Naturalism, Science and Reason

[dakoski]

This is a quote from Nagel on reasoning as the grounds for knowledge and scientific methods. He points out the challenges regarding the validity of our reasoning within a naturalistic worldview:

In ordinary perception, we are like mechanisms governed by a (roughly) truth-preserving algorithm. But when we reason, we are like a mechanism that can see that the algorithm it follows is truth-preserving. Something has happened that has gotten our minds into immediate contact with the rational order of the world, or at least with the basic elements of that order, which can in turn be used to reach a great deal more. That enables us to possess concepts that display the compatibility or incompatibility of particular beliefs with general hypotheses...

Certain things can be assumed, if there is such a thing as reason. First, there are objective, mind-independent truths of different kinds: factual truths about the natural world, including scientific laws; eternal and necessary truths of logic and mathematics….. Second, by starting from the way things initially appear to us, we can use reason collectively to achieve justified beliefs about some of those objective truths—though some of those beliefs will probably be mistaken. (Mind and Cosmos p85-86)

Points for discussion for those who hold a naturalistic worldview (but of course those who don't hold that worldview are also more than welcome to comment):
1) If Naturalism is true,

a) is logic a necessary truth? If so, why?
b) are there objective truths about the world? If so, why?

2) If Naturalism is true, can we achieve justified beliefs about some of these objective truths?

To preempt possible misunderstanding:
1)This isn't a question about the validity of logic per se (I'm assuming we agree that the laws of logic are valid) but the validity of logic conditional on the naturalist worldview being true.

2)This isn't a question about the validity of the scientific method (I'm assuming we agree that the scientific method is valid) but the validity of the scientific method conditional on the naturalist worldview being true

[Bust Nak]

Yeah the point of the question is that we generally accept the objectivity of logic and the scientific method. The question is asking whether the assumptions of the naturalist worldview are consistent with assumptions about the objectivity of logic and the scientific method. A potential incoherence results because it is unclear whether mind independent truths are possible given the assumptions of naturalism. If you disagree would be good to understand why.

Oh, I see what you mean now. There is no such thing as mind independent truths.

Naturalism is a worldview about reality something like: 'philosophical belief that everything arises from natural properties and causes, and supernatural or spiritual explanations are excluded or discounted'

Clearly in this context naturalism is fundamental and we then need to assess how logic, reason and truths are coherently derived from this foundation. But I maybe misunderstanding your point.

No I think you got what I meant. I am saying the belief "that everything arises from natural properties and causes, and supernatural or spiritual explanations are excluded or discounted'" is built on top of logic, reason and truths. The latter is more fundamental than naturalism.

Or are you arguing that concluding naturalism is true is a consequence of applying logic and reason? If that's the case, could you elaborate on why you think that's the case.

Not quite, I am arguing that concluding naturalism presupposes the existence of logic and reason.

[dakoski]

[Replying to Divine Insight]

I\'m afraid I don\'t understand what your concerns have to do with \"religion\"? Or how your concerns could have anything to do with science versus religion.

I say this because you posted this topic in \"Science and Religion\" and not simply in \"Philosophy\" where you might just look at the validity of scientific methods directly without any implication that religion might play an alternative or \"better\" role.

So I just wanted to make it clear that I don\'t understand what your questions have do with \"Science and Religion\". Where does the religion part come into play?

The questions are basically regarding the implications of the validity of scientific methods to worldviews about reality – specifically here naturalism.
If there were a section ‘Science and Worldviews’ it might fit perfectly there – but no such category exists on the site as far as I’m aware. Your main concern seems to be that the topic isn’t on ‘Science vs Religion’. But since the category is ‘Science and Religion’ not ‘vs’ its less of a concern to me. If you have a problem with where it’s posted then by all means contact a moderator to move it.
I agree our discussion has veered off a bit too much to philosophy of science rather than to the implications for naturalism. From what I can see below we’re not really disagreeing about much – but simply using different terms to describe the same thing. Although I could be wrong.

To begin with I would argue two things here. First, testing the effectiveness of drugs in the field of medicine go far beyond core \"science\". There are simply far too many factors involved here to make any concrete scientific conclusions. Especially considering the obvious fact that not all humans are the same, some may benefit from using your drug, others may actually be harmed by the drug itself. Humans are not carbon copies of each other.

Its a bit of a red herring for the discussion, but I'll respond.

What is ‘core science’? Have you solved the demarcation problem?
Since you do not know if a drug may benefit or harm – do you therefore not visit a doctor when you are sick, take any medication, or go to hospital?

So what you are talking about here is not \"Pure Science\", but rather it\'s an attempt to use proven scientific methods in the fields of technology and engineering ([i:896b1f795f]in this case the technology of engineering a new drug[/i:896b1f795f]), and running it through trials to obtain statistics that can show what the probabilities might be if used in a large population. Surely even you can see that those trails are going to only provide percentages of success.

This is far more complicated than most core physics problems, such as the discovery of Time Dilation, which I would like to use as my next point:

Yes of course most core physics research asks different questions to those asked in medicine. That to me is the beauty of the scientific method that its principles can be applied to answer a diverse range of questions.
What I was unclear about was your issue with statistical analyses in clinical trials and the use of probability theory. Probability theory and other principles from statistics are the foundation of all scientific experiments and hypothesis testing.
Is particle physics ‘core science’? Here’s some links to applying the principles of hypotheses testing and statistical analysis in this field – we actually face quite similar issues in medicine to what’s discussed in the articles (but clearly I agree the questions we are asking differ substantially).
http://web.ipac.caltech.edu/staff/fmasc ... y_2012.pdf

https://arxiv.org/abs/1409.1903

Edited to add: I forgot to include my second thought here:

Secondly, what would this argument have to do with "religion"? (being that this is posted in Science and Religion). In what way would religion offer a better solution to your drug example? Of if not religion, can you offer any other non-scientific method to replace the scientific method? And if not, then what's your point or concern?

I'm just trying to get a feel for what you are actually opposing, or proposing, as a replacement to current scientific methods. In other words, if you reject naturalism then what are you proposing to replace it? Prayer? And how would this help your drug example? Think

You're missing the context of my example. You argued science involves observation alone and doesn't require logic - I was giving you an example to show the scientific method involves a combination of logic and observation.

Why is that relevant to science and religion discussion? Because you are aware its logically incoherent to both affirm naturalism and the objective validity of logic - you're trying to back away from the importance of logic to the scientific method. I can understand why you would try to take that position in order to try to justify what seems to be irreconcilable:)

Our logic (in fact all logic) necessarily begins with unprovable assumptions we call \"premises\". We often don\'t need to prove a premise, we only need to obtain a majority consensus to have it accepted.

Prior to our discovery of time dilatation we assumed ([i:896b1f795f]without proof or evidence[/i:896b1f795f]) that time and space were both absolutes. They were seen as a constant backdrop of our reality. The \"stage\" upon which our physical reality is play out.

No one questioned this unproven assumption until Albert Einstein came along. Albert Einstein simply realized that it can\'t be true that time and space are absolutes AND that light has a finite fixed speed. Something had to give. And so Einstein accepted the experimentally measured and observed fact that the speed of light is constant along with what James Clerk Maxwell\'s equations had to say about light, and therefore concluded that are previous assumptions about the absolute nature of space and time where necessarily incorrect.

You can\'t really say that the idea of an absolute space and absolute time are necessarily \"Logically impossible\" in any mystical absolute sense like in an imaginary Platonic World. Perhaps such an idea could be made logically consistent in an imaginary world. But because of the observed fact that light has a constant fixed speed, this makes the idea of an absolute space and absolute time impossible. So absolute time and absolute space are only \"illogical\" in our universe precisely because the speed of light is fixed.

In other words, none of this has to do with any \"absolute logic\". It really has to do with the physical nature of our universe.

So there\'s not only no need for any imagined \"Platonic World of Logic\", but even if we were to imagine such a world we could imagine a universe in which time and space are absolute, and perhaps the speed of light simply isn\'t constant. Then we would once again have a \"logically consistent universe\" simply different from ours.

So it\'s probably wrong to think that there can be only \"One Logical Truth\" that must always be true in an imagined Platonic World. Even if we imagine a Platonic World of Logic, that world could contain an infinite number of different, yet perfectly valid logical truths, each one being \"Relative\" to the conditions of a specific universe.

In this way we can see why the idea of an \"Absolute Ultimate Truth\" may ultimately be unobtainable. Of if there is such a thing as an \"Absolute Ultimate Truth\" that truth may ironically be \"Anything goes!\"

I think Einstein hit on a very fundamental truth that ultimately everything is \"Relative\" rather than \"Absolute\" which has always been one of our unproven premises.

As I said before your argument shows that science is a combination of logic and empirical investigation, yes I agree with that.

Do you take the discovery of time dilation to be an objective or subjective finding? In other words how do you know that conclusions drawn about time dilation are objectively valid given we cannot know if our cognitive faculties are valid and logic is subjective?

If time dilation is just a subjective opinion why do you speak of it as if it objectively reflects how the universe is?

To the second part of your statement I would like to argue that it was not logic and math that \"led\" Einstein and ultimately science to the discovery of Time Dilation.

But instead it was Einstein himself that led that movement, and he did so by simply accepting different \"[i:896b1f795f]premises[/i:896b1f795f]\" upon which to base his logical reasoning. So it was the premises he changed, not the method of reasoning.

We used to think it was \"logical\" that space and time where absolutely. Now we no longer think of that as a \"logical\" idea.

Finally, yes mathematics played a role in being able to demonstrate that time dilation does indeed occur. But once again, you need to understand that while you may still be thinking of mathematics as being associated with some mysterious \"Platonic World\", I don\'t. I see our mathematics as being nothing more than a reflection of what we observe. In other words I see our mathematics as being nothing more than a quantitative description of our physical universe.

1) I’m not sure why you keep trying to claim I believe is some mysterious ‘Platonic World’ – I’ve never claimed such a thing.
2) If all you mean is that the discovery of time dilation is the product of logically valid inferences from empirical data – then yeah I agree. Logic and maths help us to draw valid inferences about empirical data. But if logic and maths are subjective then the validity of our inferences about empirical data are also by definition subjective too.
3) Since logic for you is subjective – why would logically valid inferences from empirical data ‘demonstrate that time dilation does indeed occur’. Why would we draw objective conclusions from subjective processes? That at least needs some justification, right?

Allow me to explain is as follows:

A painter stands next to a beautiful flower garden with a blank canvas. The flower garden is the universe, the canvas will become our mathematical formalism.

The painter than begins to paint a picture of the flower garden by first sketching in the overall shapes of flowers and other objects, and then filling in the details, and colors, and also adding shading and lighting to give a very close approximation of what the actual flower garden looks like.

The people who favor the \"Platonic World\" theory then come up and look at what the painter has done and they say, \"Wow! Look! That flower garden has grown precisely as this painting shows it should look! How amazing! I can\'t believe the POWER of that painting to have predicted what this flower garden will look like!\".

What? Obviously they aren\'t thinking very clearly here.

For me, mathematics is nothing more than our \"Quantitative Painting\" of the universe, it doesn\'t surprise me in the least that mathematics can then be used to \"Predict\" how the universe will behave. After all, it is a quantitative calculation system that was modeled after the universe.

So, for me, mathematics is not something to marvel at as being greatly mysterious.

In fact, as Richard Feynman has pointed out, our universe doesn\'t even truly obey our mathematics in detail, for if it did it would crash and burn!

Our mathematics ultimately fails when we try to apply it to how the real world actually works so it\'s not even a \"Perfect Painting\" its more like a kindergarten scribble.

Our universe DOES NOT obey our mathematical formalism, and we should be very grateful that it doesn\'t.

Because if it did, we wouldn\'t be here.

Since I’ve not claimed to believe in a Platonic world I’m not sure why you keep insisting I do.

What I do agree with is that it is possible to have knowledge about the universe and also that clearly there are many things we don’t yet or possibly never will know.

[dakoski]

[Replying to post 8 by Kenisaw]

Actually I'd disagree right there. Naturalism is not a set of assumptions. Naturalism is based on empirical data and evidence. I know, technically we have axioms that are a part of the foundation of knowledge, and those are "assumptions" in that they cannot be independently verified although there is no reason to doubt them. But outside of axioms I don't see where naturalism assumes anything. The reason there is no supernatural component to a naturalism is because there is zero evidence and data for such a thing. It's not assumed it doesn't exist, it's not considered because of the lack of proof for it.

What’s the empirical data and evidence that shows naturalism to be a true account of reality? How might you test the hypothesis that 'everything arises from natural properties and causes, and supernatural or spiritual explanations are excluded or discounted'?

I realize you are responding to Kenisaw here, but I would like to offer my thoughts on your question, specially the last part of it:

and supernatural or spiritual explanations are excluded or discounted'?

I question the meaning of "supernatural or spiritual explanations".

How does "An invisible boogieman did it" explain anything?

In other words, I don't see where spiritual musings "explain" anything at all. To the contrary they already assume the existence of an invisible undetectable entity that itself has no explanation.

So how can something that has no explanation itself be called an "explanation"?

This is why these ideas are discounted. They are not only impossible to test, or confirm, but they also do not offer any "explanations" anyway.

Saying, "God did it", is no different from saying "The Boogieman did it", or "Fairies did it", etc.

Not only can none of these entities be shown to exist, but there isn't even any valid definition for what they are. They most certainly don't serve as an "Explanation" for anything.

So why shouldn't they be discounted?

Of what value are they?

They basically amount to nothing more than tossing our hands up in the air and saying, "I can't figure things out so let's imagine there exists an invisible undetectable entity who can. And that's my explanation for everything".

What?

That's hardly an explanation for anything. All that amounts to is a confession that the person in question has absolutely no explanations to offer at all.

This is quite a good argument for why naturalism is not testable.

[dakoski]

[Replying to post 19 by Kenisaw]

Let's back up a bit. You asked two questions in post #14. They were:

Quote:
What’s the empirical data and evidence that shows naturalism to be a true account of reality? How might you test the hypothesis that 'everything arises from natural properties and causes, and supernatural or spiritual explanations are excluded or discounted'?


The first question I addressed in my response in post 15, which you have quoted up above before your "sorry" et al reply in post #16. As my reply in post 15 already answers the first question in your post #14, your statement in post #16 that you don't see any evidence doesn't make any sense to me. Perhaps if you review the relevant posts again you will become aware of it.

Let me clarify as perhaps you misunderstood my questions. What you gave me was your opinion that there is no evidence for worldviews you disagree with. You don’t tell me what the evidence is for naturalism which was my actual question.

But when I’m requesting empirical data for naturalism, I’m asking whether there has been scientific research to test that hypothesis. I.e. Is naturalism testable? If so, I’m asking if you could provide me with some links to peer-reviewed publications that have empirically tested and ‘verified’ that 'everything arises from natural properties and causes, and supernatural or spiritual explanations are excluded or discounted’.

For one thing, defining what is natural and supernatural is actually quite difficult. Secondly, I’m unsure how an experiment could be set up to test such a hypothesis. But I’m interested in seeing what you can produce.

The second question from post #14, that you got from putting "naturalism" in google and editing the "a philosophical viewpoint according to which everything arises from natural properties and causes, and supernatural or spiritual explanations are excluded or discounted" that shows up on the top of the page, was already answered in post #8 by me that you quoted before asking your question: "The reason there is no supernatural component to a naturalism is because there is zero evidence and data for such a thing. It's not assumed it doesn't exist, it's not considered because of the lack of proof for it."

Actually I got the definition from another poster on the site who thought that it reflected his worldview. Most probably they typed naturalism into google. If you don’t like that definition, or don’t think it accurately reflects naturalism, you’re welcome to propose another. Naturalism is not my worldview so I’m not interested in putting words in people’s mouths.

I get that the conclusion you’ve drawn reflects your opinion, but it’s a different thing altogether to claim that naturalism is empirically verified you have to get specific and provide peer-reviewed publications that have explicitly tested this hypothesis. If you cannot do that, then you can’t claim naturalism has been empirically verified.

From what I can see your conclusion doesn’t seem to be empirically based but simply a confusion of methodological naturalism (supernatural causes cannot be inferred from scientific data – a methodological assumption) with metaphysical naturalism (everything arises from natural properties and causes – a conclusion about the nature of reality). Methodological naturalism cannot be cited as evidence for metaphysical naturalism without circularity.

And let's cut to the chase on that one right now. There is no evidence at this time for god creatures or the supernatural, and we both know it. Goodness knows requests for such evidence and data have been asked for ad nauseum on just this website over the years, without even one ort of proof ever being offered. If such proof existed it would have been all over the news and splattered on billboards coast to coast by cultists by now.

You’re answering a question I didn’t ask you. I didn’t request your opinion on the evidence for other worldviews I requested your opinion on the evidence for naturalism. If you can show me that naturalism is explicitly testable and that in fact it has been tested (as you claim) then I’m willing to comment on the data. You can answer this very simply by providing one or two peer-reviewed publication that empirically tests the hypothesis that 'everything arises from natural properties and causes, and supernatural or spiritual explanations are excluded or discounted'. If you don’t like that definition you’re welcome to suggest another definition.

Again, I think your conclusion is based on a confusion of methodological and metaphysical naturalism and circular reasoning.

Or the third option, which is that you didn't understand the answers given. I will assume I was inadequate with my explanation and try again.

Obviously you want to deal in absolutes. You think it is an either/or proposition. I do not see it that way. I go where the data and evidence lead me. To date, the totality of the data and evidence point to natural explanations for everything. There is no supernatural component that can be identified to any of it. Does this mean that it is impossible for the supernatural to exist? No, because we don't know everything. And since we cannot prove a negative (i.e. the supernatural does not exist), we cannot rule it out at this time. As a scientific person I always leave the door open for additional data and evidence to be considered at a future time. But since there is nothing supporting the concept of supernatural, there is no reason to consider that hypothesis as plausible at this time. In the mean time, we continue to validate the natural explanations we do have over and over and over...

I think you’ve misunderstood my position:

1) I don’t think we can have absolute knowledge. I believe we can have reliable knowledge but not absolute knowledge – so that’s not my problem with your argument
2) I think your conclusion is based on a confusion of methodological and metaphysical naturalism and therefore circular reasoning.

If logic wasn't able to find the patterns and cause and effect sequences in the universe, there'd be no way to determine if natural or supernatural ideals were responsible. It takes logic to recognize the cause and effect, and its the cause and effect that displays the laws and rules of the universe.

This is an argument for the necessity of logic for the scientific method. Its not an argument for the necessity of logic for naturalism.

Not exactly. You haven't shown that there is such a thing as mind-independent logic. I have not made a comparison to something that I've already stated does not seem to exist in my opinion. I've also already explained that I don't think necessarily think logic is objective (bad logic I called it). You've not represented my statements at all.

I’m unclear where the problem is: I said that you don’t think logic is objective. And you’ve agreed that you don’t think logic is objective – so that’s misrepresenting you how? Please clarify as I don’t want to misrepresent you.

Then please explain how we got a rover on Mars. Perhaps a believer will chime in and claim it is a miracle I suppose...

The example shows the reliability of our cognitive faculties conditional on our experience. The example does not show the reliability of our cognitive faculties conditional on naturalism being true - as we do not know if naturalism is true.

As there is no culture requirement in the scientific method I don't see where culture plays a role. Humans from literally ever corner of the globe, gay and straight, male and female, tall and short, fat and thin, and so forth have validated and verified many theories, and continue to do so today.

Exactly, the findings of the scientific method are objective. Yet you deny that logic, a key component of the method, is not objective. It’s logically incoherent – unless you can show otherwise – to argue the basis for the scientific method (logical inferences from empirical data) is subjective but simultaneously claim the findings are objective. If you can’t show it’s logically coherent then your conclusions are unwarranted.

As for conclusions being subjective? Absolutely. Which is why the scientific method requires validation and verification over and over and over. That removes the bias, the subjectivity, from the results. When a lot of mind dependent logic from a lot of different minds reach the same result, how subjective can it really be? Or perhaps to put it a different way: Do you really have any realistic doubt in your mind about the theory of gravity?

The problem is that all the statements you’ve made and the logical inferences you’ve drawn in that paragraph are according to you subjective in nature. Why then would I think your conclusion is anything other than a subjective opinion?

I don’t doubt the theory of gravity based on my experience of reality. However, the question is not regarding the validity of logic given the data of my experience. The question is regarding the validity of logic given that naturalism is true.

I disagree. The scientific method is sourced by the logic of our minds. It is a tool we employ to use our logic. That logic has gone through one hell of a lot of data and evidence, and all of it points to natural answers. Those answers allowed us to figure out how to get that robot there. Did we try to use a supernatural component during that effort? No. The effort was entirely based on naturalism, was it not?

Again, you’re confusing methodological naturalism with metaphysical naturalism.

You'll have to explain to me why you think the mind can't ascertain mind independent truths. This is an assumption that you've started with and I don't think you've given any support for it yet.

You’ve already agreed that logic (a product of the mind) isn’t objectively valid. So it’s for you to show that a subjective process can result in objective conclusions. But if logic is subjective then there isn’t really any basis for judging what is or isn’t logically coherent anyway.

Had I known he'd done that, I would have saved you that trouble, but thanks for posting it in here.

Your answer goes way too deep for what I was stating. First off, I'm talking all animals here, not just humans. Second, I'm talking about reality, not something like math specifically. For example, if a group of animals sees a cliff as "not a cliff", and another sees a cliff as a "cliff", which group of animals is going to live longer and reproduce more? Seeing reality accurately is a pretty useful survival tool, and not just at the level of mathematics. That we've been able to use that basic tool to move on from cliffs to math is an unintended consequence of evolution most likely.

As far as I can see you've not actually responded to my original criticism of this argument but just simply restated the same argument. So there isn't really anything to respond to here.

Or, it's a strong argument against your assumption that mind-dependent logic cannot put a rover on Mars....

Problem is unless you can show that naturalism is true, and therefore that logic is mind-dependent, then your argument won’t work. Your argument can only show our logic inferences appear to generate objectively valid conclusions.

Given that data, is logic more likely to be subjective or objective? I would say given the data logic is more likely to be objectively valid. If that’s the case, then naturalism is unlikely to be true.

The social convention stuff is a non-starter, as mentioned earlier.

Why is it a non-starter? Subjective processes are culturally conditioned by definition. If logic is mind dependent, then it’s also culture dependent as humans are social beings.

Since you don’t think logic is a product of social convention then you’re simultaneously making an argument for objectivity of logic whilst also denying its objectivity.

If they weren't valid my man, we wouldn't have a rover on Mars. I understand that you think there has to be mind independent logic, and that is the only way to ascertain objective truths. But you've yet to present one iota of data or evidence supporting such assertions. We know there are minds, and we know minds logic as a learning tool. So mind dependent logic seems self evident. The stuff you are talking about is not, so let's see the data and evidence please...

Two points in response:

1) Your argument about rovers on Mars shows our logical inferences appear to generate objectively valid conclusions.

Given that data, is logic more likely to be subjective or objective? I would say given the data logic is more likely to be objectively valid. If that’s the case, then naturalism is unlikely to be true.

2) If naturalism is true, then it would be self-evident that logic is subjective. However, you’ve not been able to show that empirically. So subjectively its self-evident for you given your assumptions but not for those who don’t hold your assumptions.

[Divine Insight]

What is ‘core science’?

Perhaps I should use the term "exact science" as that should be more descriptive.

I think much of physics is an "exact science". Clearly this is not true of all physics, especially in our modern age when physicists have a very bad habit of proposing unproven hypotheses that are not exact and referring to them as "theories".

I don't defend the behavior of all modern scientists, or everything our modern scientific community necessarily supports.

Have you solved the demarcation problem?

I don't personally see any demarcation problem. Apparently this a problem that concerns other philosophers. I personally have no problem drawing a line between what constitutes science and what doesn't.

So yes, I have solved the demarcation problem for myself.

Since you do not know if a drug may benefit or harm – do you therefore not visit a doctor when you are sick, take any medication, or go to hospital?

Modern medical techniques are far from being an "exact science". In fact, I'm pretty sure that any sane doctor will quickly give support to this truth.

In fact, I'm going to a doctor tomorrow and I am very aware that I'm taking a very real gamble with my health by going. So no, I do not view doctors as infallible scientists. No even close.

What I was unclear about was your issue with statistical analyses in clinical trials and the use of probability theory. Probability theory and other principles from statistics are the foundation of all scientific experiments and hypothesis testing.

I totally disagree with your claim that probability theory is the foundation of all scientific experiments and hypotheses testing. Where in the world did you ever come up with that idea?

Is particle physics ‘core science’?

No, absolutely not. Or to be more precise it's not an "exact science".

Here’s some links to applying the principles of hypotheses testing and statistical analysis in this field – we actually face quite similar issues in medicine to what’s discussed in the articles (but clearly I agree the questions we are asking differ substantially).

Statistical analysis and probability theory are what they are. They are useful tools. Don't lose sight of that fact. They are not the foundation of either science or medicine.

You're missing the context of my example. You argued science involves observation alone and doesn't require logic - I was giving you an example to show the scientific method involves a combination of logic and observation.

What are you calling "Logic"?

You haven't make a case that logic came from anything other than scientific observations to begin with. So you are making an argument about entities that you haven't shown to be any different in the first place.

Why is that relevant to science and religion discussion? Because you are aware its logically incoherent to both affirm naturalism and the objective validity of logic - you're trying to back away from the importance of logic to the scientific method. I can understand why you would try to take that position in order to try to justify what seems to be irreconcilable:)

This is absolutely false on your part.

Nowhere did I even suggest that "logic" is anything other than science in the first place.

You are the one who is holding up this notion that logic has some separate existence all its own. So you are working from an assumption that you haven't yet demonstrated to be factual.

As I said before your argument shows that science is a combination of logic and empirical investigation, yes I agree with that.

I agree with this too. Apparently where we differ is in our view of what gave rise to our logical reasoning in the first place. I have no problem with logical reasoning being a perfectly natural part of the world.

From when to you think "logic" came?

Do you take the discovery of time dilation to be an objective or subjective finding? In other words how do you know that conclusions drawn about time dilation are objectively valid given we cannot know if our cognitive faculties are valid and logic is subjective?

Why would I think that logic is subjective?

If logic were subjective then everyone would think in totally different ways and call their random sequence of thoughts "logical" from their own subjective perspective.

Science avoids this by demanding independent verification.

So your above paragraph makes absolutely no sense to me at all.

For me time dilation is objection, and our logical reasoning is also objective. Although clearly there are individuals who "reason" in totally illogical ways. But we can also see that their illogical reasoning NEVER produced constructive, or repeatable results that can be reproduced by independent sources.

So as far as I'm concerned you just aren't making any sense in the above paragraph.

If time dilation is just a subjective opinion why do you speak of it as if it objectively reflects how the universe is?

It's been tested repeatedly by independent observers. In fact, it's been tested by independent scientists who would love nothing more than to prove it wrong, and even they have to confess that it's actually correct.

So why you would suggest that time dilation is just a subjective opinion is beyond me. You aren't making any rational sense here.

1) I’m not sure why you keep trying to claim I believe is some mysterious ‘Platonic World’ – I’ve never claimed such a thing.

So where do you think "logic" came from then?

If it came from the natural objective world, then what are you even arguing about?

2) If all you mean is that the discovery of time dilation is the product of logically valid inferences from empirical data – then yeah I agree. Logic and maths help us to draw valid inferences about empirical data. But if logic and maths are subjective then the validity of our inferences about empirical data are also by definition subjective too.

I don't see where any "inferences" are required to measure time.

Are you attempting to suggest that our world is an illusion and we can't trust our observations and measurements?

If so, what is your basis for making such an absurd claim?

3) Since logic for you is subjective – why would logically valid inferences from empirical data ‘demonstrate that time dilation does indeed occur’. Why would we draw objective conclusions from subjective processes? That at least needs some justification, right?

Logic is not subjective for me. But I am careful to realize that logic is nothing more than a method of reasoning and that all reasoning must begin with a premise. Sometimes we choose false premises upon which to build our logical reasoning, and when we do that they will ultimately lead to failure and false conclusions.

In fact, our movement from Classical physics where we had wrongfully assumed the premise of absolute space and time to Relativity which predicted time dilation was an example where we had made a mistake in our choice of unprovable premises. The fact that we can measure the predicted time dilation shows that logic alone is not enough. We MUST make actual observations and measurement.

Therefore logic alone has NO POWER of its own.

In fact, we saw this also in cosmology where scientists once believed that the universe was eternal and fairly static as we currently see it to be. But observation blew that false premise out of the water too.

So logic alone is USELESS. Logic has not power at all on its own.

Since I’ve not claimed to believe in a Platonic world I’m not sure why you keep insisting I do.

So then you agree that logic is just an objective property of this universe? Otherwise you would need to invoke a Platonic World or something similar.

Without it, you are necessarily a "naturalist" yourself.

What I do agree with is that it is possible to have knowledge about the universe and also that clearly there are many things we don’t yet or possibly never will know.

I agree that there may be many things about the universe that we may never no.

So what?

Is that supposed to be some sort of point for something?

Also, other than complaining about "Naturalism" what have you offered to replace it that offers anything better?

If you have nothing better to offer than naturalism then why complain about something when you have nothing to replace it with?

Naturalism is simply the best we have thus far. If you can offer something better I would love to hear about it.

[dakoski]

[Replying to Divine Insight]

We're going off on various tangents so thought it would be helpful if I try and clarify what I think you have been claiming in your posts and my response to these. Please clarify if I’m not correctly reflecting what you think:

1) Earlier on you were arguing , there are no objective truths and that logic isn’t objective

“I understand that this is a very commonly accepted view, but I do not personally accept this view. I do not accept that there are mind-independent truths of "difference kinds". And especially not in the way described in the quote above [this is referring to the OP]. “

“Finally, I hold that those who believe that it is necessary to invoke a totally "independent" set of truths for logic and mathematics have already assumed the existence of the "supernatural".�

So there aren’t objective truths (e.g. the principle of non-contradiction) that we apply to observations to draw valid inferences about the world. And this conclusion you state derives from your commitment to naturalism.

2) But we have created ways of reasoning about the universe (i.e. the scientific method) from our observations of the universe (i.e. applying the scientific method)

“In fact, I hold that we have created both of these formal was of reasoning. These are our creations. And I hold that these creations are actually based upon the observations that we have made from our observations of how the physical world behaves.�

So through our scientific investigation we create this logic (i.e. the scientific method) that enables us to have objective knowledge of the world.

But the problem with this is that in order to 'create' the scientific method we need to apply the scientific method. So the validity of the scientific method is prior, not the result of, our observations.

To quote Nagel:

‘But suppose I observe a contradiction among my beliefs and “see� that I must give up at least one of them… In that case, I see that the contradictory beliefs cannot all be true, and I see it simply because it is the case. I grasp it directly. We reject a contradiction just because we see that it is impossible, and we accept a logical entailment just because we see that it is necessarily true.’

The scientific method is the application of these logical principles to our observations. It’s not as if we somehow conduct a scientific experiment to show that things like the law of contradiction reflects reality. Conducting scientific experiments presuppose the validity of logic.

3) You also want to claim that the findings of science are objective

“Why would I think that logic is subjective?
If logic were subjective then everyone would think in totally different ways and call their random sequence of thoughts "logical" from their own subjective perspective. “

“For me time dilation is objection, and our logical reasoning is also objective. Although clearly there are individuals who "reason" in totally illogical ways. But we can also see that their illogical reasoning NEVER produced constructive, or repeatable results that can be reproduced by independent sources.�

You’re simultaneously claiming that there are no such thing as logical or objective truths (see above) – but at the same time claiming logic and scientific findings are objective truths. This seems to me a straightforward contradiction.

You have no explanation of how we came to be able to develop objectively valid conclusions applying logic and the scientific method – other than that the scientific method created the scientific method.

So I'm arguing your attempt to justify the objective validity of the scientific method and the findings of the scientific method within your naturalistic worldview leads to logical incoherence.

So I think if we conclude that the scientific method is objectively valid (I think we would be correct in drawing that conclusion), I think this would lead us to question the validity of naturalism as you do not appear to be able to show its logically coherent to hold to the validity of both.

[Divine Insight]

So there aren’t objective truths (e.g. the principle of non-contradiction) that we apply to observations to draw valid inferences about the world. And this conclusion you state derives from your commitment to naturalism.

You are stating gross misunderstandings of my position and acting like as if these came from me.

Since when is a principle of non-contradiction an "objective truth"? And what does "objective" even mean in this context?


What do you mean, when you use the term "objective"?

We have come to realize from observing our own "Macro World" that the principle of non-contradiction appears to be a valid principle with respect to the "Macro World" that we observe. Does that make this principle "objective" with respect to the "Macro World"?

I would agree that it does. However, keep in mind that this principle may only be true "relative" to our Macro World (or within this specific context). For all we know it may not even apply to the quantum world which we have only been observing for about a century, and to date we view the quantum world as being quite "illogical" precisely because it appears to violate these kinds of basic principle that we have always taken for granted.

So what do you mean by "objective" and can you say whether or not the principle of non-contradiction is valid in the quantum world? Unless you can do that, I don't see how you can even claim that the principle of non-contradiction necessarily applies "everywhere".

2) But we have created ways of reasoning about the universe (i.e. the scientific method) from our observations of the universe (i.e. applying the scientific method)

“In fact, I hold that we have created both of these formal was of reasoning. These are our creations. And I hold that these creations are actually based upon the observations that we have made from our observations of how the physical world behaves.�

So through our scientific investigation we create this logic (i.e. the scientific method) that enables us to have objective knowledge of the world.

That's right. But we need to recognize that our understanding of our world is indeed dependent upon our world. I don't deny this. In fact, I actually suggest that this is precisely the case.

But the problem with this is that in order to 'create' the scientific method we need to apply the scientific method. So the validity of the scientific method is prior, not the result of, our observations.

I disagree with your statement here completely.

We have come to recognize that the scientific method of inquiry WORKS, and provides us with dependable and verifiable truths. This is why we have embraced this method. The scientific method didn't drop out of the sky one day as a "prior method of investigation" that we were told to use.

So you are wrong to even suggest that the scientific method is prior to our observations. If the scientific method of inquiry didn't work we wouldn't have adopted it and continued to refine it.

So you are completely wrong to claim that the scientific method came prior to observations. In fact, what would make you think that in the first place?

To quote Nagel:

‘But suppose I observe a contradiction among my beliefs and “see� that I must give up at least one of them… In that case, I see that the contradictory beliefs cannot all be true, and I see it simply because it is the case. I grasp it directly. We reject a contradiction just because we see that it is impossible, and we accept a logical entailment just because we see that it is necessarily true.’

The scientific method is the application of these logical principles to our observations. It’s not as if we somehow conduct a scientific experiment to show that things like the law of contradiction reflects reality. Conducting scientific experiments presuppose the validity of logic.

I totally disagree with your understanding of how humans think and reason. We didn't start with the scientific method. We started to raw observations, and making a lot of WRONG GUESSES for many centuries and even millennia, before we finally formulated a formal scientific method of reasoning.

So you, and possibly Nagel too apparently have things backwards.

Humans used to think that disease was caused by demonic possession for example.

Do I really need to go in to the countless other absurd ideas humans have proposed to explain our world BEFORE the scientific method became well-established.

You are talking like as if the scientific method existed potentially before humans even started to observe or reason about anything. That's totally false. Therefore your argument that the scientific method came prior to our reasoning is clearly a misguided notion on your behalf.

3) You also want to claim that the findings of science are objective

“Why would I think that logic is subjective?
If logic were subjective then everyone would think in totally different ways and call their random sequence of thoughts "logical" from their own subjective perspective. “

Ok, you finally got me on one. Perhaps the CHOICE to choose to employ logical thinking is a subjective choice. Not everyone thinks logically, not even today.

So in this sense logic is subjective. Or at the very least the CHOICE to think logically is a subjective choice. But science has proven beyond any reasonable doubt that logic (that is ultimately based on science) does indeed pan out.

It seems to me that you are being silly in trying to claim that time dilation is merely a subjective opinion. Are you going to hold this same view for Atomic Bombs? How about nuclear power plants? Or jumbo jets? Or computers, or cell phones, or GPS systems which actually require a knowledge of time dilation and could not work if time dilation were not true.

If your argument depends on these things being merely the subjective opinions of individuals then I'd say your arguments are totally unreasonable and illogical.

“For me time dilation is objection, and our logical reasoning is also objective. Although clearly there are individuals who "reason" in totally illogical ways. But we can also see that their illogical reasoning NEVER produced constructive, or repeatable results that can be reproduced by independent sources.�

You’re simultaneously claiming that there are no such thing as logical or objective truths (see above) – but at the same time claiming logic and scientific findings are objective truths. This seems to me a straightforward contradiction.

This seems like a contradiction to you because I am considering a larger worldview than you are. When I say there is no such thing as a logical or objective truth, I'm speaking about all that might possibly exist. We already know the quantum world exists and it does not appear to behave "logically" in any sense that we would consider to be "logical".

And as I have already challenged you, if you can demonstrate a genuinely objective logic that exists everywhere at all places, times and dimensions, then by all means provide evidence for your claim.

Until then you are the one who isn't making any sense.

You have no explanation of how we came to be able to develop objectively valid conclusions applying logic and the scientific method – other than that the scientific method created the scientific method.

WRONG. I never claimed that the scientific method created itself. That's your misguided ideas being pushed onto me. I claim that our scientific method came out of our observation of the physical world, and it WORKS, and has PROVEN itself to be factual, dependable, and truthful. So why wouldn't we embrace it at that point?

You seem to be the one who wants to trash the scientific method. But why? And far more importantly, what do you plan on replacing it with?

In fact, I ask you right now. What do you have to offer to replace the scientific method that will produce better, or more dependable results?

If you have nothing to offer, then what's your point?

Whining about the scientific method when you have nothing better to offer does nothing but wastes everyone's time, including your own.

So I'm arguing your attempt to justify the objective validity of the scientific method and the findings of the scientific method within your naturalistic worldview leads to logical incoherence.

And I've shown why your arguments on that point are misguided and false.

So I think if we conclude that the scientific method is objectively valid (I think we would be correct in drawing that conclusion), I think this would lead us to question the validity of naturalism as you do not appear to be able to show its logically coherent to hold to the validity of both.

Absolute nonsense.

You have made very bad arguments by proclaiming that the scientific method came first, (prior to any reasoning) and that the scientific method created itself. Both of which are dead wrong.

So you are operating on clearly false premises.

I have shown that humans have had a history of very bad reasoning (i.e. illogical thinking) that has lead entire cultures into believing that some imaginary gods or demons are responsible for disease, and "Natural" disasters, etc.

Are you going to claim that "Natural" disasters are not natural events and must be caused by an angry boogieman in the sky?

Clearly naturalism is the only rational worldview. And you haven't found any fault with it in spite of the fact that you seem to have convinced yourself that you have.

I'll leave you with the following challenge:

Either put up or concede defeat:

Offer a better philosophy that can produce more dependable results than a naturalistic worldview and the science method.

If you can offer such a philosophy I'll be extremely happy to hear about it.

Until then your arguments against naturalism and the scientific method are nothing more than unreasonable complaints that cannot be supported with anything even remotely resembling "rational reasoning".

[dakoski]

[Replying to Divine Insight]

Since when is a principle of non-contradiction an \"[i:900f550aab]objective truth[/i:900f550aab]\"? And what does \"[i:900f550aab]objective[/i:900f550aab]\" even mean in this context?

Very simple if I contradict myself – is that a flaw in my argument or not? If it is – is that just your opinion or a social convention that contradictions invalidate an argument? If its an opinion or social convention its not objective.

Is it still a flaw in my argument even if I don’t think it’s a problem to contradict myself? If not, then criteria for judging the validity of an argument or an inference are not objective.

We have come to realize from observing our own \"[i:900f550aab]Macro World[/i:900f550aab]\" that the principle of non-contradiction appears to be a valid principle with respect to the [b:900f550aab]\"Macro World[/b:900f550aab]\" that we observe. Does that make this principle \"[i:900f550aab]objective[/i:900f550aab]\" with respect to the \"[i:900f550aab]Macro World[/i:900f550aab]\"?

So your argument is that we once thought contradicting ourselves was ok until at some point we came to the conclusion that it wasn’t. Any evidence for this or is it just speculation? On what criteria did we decide that it’s not ok to contradict ourselves – how did we know such criteria were valid?

I would agree that it does. However, keep in mind that this principle may only be true \"[i:900f550aab]relative[/i:900f550aab]\" to our Macro World ([i:900f550aab]or within this specific context[/i:900f550aab]). For all we know it may not even apply to the quantum world which we have only been observing for about a century, and to date we view the quantum world as being quite \"[i:900f550aab]illogical[/i:900f550aab]\" precisely because it appears to violate these kinds of basic principle that we have always taken for granted.

I think you’re confusing two different things here. I think all you mean here is that our findings about the quantum world are sometimes contrary to our expectations based on findings of the macro world. That’s not a violation of logic it just means reality is more complex that we had thought.
That we have some knowledge of the quantum world shows that it does not violate the laws of logic. Otherwise we wouldn’t be able to investigate it scientifically. In fact it’s a demonstration of the objective validity of logic that in trying to critique the validity of logic you are appealing to logically valid inferences about the world (i.e. scientific data).

I disagree with your statement here completely.

We have come to recognize that the scientific method of inquiry WORKS, and provides us with dependable and verifiable truths. This is why we have embraced this method. The scientific method didn\'t drop out of the sky one day as a \"prior method of investigation\" that we were told to use.

So you are wrong to even suggest that the scientific method is prior to our observations. If the scientific method of inquiry didn\'t work we wouldn\'t have adopted it and continued to refine it.

So you are completely wrong to claim that the scientific method came prior to observations. In fact, what would make you think that in the first place?

This is just an unsupported assertion.
What I do agree is that the scientific method didn’t drop out of the sky. Modern science developed in a particular place at a particular time. Most historians of science agree some of the main factors that led to the development of modern science were the development and nurturing of universities, and the theologian-scientists who emerged from these institutions to investigate the universe.
These factors were driven by the assumption that some knowledge of the universe was possible through the exercise of our cognitive faculties. And yes they were right the scientific method of inquiry does work.
These assumptions did not derive from naturalism and you’ve failed to show they did.

I totally disagree with your understanding of how humans think and reason. We didn\'t start with the scientific method. We started to raw observations, and making a lot of WRONG GUESSES for many centuries and even millennia, before we finally formulated a formal scientific method of reasoning.

So you, and possibly Nagel too apparently have things backwards.

Humans used to think that disease was caused by demonic possession for example.

Do I really need to go in to the countless other absurd ideas humans have proposed to explain our world BEFORE the scientific method became well-established.

You are talking like as if the scientific method existed potentially before humans even started to observe or reason about anything. That\'s totally false. Therefore your argument that the scientific method came prior to our reasoning is clearly a misguided notion on your behalf.

This is simply unsupported assertion, I appreciate this is your opinion.

Ok, you finally got me on one. Perhaps the CHOICE to choose to employ logical thinking is a subjective choice. Not everyone thinks logically, not even today.

So in this sense logic is subjective. Or at the very least the CHOICE to think logically is a subjective choice. But science has proven beyond any reasonable doubt that logic (that is ultimately based on science) does indeed pan out.

It seems to me that you are being silly in trying to claim that time dilation is merely a subjective opinion. Are you going to hold this same view for Atomic Bombs? How about nuclear power plants? Or jumbo jets? Or computers, or cell phones, or GPS systems which actually require a knowledge of time dilation and could not work if time dilation were not true.

If your argument depends on these things being merely the subjective opinions of individuals then I\'d say your arguments are totally unreasonable and illogical.

Strawman argument

WRONG. I never claimed that the scientific method created itself. That\'s your misguided ideas being pushed onto me. I claim that our scientific method came out of our observation of the physical world, and it WORKS, and has PROVEN itself to be factual, dependable, and truthful. So why wouldn\'t we embrace it at that point?

You seem to be the one who wants to trash the scientific method. But why? And far more importantly, what do you plan on replacing it with?

[color=blue:900f550aab][b:900f550aab]In fact, I ask you right now. What do you have to offer to replace the scientific method that will produce better, or more dependable results?

If you have nothing to offer, then what\'s your point?

Whining about the scientific method when you have nothing better to offer does nothing but wastes everyone\'s time, including your own.
[/b:900f550aab][/color:900f550aab]

Two problems:
1) You’ve simply asserted that the scientific method came out of our scientific investigation of the physical world – which is just a tautology. It came out of a specific cultural context and assumptions about the knowability of the universe and the validity of our cognitive faculties to generate valid inferences about the world. You have failed to show that these assumptions and the context in which modern science arose are consistent with naturalism
2) Your claim that I’m trying to trash the scientific method is simply a strawman – I expected such tactics as shown in the OP.

And I\'ve shown why your arguments on that point are misguided and false.

Unsupported assertion.

Absolute nonsense.

You have made very bad arguments by proclaiming that the scientific method came first, (prior to any reasoning) and that the scientific method created itself. Both of which are dead wrong.

So you are operating on clearly false premises.

I have shown that humans have had a history of very bad reasoning (i.e. illogical thinking) that has lead entire cultures into believing that some imaginary gods or demons are responsible for disease, and \"Natural\" disasters, etc.

Are you going to claim that \"Natural\" disasters are not natural events and must be caused by an angry boogieman in the sky?

Clearly naturalism is the only rational worldview. And you haven\'t found any fault with it in spite of the fact that you seem to have convinced yourself that you have.

I\'ll leave you with the following challenge:

[color=blue:900f550aab][b:900f550aab]Either put up or concede defeat:

Offer a better philosophy that can produce more dependable results than a naturalistic worldview and the science method.

If you can offer such a philosophy I\'ll be extremely happy to hear about it.

Until then your arguments against naturalism and the scientific method are nothing more than unreasonable complaints that cannot be supported with anything even remotely resembling \"[i:900f550aab]rational reasoning[/i:900f550aab]\".
[/b:900f550aab][/color:900f550aab]

This is a combination of unsupported assertions and strawmen.

[Divine Insight]

Post removed (replied to the wrong thread). Sorry about that.

[Kenisaw]

[Replying to post 19 by Kenisaw]

Let's back up a bit. You asked two questions in post #14. They were:

Quote:
What’s the empirical data and evidence that shows naturalism to be a true account of reality? How might you test the hypothesis that 'everything arises from natural properties and causes, and supernatural or spiritual explanations are excluded or discounted'?


The first question I addressed in my response in post 15, which you have quoted up above before your "sorry" et al reply in post #16. As my reply in post 15 already answers the first question in your post #14, your statement in post #16 that you don't see any evidence doesn't make any sense to me. Perhaps if you review the relevant posts again you will become aware of it.

Let me clarify as perhaps you misunderstood my questions. What you gave me was your opinion that there is no evidence for worldviews you disagree with.

Incorrect. I told you why I lack belief with worldviews for which there is no evidence. That's an important distinction and not just word play. It was the lack of evidence for things like religious dogma and supernatural claims that led me to conclude that those things are implausible. I did not disagree with some worldview, and then claim there is no evidence for it.

I used to be a believer earlier in my life, and my worldview changed after my search for data and evidence, of which none I could find...

You don’t tell me what the evidence is for naturalism which was my actual question.

I've already answered this though. Naturalism fits all the data and evidence that everyone has examined, collected, and experimented on. Is there anything missing in the theory of gravity that needs a supernatural explanation in your mind?

But when I’m requesting empirical data for naturalism, I’m asking whether there has been scientific research to test that hypothesis. I.e. Is naturalism testable? If so, I’m asking if you could provide me with some links to peer-reviewed publications that have empirically tested and ‘verified’ that 'everything arises from natural properties and causes, and supernatural or spiritual explanations are excluded or discounted’.

Read anything. Literally any peer reviewed publication, and see if there is anything in any of them that has found any supernatural link or possible cause for any phenomena in the universe.

I fear you may forget that I am not an absolutist about this topic. I am speaking for all the data and empirical evidence we have as of now. I do not propose that the supernatural is impossible. All I know is that there isn't any proof of it yet. I am simply following what has been gathered and tested to date, and none of it has a supernatural component. So I state as of now, pending further information, I see naturalism as being the explanation for the universe and what it contains.

For one thing, defining what is natural and supernatural is actually quite difficult. Secondly, I’m unsure how an experiment could be set up to test such a hypothesis. But I’m interested in seeing what you can produce.

If you think the supernatural exists, you prove it. It's not my job to prove something that I have no data and evidence for that has led me to conclude it isn't plausible.

The second question from post #14, that you got from putting "naturalism" in google and editing the "a philosophical viewpoint according to which everything arises from natural properties and causes, and supernatural or spiritual explanations are excluded or discounted" that shows up on the top of the page, was already answered in post #8 by me that you quoted before asking your question: "The reason there is no supernatural component to a naturalism is because there is zero evidence and data for such a thing. It's not assumed it doesn't exist, it's not considered because of the lack of proof for it."

Actually I got the definition from another poster on the site who thought that it reflected his worldview. Most probably they typed naturalism into google. If you don’t like that definition, or don’t think it accurately reflects naturalism, you’re welcome to propose another. Naturalism is not my worldview so I’m not interested in putting words in people’s mouths.

I get that the conclusion you’ve drawn reflects your opinion, but it’s a different thing altogether to claim that naturalism is empirically verified you have to get specific and provide peer-reviewed publications that have explicitly tested this hypothesis. If you cannot do that, then you can’t claim naturalism has been empirically verified.

My conclusion reflects the data. You have any additional data for me to consider? Bring forth your evidence for god creatures, ghosts, the supernatural, leprechauns, etc. If you do not, then there is no reason for me to conclude anything other than naturalism is the best explanation for the universe and what it contains.

Naturalism is, if anything, an axiom. It is so well established that I do not see any reason to doubt it. There certainly isn't any empirical information out there among the doubters and cultists that shows otherwise.

From what I can see your conclusion doesn’t seem to be empirically based but simply a confusion of methodological naturalism (supernatural causes cannot be inferred from scientific data – a methodological assumption) with metaphysical naturalism (everything arises from natural properties and causes – a conclusion about the nature of reality). Methodological naturalism cannot be cited as evidence for metaphysical naturalism without circularity.

I've not made that methodological assumption, nor have I confused anything. Perhaps I haven't explained my statements to your satisfaction, or have not communicated properly, but I've yet to see you poke any holes in my statements.

And let's cut to the chase on that one right now. There is no evidence at this time for god creatures or the supernatural, and we both know it. Goodness knows requests for such evidence and data have been asked for ad nauseum on just this website over the years, without even one ort of proof ever being offered. If such proof existed it would have been all over the news and splattered on billboards coast to coast by cultists by now.

You’re answering a question I didn’t ask you. I didn’t request your opinion on the evidence for other worldviews I requested your opinion on the evidence for naturalism. If you can show me that naturalism is explicitly testable and that in fact it has been tested (as you claim) then I’m willing to comment on the data. You can answer this very simply by providing one or two peer-reviewed publication that empirically tests the hypothesis that 'everything arises from natural properties and causes, and supernatural or spiritual explanations are excluded or discounted'. If you don’t like that definition you’re welcome to suggest another definition.

Again, I think your conclusion is based on a confusion of methodological and metaphysical naturalism and circular reasoning.

My apologies if I assumed inaccurately where this conversation was heading. You are not the first person to come to this website (or other websites I visit) and start a discussion on this topic. Every other time I've participated it eventually led to the supernatural and giving some kind of god creature credit, even though no one ever brought forth any evidence for such things. Many made the mistake of thinking that discrediting naturalism somehow proves supernatural claims (or something along those lines).

I don't know what your end game is. Perhaps it would help if you clarify your position and thoughts on naturalism and whether you think it is valid or not. If you don't think it is an axiom for instance, why not?

Or the third option, which is that you didn't understand the answers given. I will assume I was inadequate with my explanation and try again.

Obviously you want to deal in absolutes. You think it is an either/or proposition. I do not see it that way. I go where the data and evidence lead me. To date, the totality of the data and evidence point to natural explanations for everything. There is no supernatural component that can be identified to any of it. Does this mean that it is impossible for the supernatural to exist? No, because we don't know everything. And since we cannot prove a negative (i.e. the supernatural does not exist), we cannot rule it out at this time. As a scientific person I always leave the door open for additional data and evidence to be considered at a future time. But since there is nothing supporting the concept of supernatural, there is no reason to consider that hypothesis as plausible at this time. In the mean time, we continue to validate the natural explanations we do have over and over and over...

I think you’ve misunderstood my position:

1) I don’t think we can have absolute knowledge. I believe we can have reliable knowledge but not absolute knowledge – so that’s not my problem with your argument
2) I think your conclusion is based on a confusion of methodological and metaphysical naturalism and therefore circular reasoning.

1) I don't agree. Science is a path, not a destination. Everything is open pending the possible appearance of future information or data.
2) I don't.

If logic wasn't able to find the patterns and cause and effect sequences in the universe, there'd be no way to determine if natural or supernatural ideals were responsible. It takes logic to recognize the cause and effect, and its the cause and effect that displays the laws and rules of the universe.

This is an argument for the necessity of logic for the scientific method. Its not an argument for the necessity of logic for naturalism.

How do you get to naturalism without logic? How to you get to naturalism without the scientific method? Of course it's an explanation for how that all ties in together. Unless you can explain how naturalism is derived without logic and the scientific method...

Not exactly. You haven't shown that there is such a thing as mind-independent logic. I have not made a comparison to something that I've already stated does not seem to exist in my opinion. I've also already explained that I don't think necessarily think logic is objective (bad logic I called it). You've not represented my statements at all.

I’m unclear where the problem is: I said that you don’t think logic is objective. And you’ve agreed that you don’t think logic is objective – so that’s misrepresenting you how? Please clarify as I don’t want to misrepresent you.

No, I said I don't necessarily think logic is objective. But aside from that, please show that there is such a thing as mind-independent logic.

Then please explain how we got a rover on Mars. Perhaps a believer will chime in and claim it is a miracle I suppose...

The example shows the reliability of our cognitive faculties conditional on our experience.

And the reliability of other too, otherwise we couldn't ever reach agreement on how to get a rover to Mars, and get it there, and get it there safely. And since we got the rover to Mars, and used a naturalistic approach to make to happen, that's just one of billions of daily verifications that validates naturalism as a accurate axiom.

The example does not show the reliability of our cognitive faculties conditional on naturalism being true - as we do not know if naturalism is true.

And as I pointed out in a previous post already, there sure is a tremendous amount of stuff that goes right and works every single day for you to claim that we can't show the "reliability of our cognitive faculties conditional on naturalism being true". Humans sure do rely on a lot of things that use naturalistic explanations as the foundation for their conception and usage. I don't see people relying on supernaturalism when they use their GPS...

As there is no culture requirement in the scientific method I don't see where culture plays a role. Humans from literally ever corner of the globe, gay and straight, male and female, tall and short, fat and thin, and so forth have validated and verified many theories, and continue to do so today.

Exactly, the findings of the scientific method are objective. Yet you deny that logic, a key component of the method, is not objective. It’s logically incoherent – unless you can show otherwise – to argue the basis for the scientific method (logical inferences from empirical data) is subjective but simultaneously claim the findings are objective. If you can’t show it’s logically coherent then your conclusions are unwarranted.

I don't know how you went from a comment about culture to the conclusion that I think the findings of the scientific method are "objective". I think the findings of the scientific method are pretty accurate, but not even the scientific method doesn't claim objectivity. That's why scientific theories are open ended, always open to the possibility of new information. That's why a theory is described as the "best explanation that fits the data", not "THE explanation".

Logical inference is subjective, but we remove a great deal of the subjectivity by verifying and validating the work, so as to confirm the observations, methodologies, and results. So in the end we get pretty accurate.

As for conclusions being subjective? Absolutely. Which is why the scientific method requires validation and verification over and over and over. That removes the bias, the subjectivity, from the results. When a lot of mind dependent logic from a lot of different minds reach the same result, how subjective can it really be? Or perhaps to put it a different way: Do you really have any realistic doubt in your mind about the theory of gravity?

The problem is that all the statements you’ve made and the logical inferences you’ve drawn in that paragraph are according to you subjective in nature. Why then would I think your conclusion is anything other than a subjective opinion?

If it was just my conclusion, I'd think that too. 7 billion people all agree gravity is a universal phenomena, because they didn't fly off the Earth when they got up. How much subjectivity does that leave? Not much at all...

I don’t doubt the theory of gravity based on my experience of reality. However, the question is not regarding the validity of logic given the data of my experience. The question is regarding the validity of logic given that naturalism is true.

The theory of gravity is a naturalistic answer. It is a part OF naturalism. You don't think the naturalistic theory of gravity is valid after the logic that's been applied to it? Can you offer any OTHER system of explanation for gravity that isn't based in naturalism?

And another point I feel I must bring up - I don't see where the validity of logic is tied to the validity of supernaturalism, or naturalism, or any other ism. Logic is valid because the universe is constant (or incredibly stable anyway), regardless of how one tries to explain things. You are sitting here using logic to argue against the validity of logic in naturalism, if that doesn't show what I mean than nothing does...

I disagree. The scientific method is sourced by the logic of our minds. It is a tool we employ to use our logic. That logic has gone through one hell of a lot of data and evidence, and all of it points to natural answers. Those answers allowed us to figure out how to get that robot there. Did we try to use a supernatural component during that effort? No. The effort was entirely based on naturalism, was it not?

Again, you’re confusing methodological naturalism with metaphysical naturalism.

And you're avoiding the questions being asked of you I just noticed...

You'll have to explain to me why you think the mind can't ascertain mind independent truths. This is an assumption that you've started with and I don't think you've given any support for it yet.

You’ve already agreed that logic (a product of the mind) isn’t objectively valid. So it’s for you to show that a subjective process can result in objective conclusions. But if logic is subjective then there isn’t really any basis for judging what is or isn’t logically coherent anyway.

So we will have to rely on lots of confirmation and verification, won't we. Which is exactly what we do. And it must be pretty accurate since we have a rover on Mars. Is naturalism truly objective? Don't know. Does it work pretty well as an axiom to start with? Obviously...

Had I known he'd done that, I would have saved you that trouble, but thanks for posting it in here.

Your answer goes way too deep for what I was stating. First off, I'm talking all animals here, not just humans. Second, I'm talking about reality, not something like math specifically. For example, if a group of animals sees a cliff as "not a cliff", and another sees a cliff as a "cliff", which group of animals is going to live longer and reproduce more? Seeing reality accurately is a pretty useful survival tool, and not just at the level of mathematics. That we've been able to use that basic tool to move on from cliffs to math is an unintended consequence of evolution most likely.

As far as I can see you've not actually responded to my original criticism of this argument but just simply restated the same argument. So there isn't really anything to respond to here.

Hmm. I had to dig up your original criticism. You said: "The question then is, firstly whether being good with logic, science and maths is associated with attractiveness to potential mates - I don’t see much evidence for that currently. And at the advent of the development of human societies this would likely even less be the case. Secondly, can we really extrapolate that the abilities needed to escape predators are necessarily synonymous with the abilities of philosophers, physicists etc. to make abstract but valid inferences about the world? This seems far too speculative to warrant the strength of your conclusion. We know far too little about the neuroscience of our reasoning capacities to make that assumption. It seems to me agnosticism about the validity of our cognitive faculties is warranted if naturalism is true, at least until we have better data."

I'd disagree with your first sentence. A good mate is one that can avoid walking off cliffs, wouldn't you say? That would give a female's offspring a much better chance of surviving long term, especially if she also sees walking off cliffs as a bad thing. If her mate figures out how to get more fruit down out of a tree, and therefore eats better and is healthier, that would make him more attractive. His logical abilities make him a better potential mate because he is healthier See how logic is an ability that can be passed on pretty easily? Your point was addressed, even if you didn't make the connection.

As to your second point, again I disagree. If logic works pretty well, then it works pretty well. I've never seen a breakdown of different types of logic, one for not walking off cliffs, and one for mathematics. Can you honestly say such a delineation exists in the world of logic? If not I fail to see your demarcation as a valid separating point.

Your last sentence, the agnostic one, is also meritless. The validity of our cognitive abilities, and of naturalism, is all around you in the stuff you do and use every day of your life...

Or, it's a strong argument against your assumption that mind-dependent logic cannot put a rover on Mars....

Problem is unless you can show that naturalism is true, and therefore that logic is mind-dependent, then your argument won’t work. Your argument can only show our logic inferences appear to generate objectively valid conclusions.

Given that data, is logic more likely to be subjective or objective? I would say given the data logic is more likely to be objectively valid. If that’s the case, then naturalism is unlikely to be true.

Before I dig into this too far, let me ask a follow up question to your statements here. If naturalism is unlikely to be true, then what is more likely to be true, and why? (I've got that deja vu feeling everyone...)

The social convention stuff is a non-starter, as mentioned earlier.

Why is it a non-starter? Subjective processes are culturally conditioned by definition. If logic is mind dependent, then it’s also culture dependent as humans are social beings.

Since you don’t think logic is a product of social convention then you’re simultaneously making an argument for objectivity of logic whilst also denying its objectivity.

Negative ghost rider. I've never claimed that logic is "objective", as in free of any subjectivity. But it can be pretty accurate when run through something like the scientific method, especially after much validation and verification. But I'm not sure why you are even making a blanket statement about the human mind when you yourself said "We know far too little about the neuroscience of our reasoning capacities to make that assumption", ya know?

If they weren't valid my man, we wouldn't have a rover on Mars. I understand that you think there has to be mind independent logic, and that is the only way to ascertain objective truths. But you've yet to present one iota of data or evidence supporting such assertions. We know there are minds, and we know minds logic as a learning tool. So mind dependent logic seems self evident. The stuff you are talking about is not, so let's see the data and evidence please...

Two points in response:

1) Your argument about rovers on Mars shows our logical inferences appear to generate objectively valid conclusions.

Given that data, is logic more likely to be subjective or objective? I would say given the data logic is more likely to be objectively valid. If that’s the case, then naturalism is unlikely to be true.

You once again want to deal in absolutes I see. I'd say our inferences appear to generate conclusions that are close enough to objectively valid that we could make the Mars rover work.

2) If naturalism is true, then it would be self-evident that logic is subjective. However, you’ve not been able to show that empirically. So subjectively its self-evident for you given your assumptions but not for those who don’t hold your assumptions.

I never claimed I could show that naturalism is true empirically. You seem to keep framing your answers based on how you see it, as opposed to what I've written.

Naturalism appears to be pretty accurate. Even if it's not totally objective, enough of the subjectivity has been removed from it via validations and verification that it seems to work.