Theory of Evolution and Belief in God

[pancreasman]

I don't think it's a competition. Science is extraordinarily useful at producing accurate and useful models of the physical world. However, I don't think anyone is suggesting that the best way to appreciate music or poetry is through reductionist science. Philosophy is interesting but for every philosophical opinion there's a philosophical argument against it.

[shunyadragon]

What "Why" questions has it answered for you? I think the overall point is that science has a much larger data set to work with, therefore it has produced far more answers that philosophy and religion, which are very personal and esoteric fields of study.

I disagree, the size of the data set is not the issue. There are other issues and a wider range of knowledge that grades into philosophy and subjective aspects human social behavior that science is not so simple and does not answer all the questions well. The 'Philosophy of science is an involved field that does address the relationship questions with theological beliefs and philosophy. The why questions that science will not answer do involve questions of theistic intentionality, but may describe it in terms of 'Natural Intentionality.'

[Whag]

I don't think it's a competition. Science is extraordinarily useful at producing accurate and useful models of the physical world. However, I don't think anyone is suggesting that the best way to appreciate music or poetry is through reductionist science. Philosophy is interesting but for every philosophical opinion there's a philosophical argument against it.

It's not a competition, I agree. I phrased it wrongly. What I meant to say was that it's to be expected that answers would pour from the scientific methodology and endless data while religion and philosophy arrive at conclusions more rarely. And the answer to those "whys" differ from religion to religion, so it's a much more esoteric and harder to defend source of knowledge.

[shunyadragon]

I think the burden is on those who say that science is the best method for understanding everything to show that it is.

As far as I know, no one in science makes this claim that that is reputable enough to be taken seriously.

[Tassman]

I don't think it's a competition. Science is extraordinarily useful at producing accurate and useful models of the physical world. However, I don't think anyone is suggesting that the best way to appreciate music or poetry is through reductionist science. Philosophy is interesting but for every philosophical opinion there's a philosophical argument against it.

It is not the best way to appreciate music (or poetry) certainly, but there is good reason to explain our appreciation of it in terms of science. Our capacity to respond to and enjoy music appears to be innate and it is also found among the higher animals, which suggests an evolutionary explanation - perhaps related to the evolutionary advantages associated with our dependence on language for survival.

[Whag]

It is not the best way to appreciate music (or poetry) certainly, but there is good reason to explain our appreciation of it in terms of science. Our capacity to respond to and enjoy music appears to be innate and it is also found among the higher animals, which suggests an evolutionary explanation - perhaps related to the evolutionary advantages associated with our dependence on language for survival.

I agree, and ultimately I find the scientific understanding of how human beings developed music to be much more interesting than any teleological explanation. Primitive human beings mimicked and vocalized the sounds of birds and surrounding fauna. They also de-shelled nuts with rocks and pounded vines into pulp, which is rhythmic. Rhythm and melody make music. This is a very plausible, beautiful, and natural explanation for where music came from. It needn't be handed down as a gift from on high.

[ZackMartin]

You could posit a methodology that you believe works better than the scientific method for the understanding of any particular thing, thereby falsifying the claim that science is the best tool to use for the understanding of all things.

Sure can. The methodology of pure mathematics is different from the methodology of natural science. For understanding mathematics, the first methodology has been enormously fruitful, the second methodology is inapplicable.

You seem to be advocating what we might call "methodological monism" - that there is a single methodology best for all epistemic purposes. I advocate instead "methodological pluralism" - there are multiple distinct methodologies, and the best methodology to use depends on the type of knowledge you seek, on the nature of the proposition you seek to know the truth value of. ("Distinct" methodologies doesn't mean disconnected methodologies - e.g. the methodology of natural science heavily uses the knowledge gained through the methodology of pure mathematics - but one methodology can rely on the result of the other yet still remain a distinct methodology.) So far I have identified two - that of pure mathematics, and that of natural science. But why stop at two? I think, in trying to evaluate the truth of the proposition "There is a single methodology best for all epistemic purposes", one uses neither the methodology of pure mathematics, nor the methodology of natural science; one uses a third methodology, philosophical methodology. The philosophical method is the method we use to determine how many methods there are.

I'm not sure if there is a single "scientific method", as opposed to multiple methods for different sciences. Compare particle physics to the social sciences - they use very different types of evidence, and they rely on different standards of proof. Compare the six sigma standard of proof used in particle physics, to the much weaker 95% significance level common in the social sciences. But whether there is a single scientific method, or multiple ones, is itself not a question that the scientific method can answer - it is not a scientific question, but rather a question in the philosophy of science (the philosophy of science is not a branch of science, it is a branch of philosophy, even though it has science as its object), and so the proper methodology to answer it is the philosophical one.

History is yet another discipline with its own distinct methodology, separate from the mathematical, scientific, and philosophical ones. (But it is free to draw on the results of the others when relevant - using radiocarbon dating to date archaeological objects is an example of that.)

[lao tzu]

You could do me the courtesy of not snipping what I wrote, and thus creating a strawman.

How does that matter? If it's only one question you can answer better using something else, name that question and your method.

Read it in the context of the statements I was responding to. I am denying the position: 'Science is the all-round best method for determining the truth about everything.'

And hand-waving away any request to back it up.

All the words I've emphasized above are important to my meaning. Nowhere have I said that science is bad, or not useful.

Nobody said you said that. We're nailing you on what you actually did say.

If you think the above position is correct, feel free to support it, using science.

No way. It's your hot seat. You sit on it.

If you actually want to understand what I'm getting at, then read my post in full context, and read my discussion with Robertb above. If you really need things spelling out, IMHO there is no one 'all-round best method' for everything, there are different 'best methods' for different things.

Fine. Name one.

I'll turn to either philosophy or religion to try to answer questions dealing with "why" before I would science

If you're only interested in trying to answer, you might as well use a ouija board.

[robertb]

Sure can. The methodology of pure mathematics is different from the methodology of natural science. For understanding mathematics, the first methodology has been enormously fruitful, the second methodology is inapplicable.

You seem to be advocating what we might call "methodological monism" - that there is a single methodology best for all epistemic purposes. I advocate instead "methodological pluralism" - there are multiple distinct methodologies, and the best methodology to use depends on the type of knowledge you seek, on the nature of the proposition you seek to know the truth value of. ("Distinct" methodologies doesn't mean disconnected methodologies - e.g. the methodology of natural science heavily uses the knowledge gained through the methodology of pure mathematics - but one methodology can rely on the result of the other yet still remain a distinct methodology.) So far I have identified two - that of pure mathematics, and that of natural science. But why stop at two? I think, in trying to evaluate the truth of the proposition "There is a single methodology best for all epistemic purposes", one uses neither the methodology of pure mathematics, nor the methodology of natural science; one uses a third methodology, philosophical methodology. The philosophical method is the method we use to determine how many methods there are.

I'm not sure if there is a single "scientific method", as opposed to multiple methods for different sciences. Compare particle physics to the social sciences - they use very different types of evidence, and they rely on different standards of proof. Compare the six sigma standard of proof used in particle physics, to the much weaker 95% significance level common in the social sciences. But whether there is a single scientific method, or multiple ones, is itself not a question that the scientific method can answer - it is not a scientific question, but rather a question in the philosophy of science (the philosophy of science is not a branch of science, it is a branch of philosophy, even though it has science as its object), and so the proper methodology to answer it is the philosophical one.

History is yet another discipline with its own distinct methodology, separate from the mathematical, scientific, and philosophical ones. (But it is free to draw on the results of the others when relevant - using radiocarbon dating to date archaeological objects is an example of that.)

I wasn't advocating, I was asking Max to do so.

[MaxVel]

How does that matter? If it's only one question you can answer better using something else, name that question and your method.



And hand-waving away any request to back it up.



Nobody said you said that. We're nailing you on what you actually did say.

I've already clarified what I meant. That you're more interested in continuing to attack something I didn't mean is... ...interesting.

No way. It's your hot seat. You sit on it.



Fine. Name one.

See my post #141

(Which I already asked you to read to understand what I am saying...)

[robertb]

Sure can. The methodology of pure mathematics is different from the methodology of natural science. For understanding mathematics, the first methodology has been enormously fruitful, the second methodology is inapplicable.

You seem to be advocating what we might call "methodological monism" - that there is a single methodology best for all epistemic purposes. I advocate instead "methodological pluralism" - there are multiple distinct methodologies, and the best methodology to use depends on the type of knowledge you seek, on the nature of the proposition you seek to know the truth value of. ("Distinct" methodologies doesn't mean disconnected methodologies - e.g. the methodology of natural science heavily uses the knowledge gained through the methodology of pure mathematics - but one methodology can rely on the result of the other yet still remain a distinct methodology.) So far I have identified two - that of pure mathematics, and that of natural science. But why stop at two? I think, in trying to evaluate the truth of the proposition "There is a single methodology best for all epistemic purposes", one uses neither the methodology of pure mathematics, nor the methodology of natural science; one uses a third methodology, philosophical methodology. The philosophical method is the method we use to determine how many methods there are.

I'm not sure if there is a single "scientific method", as opposed to multiple methods for different sciences. Compare particle physics to the social sciences - they use very different types of evidence, and they rely on different standards of proof. Compare the six sigma standard of proof used in particle physics, to the much weaker 95% significance level common in the social sciences. But whether there is a single scientific method, or multiple ones, is itself not a question that the scientific method can answer - it is not a scientific question, but rather a question in the philosophy of science (the philosophy of science is not a branch of science, it is a branch of philosophy, even though it has science as its object), and so the proper methodology to answer it is the philosophical one.

History is yet another discipline with its own distinct methodology, separate from the mathematical, scientific, and philosophical ones. (But it is free to draw on the results of the others when relevant - using radiocarbon dating to date archaeological objects is an example of that.)

Now for the rest of this.

I would counter that it is not the fact that I am proposing (if I actually were doing so) some sort of methodological monism, but that you may, in fact,have too narrow a view of what constitutes the scientific method and how it is applied, consciously or not, correctly or not, to pretty much any question we have about things. One makes a reasoned hypothesis, observes and tries to identify any observation that may contradict their resoned hypothesis, etc.

You will find this process applicable to pretty much every thing one wishes to gain knowledge about.

If I really wished to know that 2+2=4, what would be the best way to do so?

[magellan004]

How does that matter? If it's only one question you can answer better using something else, name that question and your method.



And hand-waving away any request to back it up.



Nobody said you said that. We're nailing you on what you actually did say.



No way. It's your hot seat. You sit on it.



Fine. Name one.



If you're only interested in trying to answer, you might as well use a ouija board.

My goodness. What happened to that serene, objective Kung Fu like character we all grew to love? You used to sit in your throne edifying us all with your Guru like, tangential observations. Now all we get is gripe and colic. I want a refund!

Magellan

[headheart]

My goodness. What happened to that serene, objective Kung Fu like character we all grew to love? You used to sit in your throne edifying us all with your Guru like, tangential observations. Now all we get is gripe and colic. I want a refund!

Magellan

I guess you're about to find out.

[magellan004]

I guess you're about to find out.

LOL Can't wait.

Magellan

[headheart]

LOL Can't wait.

Magellan

Don't say I didn't warn you.