I believe if you go back to my first post to you (post 61) you will find that I asked you how you know what you know. I asked you how you procure warranted true belief (). You chose to ignore my question and go another direction. But I did not ask about science, per se. I then asked you if you believe truth exists. It seems like a reasonable place to begin when speaking of knowledge or beliefs. It sort of lets us know how to determine a starting point of our conversation. I am happy to discuss Science and its permutations and presuppositions if you wish, but I did ask about how you know what you know.
What science intends to deliver is: a model which works.
Here you interestingly anthropomorphize science, as if it was sentient in character. I think what you mean is scientists do in their intentionality. Intentionality is a whole other subject of which entire books are written about. But let us keep it simple for now.
I evaded nothing, Friend.
OK. But you did refuse to answer my simple questions. Call it what you wish. It is beside the point.
So, can you cite anything about basic evolution theory which is not methodologically natural?
Yes, let me explain. I would argue that scientific naturalism has a defect-it is incomplete. When I say scientific naturalism I mean naturalism. It has essentially two components. (1)It is a metaphysical doctrine about what exists in the world and (2) it is monistic in its view of the world. That is to say the only thing which exists to the naturalist is that which is extended into space (matter & energy). It must presuppose numbers, sets and any invariant abstract entity by definition because these things do not demonstrate spatial extension. They must be explained naturally. Scientific naturalism or methodological naturalism, as a worldview is regarded as continuous with science. It therefore looks to scientific understanding of the world for justification. The defense of naturalism presupposes a version of scientific realism; unless science provides us with objective truth about reality, it has no authority to dictate to us the form which our philosophical ontology and metaphysics must take. It seems paradoxical but scientific realism is incompatible with naturalism (that is why I asked you gently to answer my questions about how evolution could account for our cognitive ability to acquire truth (in post 61). So, to answer your question, YES. I have given you a fairly descriptive Plantigan analysis which refutes evolution as the mechanism for developing our cognition to acquire warranted truth belief (knowledge). If you follow the logic you will see what I am saying. Other examples of things which basic darwinian evolution and neodarwinism cannot account for is consciousness, sentience, love, justice, beauty,...those abstract entities which I keep referring you to look at. If these things exist, they must have come to be deterministically and consistent with the requisite monism of naturalism or the naturalist must abandon this worldview. But he cannot account for them epistemically. As Jagwon Kim said, "Devotion to naturalism exacts a high epistemological price which theology accounts for logically and reasonably".
Why do you suppose that's even a valid question?
I suppose I will just throw that question to Socrates who said 'The only invalid question is one which is not asked." I will let you wrestle with those types of notions.
You know that's baloney, and you should be ashamed of it.
Is my question politically incorrect, or as Merle Haggard said, "Politically Uncorrect"? You have made certain pronouncements about Darwinian evolution without explanation and I simply want to understand why you say what you say. I believe that is a reasonable thing to ask you to do. So, NO, I am not ashamed to myself.
I gave you the obvious and correct answer: the facts as we know them fit, support and confirm the theory of evolution, so it works. That's as good as it ever gets in science.
I have read your statements to and they are heavy on declaration and thin on explication. Here you say, "I gave you the obvious and correct answer: the facts as we know them fit, support and confirm the theory of evolution, so it works. You see....I gave you the correct answer....a declaration without epistemic justification....and, .."so it works". Another declaration without epistemic justification.
John Doe Smith Ph.D. has a doctorate in Biology. A Doctor of Philosophy in Biology. I wonder why those universities calls it a doctor of philosophy....Could it be that the way we acquire knowledge and truth has a lot to do with understanding First Principles, logic, reason, rational thought and to understand our presuppositions in an honest way. Dr. Fred Hoyle held a Ph.D in Astrophysics, and the thought of a Standard Model (Big Bang) was abhorrent to him, but he finally evaluated the model and ascented to it because his reason and logic demanded it.
Your last paragraph is nice read, and I am interested in that subject, but it did not answer my question in post 61. It seems a yes or no should be easy enough. But let us leave it here if you wish.
Good luck to you and yours. Yes. There is so much to learn.
I re-read your post #61, and my responses in post #64.
I "get" that you think you posted something deep & profound, but there are only two sentences which ended in question marks:
Both questions are nonsensical, the first especially, so I ignored it in favor of a much more important issue: your repeated utter refusal to recognize the distinction between methodological naturalism and something else which goes by various names, including:
Those four terms all mean the same things, and they are distinct from methodological naturalism.
The four terms, boiled down translate to one thing: religious atheism.
By contrast, the first term, methodological naturalism simply means: as scientists we will seek out natural explanations for natural processes.
Methodological naturalism is not a philosophy, not a religious belief, not an all-encompassing world view -- it is simply an a priori working assumption practiced by scientists when they are on the job.
So you can rant and rail all you wish against "philosophical naturalism" or "scientific naturalism" (they're the same things), I don't defend them, don't agree with them, and don't recommend them to anybody.
Do you not yet understand that?
What I do say is that science is simply a workman's tool box, with which he can build or repair as needed, but which he is certainly not ever going to put on some alter and worship!
Texas Songwriter: "I asked you how you procure warranted true belief ().
You chose to ignore my question and go another direction."
If fact, you asked a rhetorical question, with no question mark -- "how do we procure warranted true belief." -- and then proceeded to answer your own "question" with words that look to me like cut-and-paste from someplace else, and don't even end with a proper sentence!
As I have said now several times: as it relates to science (which is the subject here) your question is nonsensical, because science itself never strives for "true belief".
"True belief" is a philosophical or religious term, and so outside the realm of science.
But, as I've also said now more than once: my "true belief" is what they teach in church -- "theistic evolutionism".
So why is that so confusing to you?
Texas Songwriter: "I then asked you if you believe truth exists.
It seems like a reasonable place to begin when speaking of knowledge or beliefs."
Once again: this thread is not about your philosophical "true beliefs", its about science, which eschews such terms.
So let me try again my model analogy.
Imagine yourself standing at a worksite where a very large building is being constructed.
Directly in front of you is a model of the finished building, and in the distance beyond is the building itself, taking shape.
In this analogy, the model is science, the building reality.
To call science "true" or "false" is simply to say whether or not the model accurately portrays the emerging building.
And of course, there's no way it can be 100% accurate -- it is after all, just a model.
For example, there are many complexities in the building which the model will portray as a simple line of paint.
Of course, nobody blames the model for small inaccuracies, it's not expected to be anything more than a visual representation of a vastly more complex reality.
Now suppose the great building itself is concealed in fog -- we can't really see it.
How do we know the model still accurately reflects the building?
The answer is, only by sending out teams to investigate and report back -- those are our scientists, their job is to keep our model as accurate and complete as we can make it.
But it's important to remember those scientists only report on the building itself -- they don't see either the Architect or the construction Workers.
Finally, to be sure there's no confusion, let's stipulate that the great building's Architect is God, and it's Workers the Hands of God, and the model itself is not being used to construct the building, only to tell us what it's like.
So, what is "truth" here?
Truth is the great building itself -- it's God's truth.
Do we "believe" in the truth?
Of course, as much as we can see of it.
Do we believe the model is the truth?
No, the model is just a model, hoping to be an accurate portrait of the great building.
Now, surely to goodness, that will help?
Texas Songwriter: "I am happy to discuss Science and its permutations and presuppositions if you wish, but I did ask about how you know what you know."
I "get" that you think it's an important question, but the answer seems too obvious to waste time on, especially since you are so confused about important differences between methodological versus metaphysical naturalism.
The answer to your question is: I know what I know the same way everyone else does -- through what we see, hear, read, learn, etc.
Like everyone, I know some things "for sure", others "probably" or "maybe".
But why do you suppose that's an important question, I can't imagine.
Texas Songwriter: "Here you interestingly anthropomorphize science, as if it was sentient in character."
Remember, science itself is a discipline and school of thought, so it is possible to speak of "science" in the same way we speak of "the government" or a "church".
Of course, science has no single ruling body, but nevertheless, the basics of science -- which is our subject here -- are taught to, and learned by all.
Texas Songwriter: "I would argue that scientific naturalism has a defect-it is incomplete.
When I say scientific naturalism I mean naturalism.
It has essentially two components.
(1)It is a metaphysical doctrine about what exists in the world and
(2) it is monistic in its view of the world."
And here you demonstrate yet again how utterly confused and disoriented you are.
We are not talking about metaphysical naturalism, scientific naturalism, ontological naturalism or philosophical naturalism -- those are all the same thing, they are all, in a word: religious atheism.
Nobody here has defended those ideas -- not ever.
What I defend is something called methodological naturalism (look it up!), which simply means the working assumption of: natural explanations for natural processes, period.
Texas Songwriter: "So, to answer your question, YES.
I have given you a fairly descriptive Plantigan analysis which refutes evolution as the mechanism for developing our cognition to acquire warranted truth belief (knowledge).
If you follow the logic you will see what I am saying."
But there is no "logic" to follow, because your assumptions are utterly false.
You need to go back, rethink it all, and then try again, FRiend.