[
Replying to Kenisaw]
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...
Thanks for the clarification that’s interesting. Do you mind if I seek to clarify further?
1) Below you made this argument ‘Many made the mistake of thinking that discrediting naturalism somehow proves supernatural claims (or something along those lines).’ Is not your argument just the inverse of what you think is a ‘mistake’? Or let’s nuance it a little, is your argument the inverse of ‘the mistake of thinking that discrediting naturalism provides support for supernatural claims’? If so, why do you think your argument is valid?
2) Below you’ve claimed naturalism is an axiom of science. If that’s the case, then by definition it’s not possible to have evidence that contradicts naturalism. So isn’t that just a circular argument? Why would you abandon one worldview for lack of evidence but then take on another worldview which also lacked evidence?
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?
1) You’ve asserted that naturalism fits all data and evidence but not shown that this is necessarily the case. I’m not aware of any worldview that is inconsistent with the theory of gravity so I’m not sure that’s a particularly strong argument. If other worldviews denied gravity and naturalism alone claimed that gravity existed then it would be more persuasive.
2) You’re presuming a god of the gaps – which is a strawman as no one actually holds that view.
dakoski wrote:
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’.
kenisaw wrote:
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.
You’ve failed again to answer the questions:
1) Is naturalism a testable hypothesis?
-Although your answer hints that the answer is no – you do not quite come out with this transparently.
2) Have there been peer-reviewed publications that have empirically tested and verified naturalism?
-Again since you claim naturalism is an axiom that can’t be tested empirically then again your answer appears to be no.
So what you have left is a circular argument as I’ve shown in our previous discussions. If you claim naturalism is an axiom, as you state below, then by definition you cannot accept any empirical evidence that conflicts with this axiom. That’s the beauty and simplicity of a circular argument, only problem is such arguments don’t count as empirical evidence as I’m sure you are aware.
dakosi wrote:
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.
kenisaw wrote:
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.
So your response to the request for evidence for your worldview is to shift the burden of proof? I thought you had said naturalism has been verified?
What I find interesting is that I’ve identified 10 times where you have attempted to shift the burden of proof in this post alone. Given that this is a thread asking naturalists about the logical coherence of their worldview do you think that might suggest a lack of confidence in your worldview?
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.
Problem here is that
1) You don’t provide any data you just continue to assert your conclusion
2) Axioms aren’t testable so you are making a circular argument – if naturalism is testable surely by now you would have shown me the data?
3) You are shifting the burden of proof
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.
You’ve just said in your previous response that naturalism is an axiom of the scientific method. If it isn’t a methodological assumption then you’ll have to show empirically that naturalism is testable and how it has been tested to validate your claim.
No evidence provided so nothing to poke any holes into.
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).
Just to swap experiences, I find it quite common for naturalists on this site and others to write hundreds or thousands of comments asking questions about the evidence and coherence of other worldviews. But when asked about the evidence or coherence of their worldviews want to shift the conversation away from their worldview and onto criticising others – I’ve never seen any evidence presented to support naturalism. I’m always genuinely curious why that is – and I don’t mean that in a sarcastic way. But I’m glad you have been willing to engage in discussion.
I don't know what your end game is.
I think it’s important for me to understand others views. So I see our discussions as sorting through my understanding of naturalism and where I have misunderstood to refine my thinking on it. And also identifying which aspects reflect blind spots that I as an outsider see which those who hold the worldview have trouble seeing. So hopefully we can benefit each other.
Other than that I have no end game. For me understanding is attempting to see the world through the eyes of other perspectives (admittedly imperfectly) and seeing whether such a view is coherent with reality.
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?
I don’t think naturalism has been empirically verified (I think we agree on that). But I imagine that now I have said that you will now claim you disagree.
I haven’t seen any justification for why you take naturalism as an axiom – it just seems to be an assertion. But I could be mistaken, could you clarify why you think naturalism is an axiom of science? You seem to think it’s self-evident, is that problematic since it only appears self-evident to atheists?
Furthermore if you take it as an axiom of science you immediately right off the possibility of the scientific method providing evidence for naturalism – as the argument collapses into circularity. That seems an odd tactic to take if your criticism of other worldviews is lack of evidence. It shows inconsistency in how you evaluate worldviews and also reflects a lack of confidence in your own position.
But of course, that’s my opinion and you are more than entitled to your opinion too.
dakoski wrote:
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.
kenisaw wrote:
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.
1) I’m not sure you’ve understood my point – but that’s fine.
2) You don’t hold that naturalism is an axiom of science? – you said previously it was. This appears to be a contradiction – so please clarify.
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...
Again, attempting to shift the burden of proof.
You’ve asserted naturalism is an axiom. So in that case it’s not the result of a logical inference from empirical data or the conclusion of a deductive argument. So how do you come to that conclusion? Logic doesn’t appear to have a role in your deciding that naturalism is true.
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.
This is a particularly unsubtle attempt to shift the burden of proof. I’ve asked a few times to clarify your position and your response is ‘you believe X, prove it’. It leaves me wondering why you are so keen to avoid clarifying and so keen to shift the burden of proof.
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.
So you are taking agreement between observers as a criterion for reliability? Is this a subjective or objective criterion? If its objective then you’ve surrendered the point. If it’s subjective then you are simply stating an opinion about an opinion.
See this is the problem your conclusion is that we are more or less certain on how to get a rover on Mars. The problem is that if we take your assumptions about logic seriously we don’t arrive at that conclusion. Which means there are logical inconsistencies between your methodological assumptions and your conclusions. Either your conclusion is wrong or your assumptions about the subjectivity of logic are wrong.
dakoski wrote:
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.
kenisaw wrote:
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...
You’ve either misunderstood my criticism of your argument or chose to ignore it – I’m not sure which.
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.
I think you are confusing two different things here. Popper makes the distinction between the principles of the scientific method (which are objective) and the application of the scientific method which is conducted in a social context so is subject to the various biases and limitations of being a human.
I think you would find few scientists arguing that the principles underlying the scientific method are subjective. For example, if I conduct an experiment and come to one conclusion and another team conducts the same experiment and comes to a different conclusion. Are we both right? The answer of course is no, there may be various explanations: the methods weren’t comparable in both experiments, the underlying assumptions of the methods in both experiments were flawed in some way, there’s important measurement error of the variables etc. These can all be followed up in future experiments.
However, the underlying principle is that a conclusion cannot be based on a contradiction. Is this principle subjective or objective? How did we come to know this? Consensus? So, if enough people disagree then contradictions would be permissible? Resolving these contradictions also depends on the assumption of the objective validity of logic underlying the scientific method – we don’t just assert our opinions and go with the most popular one.
Our experiments assume that if methods we use to test our hypotheses are logically coherent, and that our conclusions logically cohere from our data the results are valid. Are these principles subjective or objective? If it was popular enough to reject these principles, then the scientific method could no longer said to be valid?
When I as a peer reviewer comment on the logical coherence of the methods or the conclusions of a manuscript am I just giving my subjective opinion like a judge on a talent contest? Do the authors of the study just need enough people to vote for them to get published? If enough people accept a logical contradiction is it therefore valid? When I critique their methods and conclusions I’m appealing to criteria whose validity is independent of my opinions, the opinions of the team submitting the journal article, and the editor making the decision on the paper.
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...
Three points:
1) You were talking about the theory of gravity – you’ve now shifted the goal posts to ‘not flying off the earth when we get up’. Yes it is self-evident that we didn’t fly off the Earth when we got up – so such a conclusion doesn’t require the scientific method. In the same way my 3 year old knows that 1+1=2 without mathematically deriving the proof for the fundamental theorem of arithmetic.
Do all 7 billion people agree with Einstein’s theory of relativity? If not, do we therefore consider it an opinion?
2) The issue is that in order to come to that conclusion you’ve assumed the objective validity of logic – e.g. the principle of non-contradiction. What if all the world agreed non-contradiction wasn’t important – would it cease to be warranted to think gravity exists? If everyone disagreed but you, would you conclude that gravity did not exist?
3) If our conclusions appear to be objectively true what’s more likely that our methods were subjectively or objectively valid? If it’s the latter then naturalism is unlikely to be 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?
This is a conflation of the scientific method with naturalism. The theory of gravity is a scientific theory. I have no need to propose another type of theory as I have no problem with accepting the validity of the scientific method.
Do we need to propose another scientific theory that reconciles the theory of relativity with quantum theory? Possibly, let’s see where scientific research takes us.
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.
This is the topic we are discussing. I don’t think you have been able to show the coherence of holding to the objective validity of logic and naturalism. You’ve already conceded the case that if naturalism is true then logic is not objectively valid.
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...
That's a strange argument you are making there. The reason I’m using logic is because it has a validity independent of either your opinion or my opinion i.e. its objectively valid. Otherwise we would just be asserting both of our opinions at each other without any basis to judge the validity of those opinions – which would be the case if what you are claiming is true i.e. that logic is subjective. The fact that you are trying to use logic as a standard by which to argue your case and to respond to my posts shows you accept the objective validity of logic. If the person you were discussing with refused to accept the validity of logic would they be wrong or just unconventional?
kenisaw wrote: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?
dakoski wrote:Again, you’re confusing methodological naturalism with metaphysical naturalism.
kenisaw wrote:
And you're avoiding the questions being asked of you I just noticed...
Couple of points:
1) I’ve answered that question a number of times, so I’m amused that you think I’m dodging it. I’ll expand for your benefit, if our conclusions appear to be objectively true what’s more likely that our methods were subjectively or objectively valid? If it’s the latter then naturalism is unlikely to be true.
2) In asserting I was avoiding your question, the irony is that you’ve avoiding responding to the point in my post that you confuse methodological naturalism with metaphysical naturalism.
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...
Confirmation and verification - are these methods subjectively or objectively valid? If they are subjectively valid then why rely on them as a measure of accuracy? You’re asserting an opinion about an opinion.
And what do you think confirmation and verification are based on? The objective validity of logic and our perceptual systems –i.e. the scientific method. Verification relies on the assumption that we are able to draw logically valid inferences from empirical data. Confirmation/replicability relies on the assumption that logically valid inferences are non-contradictory.
If these criteria are subjective then you cannot know anything because everything is therefore an opinion. Since you claim we can know things these criteria are objectively valid.
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...
Yes the point is that our cognitive faculties were developed on the basis of survival not truth. Therefore we would only need to avoid walking off the cliff, avoid predators and be able to provide enough food to survive. Whether we can generate valid logical inference is incidental and therefore far from guaranteed. These can all be explained by associative learning.
Your second point is an argument from ignorance. We don’t have enough of an understanding of the cognitive neuroscience of reasoning to make such judgments. And these outcomes can easily be explained by associative learning particularly if assuming either reductive or non-reductive materialism.
Your third point, includes several assertions: a) the validity of naturalism is all around us – you’ve acknowledged you have no empirical evidence for this yet assert it anyway b) the validity of our cognitive abilities can only be assessed by our cognitive faculties – so we can’t affirm this without circularity.
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...)
I notice you don’t answer the question – which I think is quite telling.
The topic of the thread is the logical coherence of naturalism with the scientific method – yep I’m getting that déjà vu feeling of you wanting to shift the burden of proof again.
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?
1) You’ve claimed that logic is not culture dependent i.e. its not a matter of social convention – is that correct? If something is free from social convention its ‘culturally objective’. You’ve also claimed that the validity of logic is based on social convention – i.e. if enough people agree it’s accurate. Is that not contradictory?
2) What blanket statement am I making about the human mind?
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.
1) Once again I’m not dealing here in absolutes, the principles of the scientific method are objective but we apply these as imperfect human within a particular social context and therefore are subject to bias. So we can have reliable knowledge but not absolute knowledge. I’ve clarified this several times so proceeding along this line is to willfully construct a strawman.
2) You’ve not actually answered the question on both occasions it was asked in my previous post– I wonder why? Let’s try again, given that our inferences appear to generate reliable knowledge (you do think its reliable knowledge that the Mars rover works? Or is it just an opinion?) – is it more likely that our inferences are subjectively or objectively valid?
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.
A few points:
1) You did claim naturalism was verified empirically
dakoski wrote:What’s the empirical data and evidence that shows naturalism to be a true account of reality
kenisaw wrote:It's verified and validated by many individuals, over multiple generations. It must be pretty close at the very least for that to continually happen, or else I cannot fathom how that verification happens time and again-
2) You’re confusing scientific method with naturalism, I’ve lost count how many times
3) You’re judging objectivity on the basis of validation and verification. What do you mean by these terms? Are these criteria subjective or objectively valid in your opinion? If they’re subjectively valid – then isn’t your assessment of accuracy just an opinion?
