-in-hand through some
> logical process would lead to the one true possibility.
>
> This is why Keatinge and many of his brethren don't care about
> presuppositions. Under their philosophy of science the evidence is all
> that is necessary; everything else is derived from the requisite set of
> evidence. The problem with this philosophy is Keatinge can NEVER know
> when he has obtained the requisite---that is the minimally
> necessary---number of observations to arrive at the one true theory.
There's no such thing as the "one true theory". There are theories and
there is reality. The measure of the "truthfulness" of a theory is
how well it predicts data generated in the real world.
>
>
> Also this notion is refuted by a history of discoveries in the history
> of science and would be disputed by a wealth of doctrines in the
> philosophy of science. ****It isn't the observations-in-hand that
> constrain the number of possible explanations, it is the
> presuppositions, the assumptions, the initial conditions and the
> theories offered by scientists which constrains the interpretation of
> the evidence.****
> ********************************
Yes, the evidence can be interpreted different ways, which is why
as much diverse evidence as possible is accumulated. The
theory that predicts the most data wins.
Look. Science is the process of making models (approximations of the
real world). A model can explain some, but not all of the data. The
data it does explain, the better the model. It doesn't matter if its
the "truth" or not. Its the best model of what we find in the real world.
Each new model must explain that same data or more. Thus the
models should continue to improve since each will explain more
and more data.
>
> Einstein's theory explained the evidence which refuted Newton's. The
> additional evidence did not lead via any known process to Einstein's
> theory. It was a creation, an invention, of Einstein's.
Are you saying Einstein just pulled it out of the air? No. He looked
at the data and said "Hey, if we look at it this way, all the data makes
sense and we don't need all these other complex models!" He was
right, so we use his theory.
Newton's model is still valid, just not universally. Einstein just
happens to have a BETTER model. This isn't a black and white
process. There is a contiuum of predictive values.
> This example
> and numerous others show the failure and falsity of Keatinge's
> philosophy of science. Keatinge and his brethren have no way of
> knowing when they have reached the necessary number of observations such
> that all the logically possible explanations have been constrained down
> to the one true theory.
There is no one true theory, get over it. There are never enough
observations, which is why scientists are still taking them. We
can at best hope for an asymptotic approach to the truth. We
assume we are doing so because the models explain more and more
data in diverse conditions. That is the only measure of the "truth"
that we have.
Mike