Put me out of my misery (appeal to Hope)

[Shaker]

All that can be honestly and demonstrably be said is that science cannot falsify naturalism or the supernatural.

... which is essentially the negative proof fallacy, which you can't use as Hope has taken out the copyright on it.

[jeremyp]

I don't understand what you are getting at here.

We have noticed

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No, I'm not making it fit naturalism, rather it's people such as yourself who don't make it fit with the supernatural. Once you understand that there is nothing you can't use as "evidence" for the supernatural, you may eventually twig that this renders evidence as meaningless.

I haven't, nor do I know ow of anybody else, claimed that science can falsify either. Again with the shifting. It's for you to give us a means to falsify naturalism with supernatural verification, but I'll wager I can take a longer sabattical and still get no response...

But the natural is defined arbitrarily. Either in terms of matter or energy or the empirically observable that is as you say MN.

If you are extending the definition of the natural to naturalism, to exclude the supernatural then you are making an ontological punt.

Naturalism is a positive assertion and therefore has a burden of proof.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

... which is essentially the negative proof fallacy, which you can't use as Hope has taken out the copyright on it.

Gibber

[Andy]

But the natural is defined arbitrarily. Either in terms of matter or energy or the empirically observable that is as you say MN.

If you are extending the definition of the natural to exclude the supernatural then you are making an ontological punt.

Naturalism is a positive assertion and therefore has a burden of proof.

I'm not excluding the supernatural, nor am I asserting naturalism. Never have, never will. Naturalism has a burden, yes, but since I'm not asserting it I don't have to defend it. You, on the other hand, do exactly that with the supernatural, but instead of defend it, you continuously burn straw.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I'm not excluding the supernatural, nor am I asserting naturalism. Never have, never will. Naturalism has a burden, yes, but since I'm not asserting it I don't have to defend it.

That's fair enough.

[Andy]

That's fair enough.

So now you understand that the ball is very much in your court, how are you going to falsify naturalism?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

So now you understand that the ball is very much in your court, how are you going to falsify naturalism?

I don't know? Does that preclude supernatural falsification though?
Does that mean it cannot be?

Does it matter that no one is claiming naturalism to be true when it either is or isn't?

Can you say ''Here's naturalism..............falsify it ''without having asserted naturalism in the process.

Why does nobody have to assert naturalism but I have to falsify it?

I think Andy....You are taking the piss.

[Andy]

I don't know? Does that preclude supernatural falsification though?
Does that mean it cannot be?

Does it matter that no one is claiming naturalism to be true when it either is or isn't?

Why does nobody have to assert naturalism but I have to falsify it?

I think Andy....You are taking the piss.

You think you have reason to believe that naturalism is false. That's why.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You think you have reason to believe that naturalism is false. That's why.

And nobody believes it's true?

You see Andy until someone establishes it as true I have no reason to believe it is do I.

[Andy]

And nobody believes it's true?

You see Andy until someone establishes it as true I have no reason to believe it is do I.

Yes, some people believe it's true. So what? What has that got to do with you believing it is false? It doesn't get you off the hook, so what other excuse do you have from shying away from your burden?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Yes, some people believe it's true. So what? What has that got to do with you believing it is false? It doesn't get you off the hook, so what other excuse do you have from shying away from your burden?

Firstly MN doesn't support Ontological naturalism.
Secondly naturalism arbitrarily cuts off the supernatural by confusing the focus of MN with reality for no good reason.
That is why I don't believe it.

 

[Andy]

Firstly MN doesn't support Ontological naturalism.
Secondly naturalism arbitrarily cuts off the supernatural by confusing the focus of MN with reality for no good reason.
That is why I don't believe it.

 

You're harping on about not believing it is true - a transparent dodge when you know full well that I'm taking about you believing it is false.

[Gordon]

Says Vlad as he dashes to the door marked 'Get out of here quick and hope nobody notices you've gone'!

Too late old chap, since some of us are awaiting your answer to Andy's question which is, in case you forget;

So now you understand that the ball is very much in your court, how are you going to falsify naturalism?

 

[Hope]

... which is essentially the negative proof fallacy, which you can't use as Hope has taken out the copyright on it.

If that's the case, perhaps I ought to be charging you for its use, then.   

By the way, apologies for not posting much yesterday, spent most of the morning catching up on sleep and trying to get rid of the stinking cold I've got. 

[bluehillside Retd.]

Andy,

I'm not excluding the supernatural, nor am I asserting naturalism. Never have, never will. Naturalism has a burden, yes, but since I'm not asserting it I don't have to defend it. You, on the other hand, do exactly that with the supernatural, but instead of defend it, you continuously burn straw.

You need to watch Chummy here because - along with various other terms he abuses ("scientism", "category error" etc) he plays fast and loose with the word "naturalism" in order to set up the straw man he wants to critique. Most if not all are content to take its standard meaning of, "the natural is all we know of that's reliably accessible and verifiable" with no comment on the supposed "supernatural', the "super-super natural" or any other white noise term for claimed phenomena outside of that.

By re-defining it though as "all there is or can be" yer man gives himself the straw man he needs to respond with a "how do you know that?"

And even if he did eventually find someone who proposed his personal re-definition of "naturalism", he'd still have all his work ahead of him finally to tell us what he means by "supernatural" and to demonstrate its existence at all.

That's what I mean when I talk about dishonesty - you simply cannot have a conversation with someone who just makes up his own meanings for words in order to attack them.

 

[ippy]

Sass, just a very small point you may have missed, but never mind, there wouldn't be any planets if there wasn't any gravity, perhaps you were messing with your assercitron and it made you accidentally miss the gravity of your mistake. 

ippy

[Andy]

Andy,

You need to watch Chummy here because - along with various other terms he abuses ("scientism", "category error" etc) he plays fast and loose with the word "naturalism" in order to set up the straw man he wants to critique. Most if not all are content to take its standard meaning of, "the natural is all we know of that's reliably accessible and verifiable" with no comment on the supposed "supernatural', the "super-super natural" or any other white noise term for claimed phenomena outside of that.

By re-defining it though as "all there is or can be" yer man gives himself the straw man he needs to respond with a "how do you know that?"

And even if he did eventually find someone who proposed his personal re-definition of "naturalism", he'd still have all his work ahead of him finally to tell us what he means by "supernatural" and to demonstrate its existence at all.

That's what I mean when I talk about dishonesty - you simply cannot have a conversation with someone who just makes up his own meanings for words in order to attack them.

I'm aware of how he defines it and it isn't alien to me. It's what I'm working with, as opposed to having a discussion about what naturalism should mean.

[Leonard James]

Sass, just a very small point you may have missed, but never mind, there wouldn't be any planets if there wasn't any gravity, perhaps you were messing with your assercitron and it made you accidentally miss the gravity of your mistake. 

ippy

Cleverly spotted, Ippy! 

[bluehillside Retd.]

Andy,

I'm aware of how he defines it and it isn't alien to me. It's what I'm working with, as opposed to having a discussion about what naturalism should mean.

But surely what a word does mean is what matters isn't it? If someone wants to invent a new meaning and then critique what the new meaning implies that's up to him, but it fails to engage with the the argument that actually undoes his position.

If though you're saying something like "even with your reinvention of the meaning you've given yourself various logical problems" that's fair enough, but a bit otiose I'd have thought.     

[Andy]

Andy,

But surely what a word does mean is what matters isn't it? If someone wants to invent a new meaning and then critique what the new meaning implies that's up to him, but it fails to engage with the the argument that actually undoes his position.

If though you're saying something like "even with your reinvention of the meaning you've given yourself various logical problems" that's fair enough, but a bit otiose I'd have thought.     

What someone means is more important than the label they are using for it. I've no issue with the "nature is all there is and can be" definition he is using, so I don't find it otiose.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Andy,

What someone means is more important than the label they are using for it. I've no issue with the "nature is all there is and can be" definition he is using, so I don't find it otiose.

It's otiose inasmuch as he's saying, "here's something no-one claims that I'm going to critique anyway as a means of dismissing what it is they actually say".

The first bit (critiqueing something no-one claims) is just irrelevant. The second bit (using that critique to imply that what people actually say is also wrong) is dishonest.   

[Andy]

Andy,

It's otiose inasmuch as he's saying, "here's something no-one claims that I'm going to critique anyway as a means of dismissing what it is they actually say".

The first bit (critiqueing something no-one claims) is just irrelevant. The second bit (using that critique to imply that what people actually say is also wrong) is dishonest.   

Oh, you'll get no argument from me over his constant straw man dishonesty, claiming somebody is using an argument they have categorically said they aren't using, but I'm happy to work what he means as it does no favours for him anyway when it's turned on him.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Andy,

Oh, you'll get no argument from me over his constant straw man dishonesty, claiming somebody is using an argument they have categorically said they aren't using, but I'm happy to work what he means as it does no favours for him anyway when it's turned on him.

Fair enough. In my experience feeding the troll only makes him fatter, but I wish you well nonetheless.

[wigginhall]

It would be interesting to get Vlad to spell out what he does mean by 'naturalism', although of course, he would inevitably reverse that, and start saying, no, what do you mean by it?  OK, not interesting.