Just supposing...........

[Alien]

So you "suspect"? Which of their beliefs specifically?

Any and all of them that involve supernatural agency, since the scientific method is essentially naturalistic.

Naughty. It is methodologically naturalistic, but not philosophically naturalistic. Was your ambiguity deliberate or just sloppiness?

Not sloppy in the least - I used the term 'scientific method' quite deliberately. and science is as you say methodologically naturalistic. Therefore, any personal beliefs that any scientist holds about anything non-naturalistic are inappropriate when 'doing' science.   

My point about the ambiguity was about your use of the term "naturalistic".

In #311, JeremyP wrote, "I haven't seen the programme in question, but, I bet, if I do, I'll find that Dawkins was asking the science teacher why he does not actively discourage applying religious belief to doing science, because that has a tendency to ruin the science."

I have been asking JeremyP which of the religious beliefs of people like Polkinghorne, Collins and Conway-Morris, which if applied to doing science, would "tend to ruin the science". I can't get anyone to give any examples apart from some alleged conflict between their views on Genesis and science, but no-one will say what the views of Polkinghorne, Collins and Conway-Morris about Genesis are that are in conflict with science.

Do you agree with JeremyP here? If so, perhaps you would tell me what those conflicting views are.

I'm not familiar with the details of the theistic views of these guys, but that isn't my point: my point is quite simply that scientists aren't in a position to include supernatural elements in any hypothesis, experiment, data collection and analysis without there being an appropriate methodology, and as things stand there isn't.

They might choose to interpret their science in the light of their theism on a strictly personal basis - but that is a separate matter from the actual process of 'doing science' within the discipline of the scientific method.

Who was talking about including supernatural elements in any hypothesis? JeremyP made a claim and has not even attempted to back it up and one or two others have chipped in on his side and not backed up the claim either.

I did ask JP if he was thinking of YECers in his #311, but he hasn't said he was thinking more of them.

[Gordon]

My point about the ambiguity was about your use of the term "naturalistic".

Bearing in mind that what I said was 'since the scientific method is essentially naturalistic' then I'd say I made a very clear association between 'method' and 'naturalistic' that isn't in the least bit ambiguous. 

Who was talking about including supernatural elements in any hypothesis?

I am - my point being that when 'doing' science the supernatural is out of scope without an appropriate methodology, so that scientists who are also theists need to recognise this distinction.

JeremyP made a claim and has not even attempted to back it up and one or two others have chipped in on his side and not backed up the claim either.

I did ask JP if he was thinking of YECers in his #311, but he hasn't said he was thinking more of them.

Then I'll leave this point to Jeremy since it isn't one I was making.

[Alien]

My point about the ambiguity was about your use of the term "naturalistic".

Bearing in mind that what I said was 'since the scientific method is essentially naturalistic' then I'd say I made a very clear association between 'method' and 'naturalistic' that isn't in the least bit ambiguous. 

Then it seems you misunderstand. Science is basically about how we determine things. Science without a method is not science. Its methods are methodologically naturalistic. They do not need to invoke anything supernatural, but say nothing about whether there is a supernatural.  Some people use the term "naturalistic" to mean "philosophically naturalistic" and science is not that. Your statement was unnecessarily ambiguous.

Who was talking about including supernatural elements in any hypothesis?

I am - my point being that when 'doing' science the supernatural is out of scope without an appropriate methodology, so that scientists who are also theists need to recognise this distinction.

They do. At least the ones I quoted do and all the ones I know and have known personally.

JeremyP made a claim and has not even attempted to back it up and one or two others have chipped in on his side and not backed up the claim either.

I did ask JP if he was thinking of YECers in his #311, but he hasn't said he was thinking more of them.

Then I'll leave this point to Jeremy since it isn't one I was making.

OK.

[jeremyp]

So are you saying that Polkinghorne, Collins, Conway-Morris et al. hold views about Genesis which are at odds with what science says about the creation of the universe, the Earth, the start of mankind and so on? If so, what views are they. Please supply evidence for this.

No, I'm not.  I'm saying that if scientists generally had allowed their religious views to interfere with their scientific work, we would be in that situation.

If they do not have views on those things which lead to a conflict between their "religious beliefs" and science, then how would their "religious beliefs" "ruin the science"?

In exactly the same way as you allow your religious beliefs to ruin your conclusions about history.  You happily go around claiming all sorts of daft things like it is a fact that Jesus was witnessed eating with people after he had been executed.  The available evidence does not support that conclusion and you would know it if your thinking wasn't warped by your belief in the Christian god.

[jeremyp]

JeremyP made a claim and has not even attempted to back it up

This is a lie.

What do you think methodological naturalism is, if it isn't putting aside your supernatural (including religious) beliefs at least temporarily?

[wigginhall]

Conway Morris is an interesting example, as he does write more popular books, which speculate about various ideas, e.g. convergent evolution,  and of course he is a Christian.  However, he is famous for his work on the Burgess Shale, (a rich fossil field in Canada), and it seems very unlikely to me that he used in his palaeontological work any reference to God.  Hmm, these fossils are a bit mixed up, I wonder why God allowed that?   Or did God sort these animals into phyla or was it the devil?

[Alien]

JeremyP made a claim and has not even attempted to back it up

This is a lie.

What do you think methodological naturalism is, if it isn't putting aside your supernatural (including religious) beliefs at least temporarily?

You wrote #311, "I haven't seen the programme in question, but, I bet, if I do, I'll find that Dawkins was asking the science teacher why he does not actively discourage applying religious belief to doing science, because that has a tendency to ruin the science.", I then asked you which of the religious beliefs of scientists, e.g. Polkinghorne, Conway-Morris or Collins would have "a tendency to ruin the science"?

In #378 you replied to my, "So are you saying that Polkinghorne, Collins, Conway-Morris et al. hold views about Genesis which are at odds with what science says about the creation of the universe, the Earth, the start of mankind and so on? If so, what views are they. Please supply evidence for this." with
"No, I'm not.  I'm saying that if scientists generally had allowed their religious views to interfere with their scientific work, we would be in that situation."

So which scientists do you mean? From what era? From what background? Do you mean all scientists? Presumably not since you seem to be excluding Polkinghorne, Conway-Morris and Collins for starters. Which religious views would interfere with their scientific work? Which ones would have "a tendency to ruin the science"? That's the question I keep asking and not getting answers for.

[Gordon]

Then it seems you misunderstand. Science is basically about how we determine things. Science without a method is not science. Its methods are methodologically naturalistic. They do not need to invoke anything supernatural, but say nothing about whether there is a supernatural.  Some people use the term "naturalistic" to mean "philosophically naturalistic" and science is not that. Your statement was unnecessarily ambiguous.

I think my meaning was quite unambiguous, in noting that the scientific method is naturalistic, on which point we agree - I think you are indulging in pedantry.

[jeremyp]

ou wrote #311, "I haven't seen the programme in question, but, I bet, if I do, I'll find that Dawkins was asking the science teacher why he does not actively discourage applying religious belief to doing science, because that has a tendency to ruin the science.", I then asked you which of the religious beliefs of scientists, e.g. Polkinghorne, Conway-Morris or Collins would have "a tendency to ruin the science"?

It should be bloody obvious even to you that, if you let any of your supernatural beliefs infect your scientific work, that work will be invalidated.  It should be an easy exercise to extrapolate that to any specific beliefs of these scientists.  This is a general point as I explained later.  You know what characterises a general point?  It can be applied to any of the individuals in the group about which it is talking. 

Science is successful precisely because its exponents put aside their supernatural views while they are doing it.  Any supernatural view imposed on the work will compromise the science.  Why?  Because it leads to nonsense like pretending the thing you want to be true is true even though it is unbelievably unlikely because "God could make it happen".

That should be enough to answer the substance of your questions.  If you want to continue your amateur court room wannabe lawyer bollocks, I can't stop you, but expect me to give it the attention it deserves.

[jeremyp]

Then it seems you misunderstand. Science is basically about how we determine things. Science without a method is not science. Its methods are methodologically naturalistic. They do not need to invoke anything supernatural, but say nothing about whether there is a supernatural.  Some people use the term "naturalistic" to mean "philosophically naturalistic" and science is not that. Your statement was unnecessarily ambiguous.

I think my meaning was quite unambiguous, in noting that the scientific method is naturalistic, on which point we agree - I think you are indulging in pedantry.

Science is methodologically naturalistic.  Methodological naturalism is a subset of naturalism, therefore science is naturalistic.  I really don't see what his problem is... 

...Well I do, his problem is not having a leg to stand on. 

[Alien]

Then it seems you misunderstand. Science is basically about how we determine things. Science without a method is not science. Its methods are methodologically naturalistic. They do not need to invoke anything supernatural, but say nothing about whether there is a supernatural.  Some people use the term "naturalistic" to mean "philosophically naturalistic" and science is not that. Your statement was unnecessarily ambiguous.

I think my meaning was quite unambiguous, in noting that the scientific method is naturalistic, on which point we agree - I think you are indulging in pedantry.

No, just being accurate my little friend. The scientific method is methodologically naturalistic. It is not philosophically naturalistic. Saying which you mean is important as they are fundamentally different. One is where someone has come to the conclusion that there is no supernatural and the other is where the user is not looking for anything supernatural and not invoking anything supernatural.

[Alien]

ou wrote #311, "I haven't seen the programme in question, but, I bet, if I do, I'll find that Dawkins was asking the science teacher why he does not actively discourage applying religious belief to doing science, because that has a tendency to ruin the science.", I then asked you which of the religious beliefs of scientists, e.g. Polkinghorne, Conway-Morris or Collins would have "a tendency to ruin the science"?

It should be bloody obvious even to you that, if you let any of your supernatural beliefs infect your scientific work, that work will be invalidated.  It should be an easy exercise to extrapolate that to any specific beliefs of these scientists.  This is a general point as I explained later.  You know what characterises a general point?  It can be applied to any of the individuals in the group about which it is talking. 

Science is successful precisely because its exponents put aside their supernatural views while they are doing it.  Any supernatural view imposed on the work will compromise the science.  Why?  Because it leads to nonsense like pretending the thing you want to be true is true even though it is unbelievably unlikely because "God could make it happen".

That should be enough to answer the substance of your questions.  If you want to continue your amateur court room wannabe lawyer bollocks, I can't stop you, but expect me to give it the attention it deserves.

So which religious view "would tend to ruin the science"? Some may wonder why you have resorted to repeated evasion and now an ad hominem.

[jeremyp]

So which religious view "would tend to ruin the science"?

Any of them, if applied to science.

Some may wonder why you have resorted to repeated evasion and now an ad hominem.

I have not evaded anything.  Just read the preceding few pages of the thread and you'll find there is sufficient information there to answer all of your boring stupid questions.

It's not an ad hominem to point out that your argumentation is petty and obtuse.

[Hope]

Any of them, if applied to science.

In waht way, jeremy?  How is a belief that God created the universe and hence all that science is based upon going to 'ruin' that field of study? 

I have not evaded anything.  Just read the preceding few pages of the thread and you'll find there is sufficient information there to answer all of your boring stupid questions.

If only, jeremy!  From what I can see from the 'preceding few pages of the thread' all there is is claim and counter-claim, assumption and counter-assumption.

[Alien]

So which religious view "would tend to ruin the science"?

Any of them, if applied to science.

It should be easy to name one then. Please name one which will "tend to ruin the science."

Some may wonder why you have resorted to repeated evasion and now an ad hominem.

I have not evaded anything.  Just read the preceding few pages of the thread and you'll find there is sufficient information there to answer all of your boring stupid questions.

It's not an ad hominem to point out that your argumentation is petty and obtuse.

No, but calling my argumentation "amateur court room wannabe lawyer bollocks" is.

Looking forward to seeing one, just one, Christian belief which will "tend to ruin the science" of a scientist who is a Christian if he applies it to his science. I did ask you whether YEC beliefs were what you were thinking of, but you have not taken me up on that.

[Gordon]

Then it seems you misunderstand. Science is basically about how we determine things. Science without a method is not science. Its methods are methodologically naturalistic. They do not need to invoke anything supernatural, but say nothing about whether there is a supernatural.  Some people use the term "naturalistic" to mean "philosophically naturalistic" and science is not that. Your statement was unnecessarily ambiguous.

I think my meaning was quite unambiguous, in noting that the scientific method is naturalistic, on which point we agree - I think you are indulging in pedantry.

No, just being accurate my little friend. The scientific method is methodologically naturalistic. It is not philosophically naturalistic. Saying which you mean is important as they are fundamentally different. One is where someone has come to the conclusion that there is no supernatural and the other is where the user is not looking for anything supernatural and not invoking anything supernatural.

As I say, Alan, you are resorting to pedantry - I was clearly referring to methodology and to suggest otherwise is digression pure and simple.

[Andy]

Then it seems you misunderstand. Science is basically about how we determine things. Science without a method is not science. Its methods are methodologically naturalistic. They do not need to invoke anything supernatural, but say nothing about whether there is a supernatural.  Some people use the term "naturalistic" to mean "philosophically naturalistic" and science is not that. Your statement was unnecessarily ambiguous.

I think my meaning was quite unambiguous, in noting that the scientific method is naturalistic, on which point we agree - I think you are indulging in pedantry.

No, just being accurate my little friend. The scientific method is methodologically naturalistic. It is not philosophically naturalistic. Saying which you mean is important as they are fundamentally different. One is where someone has come to the conclusion that there is no supernatural and the other is where the user is not looking for anything supernatural and not invoking anything supernatural.

As I say, Alan, you are resorting to pedantry - I was clearly referring to methodology and to suggest otherwise is digression pure and simple.

Seemed pretty clear and obvious to me.

I'll go further and state that from my background knowledge of you, you understand that science is MN and not PN, so when you mention the scientific method alongside naturalism, you're exactly talking about MN. To say you're being ambiguous or "naughty" is to ignore what can be clearly identified from your previous posting.

[Andy]

There's a big game of semantics going on here. I wouldn't say that introducing supernatural beliefs into sceince ruins science, but actually stops it being science. However, if it's being claimed that science is being done while introducing the supernatural then you are giving a false impression, and anyone none the wiser would not recognise that it isn't science. It's the equating of psuedo-science with actual science which tarnishes it.

[jeremyp]

To misquote admiral David Beattie "there's something wrong with our bloody Christians today".

[Shaker]

There's a big game of semantics going on here. I wouldn't say that introducing supernatural beliefs into sceince ruins science, but actually stops it being science.

Call me a linguistic martinet if you must, but to me stopping science from being science meets my criterion of ruining science.

[Alien]

Then it seems you misunderstand. Science is basically about how we determine things. Science without a method is not science. Its methods are methodologically naturalistic. They do not need to invoke anything supernatural, but say nothing about whether there is a supernatural.  Some people use the term "naturalistic" to mean "philosophically naturalistic" and science is not that. Your statement was unnecessarily ambiguous.

I think my meaning was quite unambiguous, in noting that the scientific method is naturalistic, on which point we agree - I think you are indulging in pedantry.

No, just being accurate my little friend. The scientific method is methodologically naturalistic. It is not philosophically naturalistic. Saying which you mean is important as they are fundamentally different. One is where someone has come to the conclusion that there is no supernatural and the other is where the user is not looking for anything supernatural and not invoking anything supernatural.

As I say, Alan, you are resorting to pedantry - I was clearly referring to methodology and to suggest otherwise is digression pure and simple.

Then it would not have hurt to put "methodologically naturalistic" to avoid people thinking you meant "philosophically naturalistic" then. Just "naturalistic" was sloppy.

Life goes on though.

[Andy]

There's a big game of semantics going on here. I wouldn't say that introducing supernatural beliefs into sceince ruins science, but actually stops it being science.

Call me a linguistic martinet if you must, but to me stopping science from being science meets my criterion of ruining science.

I've no problem with that - horses for courses, which is why I think this silly bitchfest is just for the sake of being argumentative.

[Gordon]

Then it would not have hurt to put "methodologically naturalistic" to avoid people thinking you meant "philosophically naturalistic" then. Just "naturalistic" was sloppy.

Life goes on though.

Beats me why you would think, bearing in mind the sequence of words I actually used (e.g 'scientific method'), that I was implying more than I actually said!

[Shaker]

There's a big game of semantics going on here. I wouldn't say that introducing supernatural beliefs into sceince ruins science, but actually stops it being science.

Call me a linguistic martinet if you must, but to me stopping science from being science meets my criterion of ruining science.

I've no problem with that - horses for courses, which is why I think this silly bitchfest is just for the sake of being argumentative.

No it isn't.

[Andy]

Then it would not have hurt to put "methodologically naturalistic" to avoid people thinking you meant "philosophically naturalistic" then. Just "naturalistic" was sloppy.

Life goes on though.

Beats me why you would think, bearing in mind the sequence of words I actually used (e.g 'scientific method'), that I was implying more than I actually said!

What would've been conducive to a more productive and succinct discussion would be to ask if you meant MN or PN because I don't find it clear and am confused, instead of accusing you of being ambiguous and poking you with a stick all day. It comes across that Alan sees himself as some sort of pariah of authority on such matters, in that if he thinks your being ambiguous, then you should pander to that whim. Fuck off, I say.