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

[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.

No it isn't.

Quick, get on stage...!

[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!

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.

Yep.

Goings on today remind me of the bit in 'Yes Minister' when Jim Hacker gives some advice to Sir Humphrey along the lines of when dealing with something you find awkward digress by attacking one word in the question -  so if someone says 'frequently' then say 'what do you mean by 'frequently'? - I think Alan is using the Hacker strategy!

[Hope]

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

And how does having a religious belief, and being a scientist, hinder the latter?

[Leonard James]

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

And how does having a religious belief, and being a scientist, hinder the latter?

It gives you the disadvantage of starting with preconceived ideas about the nature of the universe and life.

[Alien]

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.

Yep.

Goings on today remind me of the bit in 'Yes Minister' when Jim Hacker gives some advice to Sir Humphrey along the lines of when dealing with something you find awkward digress by attacking one word in the question -  so if someone says 'frequently' then say 'what do you mean by 'frequently'? - I think Alan is using the Hacker strategy!

There we go again. The old ad hominem.

Andy suggested asking whether you meant MN or PN. That would be fine unless you asked me why I was asking. My answer would have been "because the term naturalistic" is ambiguous.

Ho hum.

Any rate. Over to you for the last word. I'm off.

[Shaker]

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

And how does having a religious belief, and being a scientist, hinder the latter?

Did I say this? No. I was responding to a point that Andy made.

[Gordon]

There we go again. The old ad hominem.

Andy suggested asking whether you meant MN or PN. That would be fine unless you asked me why I was asking. My answer would have been "because the term naturalistic" is ambiguous.

Ho hum.

Any rate. Over to you for the last word. I'm off.

I think I will.

If I had used 'naturalisitic' without the qualifier of my direct reference to 'scientific method' in the same sentence then you would have a point: but I didn't, so you don't.

[Andy]

Andy suggested asking whether you meant MN or PN. That would be fine unless you asked me why I was asking. My answer would have been "because the term naturalistic" is ambiguous.

Well we'll never know will we, because you were too busy being argumentative.

[Hope]

Did I say this? No. I was responding to a point that Andy made.

I was responding to your comment

but to me stopping science from being science meets my criterion of ruining science

in the context of recent posts on this thread.

[Dicky Underpants]

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?

wiggi

Interesting your mentioning the Burgess Shale. This was of course the subject of a fine book by Stephen Jay Gould, who has come into some shtick, because his views have been erroneously misappropriated by the Creationists (aided and abetted by the egregious Michael Behe). The Burgess Shale seems to display a wide variety of phyla which no longer exist, (and indeed only a few of the modern phyla are represented in the Burgess Shale). The complexity and apparent rapid appearance of such phyla have seemed a gift to creationists, despite Gould's vehement opposition to such ideas.
The so-called 'Cambrian Explosion' seemed an even bigger gift to those who insisted on a literal interpretation of Genesis, and the finding of many pre-Cambrian fossils has done little to stem the mudslide of 'Creation Science'.

Has Conway Morris done his best to oppose such ant-evolutionary views as the above? I haven't read him, but from what you say, he sounds as though he's trying to give life to Bergson's old ideas of 'Creative Evolution', which certainly made much of convergent evolution.

[jeremyp]

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.

Is that the five minutes or the full half hour?

[jeremyp]

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

And how does having a religious belief, and being a scientist, hinder the latter?

Why don't you try reading the earlier posts.  As soon as you bring supernatural beliefs into your science, it stops being science. 

I'm sure the above has been stated many times before.  What is it you are having trouble understanding about it?

[jeremyp]

There we go again. The old ad hominem.

I think you ought to look that up.  It doesn't mean what you seem to think it does.

Andy suggested asking whether you meant MN or PN. That would be fine unless you asked me why I was asking. My answer would have been "because the term naturalistic" is ambiguous.

No, not really, not in the context.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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

And how does having a religious belief, and being a scientist, hinder the latter?

It gives you the disadvantage of starting with preconceived ideas about the nature of the universe and life.

Yes Len, but a philosophical naturalist might have preconceived ideas about the nature of the universe and life......happy to put you straight.....no need to thank me.

[Leonard James]

Yes Len, but a philosophical naturalist might have preconceived ideas about the nature of the universe and life......

Possibly, but in any case one less than the believer in "God".

happy to put you straight

and clearly happy to have scored an own goal once again, 

......no need to thank me.

I know, that's why I'm not thanking you. 

[Gordon]

Yes Len, but a philosophical naturalist Christian might have preconceived ideas about the nature of the universe and life.

FIFY

[Alien]

Yes Len, but a philosophical naturalist Christian might have preconceived ideas about the nature of the universe and life.

FIFY

Why have you just repeated #403?

[Gordon]

Yes Len, but a philosophical naturalist Christian might have preconceived ideas about the nature of the universe and life.

FIFY

Why have you just repeated #403?

I didn't - my post was a play on Vlad's 413 (in which he again used one of his favourite phrases).

[Hope]

It gives you the disadvantage of starting with preconceived ideas about the nature of the universe and life.

And in what way does this (1) count as a disadvantage and (2) differ from anyone else.  We all come to things we study with preconceived ideas (or are you suggesting that non-religious scientists come with empty minds and nil life experience?   )

[Alien]

Yes Len, but a philosophical naturalist Christian might have preconceived ideas about the nature of the universe and life.

FIFY

Why have you just repeated #403?

I didn't - my post was a play on Vlad's 413 (in which he again used one of his favourite phrases).

OK, it just seemed a bit strange that Len said Vlad had preconceived ideas and Vlad pointed out that Len might have the same problem then you pointed out that Vlad might have preconceived ideas. I'll leave you lot to get on with it.

[Leonard James]

It gives you the disadvantage of starting with preconceived ideas about the nature of the universe and life.

And in what way does this (1) count as a disadvantage and (2) differ from anyone else.

1) Pre-conceived ideas are bound to influence your thinking to some extent, and give a false slant to your studies.

2) It means that non god believers have one less disadvantage than believers.

We all come to things we study with preconceived ideas (or are you suggesting that non-religious scientists come with empty minds and nil life experience?   )

See 2)

[jeremyp]

It gives you the disadvantage of starting with preconceived ideas about the nature of the universe and life.

And in what way does this (1) count as a disadvantage

Because of things like confirmation bias.

and (2) differ from anyone else.  We all come to things we study with preconceived ideas (or are you suggesting that non-religious scientists come with empty minds and nil life experience?   )

Religious ideas are particularly pernicious in this respect.

[floo]

The behaviour of some of the 'saved' mob of Christians, who think only they are going to end of in heaven is truly appalling. We have witnessed some of it on this forum! They think they have some sort of moral high ground, yet behave no better, and often much worse, than the heathen they just love to hate!

[Hope]

1) Pre-conceived ideas are bound to influence your thinking to some extent, and give a false slant to your studies.

Thanks for confirming that this is something that affects everyone, Len.

2) It means that non god believers have one less disadvantage than believers.

No, it means that 'non god believers' come to the table with a different underlying understanding than do 'god believers'.  After all, all one's preconceived ideas are based on this fundamental understanding of life.

[Hope]

The behaviour of some of the 'saved' mob of Christians, who think only they are going to end of in heaven is truly appalling. We have witnessed some of it on this forum! They think they have some sort of moral high ground, yet behave no better, and often much worse, than the heathen they just love to hate!

Yet some of the most abusive posts I've read on this and other forums, Floo, have been 'penned' by the atheists amongst the forums' members.