Stephen C. Meyer on argument by definition

Post Reply New Topic

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hy0_Mn1s1xo[/youtube]

This is all nice, but you have to recognize that Meyer's view of science probably fits in less with yours and more with my own.(I tend towards the more nuanced understanding, and you tend to be rather crass, I think.)

Do I generally respect the idea any more after this presentation?

Well, no, methodological naturalism isn't question-begging but rather is a presumption of science in as much as science wants robust analysis without solving a problem too quickly. We can come up with a bajillion creative intelligences to do whatever we want them to, but avoiding this allows for a more useful understanding of reality. Even further, methodological naturalism doesn't just attack ID, but rather it rules out a large set of explanations all based upon supernatural occurrences. I don't consider this invalid.

Now, do I think that it is true that ID is outright ruled out from scientific methodology? Well.... I think that it undoubtedly has questionable ground regardless, and this is partially because I think the methodological naturalism rule works. As it stands, I would have to say that current versions of ID are really just advanced appeals to ignorance, as it moves rather quickly from "I can't figure out how this was done" to "it must be designed". I don't think that ID is scientific because it does not create an adequate explanatory structure to provide real explanations to scientific questions, but rather it basically does say "a wizard did it". This prevents it from being science, and part of this is just a result of it being a non-naturalistic theory, which is why I think the rule works. If this were a world in which supernatural methods could be tested, then supernatural sciences may be possible and reasonable, but this isn't a world where we really can test design mechanisms, but rather we just end up saying "I can't explain this, ergo DESIGN".

Even further though, I don't think that ID offers anything to make it superior than its competition. It lacks researchers, research, research papers, and generally has not shown itself to be committed to any scientific process. The ruling in Kitzmiller v Dover isn't a matter of Judge Jones having an evolutionary bias, but rather the ID crowd stumbled over itself at every single step.

Dr Meyer: "… Intelligent Design is unscientific because the designer is unobservable, you can't see or measure the designer … but this is an odd kind of argument to make for anyone who isn't aware of, for example theoretical physics, or evolutionary biology, or molecular biology or any number of fields. In science, we very often infer an unobservable entity as an explanation for facts and evidence we can observe ..."

And that misses the point. Yes, in theoretical physics, for example, we do often come up with theories before they can be experimentally verified. However, according to Popper's falsifiability criterion, they still have to be testable, at least in principle. This does not mean that they have to be testable directly with current technology. The falsifiability criterion really has to do with the logical structure of the theory. It means that the premises can either be true or false but can be empirically tested in some conceivable way. An entity used as an explanation for a given observed phenomenon in a scientific theory does not have to be directly observable, However, that does not mean it can't be tested empirically. It can still be testable empirically if it makes predictions that can be tested.

ID makes no such predictions because everything can be explained as being designed. In order to make predictions, there has to be something that it would conceivably not explain so that we can check it under those circumstances. That brings me to another point. If ID can explain absolutely everything under all conceivable circumstances, then it also has no explanatory power and is not a real explanation. The reason for this is because explanations have to tell us why things are the way they are and not any other way. In other words, an explanation has to demarcate what is possible and what is not according to the given explanation.

Are you going to be addressing the issue of argumentum ad definitio or just continue providing examples of it?

Are you gonna ever come up with actual evidence supporting your side or simply just keep up the act with garbage semantic tricks and misrepresentation of actual scientific work?

You mean address the idea about arguing from definition?

Well, is this invalid? No, definitions serve a purpose and invoking a definition is valid if the definition makes sense of the concept. Is there a such thing as an "essential definition"? No, and on this ground we can see a bit of an error in using a definition as an absolute. (And the reason there isn't an "essential definition" is because language is a matter of usage, rather than a matter of algorithms) My first point though, still stands.

Definitions serve a purpose more in mathematical roles, in as much as mathematics actually relates to reality. Definitions in regard to philosophical issues can be as contradictory as one likes in so far as they allow for consistency within a philosophy although with disregard for other philosophies.

Science isn't a philosophical issue.

Really now, not even THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD? That's not a philosophical issue? It's written in stone?

Yes, haven't you seen the tablets? Heh, it is no WONDER you keep on bringing up all of these issues if you haven't seen the tablets.

You know what I'm saying. Good attempt at a joke though I find the usage of " " to be insulting, though I don't know if that is exactly your intention although the barb in your first post would seem to indicate such.

Who has put wisdom in the inward parts
or given understanding to the mind?

Job 38:36

Philosophically, it is unimpeachable except by those would want to misinterpret methods. The video is a perfect example of this misinterpretation of methods. It claims unobservable results when the results are observable in testing situations and within mathematic equations while not being directly visible and claiming empiricism on one point while absolutely ignoring empiricism for its own points.

I'm still waiting for evidence other than poor linguistic gymnastics.

Obviously written by someone who has never taken psilocybin mushrooms.

I'm certain that even if given all the evidence and all the proofs you could ever request that you'd still seek to request yet more.

However, who is the author that is claiming that creationists are sophists or linguistic gymnasts? I doubt that you didn't get that from someone else, so where did you get it from? Would it happen to be from Robert T. Pennock?

I got most of my philosophy from various sources and my own philosophical work of actually following the patterns of thought through to the end. Creationism has many gaps and many assumptions that cannot be justified by any impartial philosopher. I've taken in many different viewpoints and philosophical stances that would be mocked by many other atheists here but they're a part of a greater learning process for me and creationism represents nothing to me other than a superficial rebellion against a study of our reality by specific religious sects.

Who is claiming that creationists are linguistic gymnasts? Me! That's who. I've read and watched and listened to more than enough arguments to have heard all the arguments before by this point and essentially I'm listening to re-runs out of respect to you to prove that I am still listening and watching the "evidence" you provide despite its severe lacking on both a philosophical level and, more strictly, on a scientific level.

Can you give evidence that specifically supports your claims to a deity? Not really other than a vague deity that you, specifically, don't worship and don't even begin to imply in your writings.

As for the video, he claims unobservable events that are observable on different levels that aren't directly visible but are still observable. He fails to grasp the basics of science and the method of study and refutation of hypotheses.