Posted on 09/03/2008 3:47:09 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
The statement says they have an a priori committment to naturalism, and you submit that this is philosophical or metaphysical naturalism, and that he speaks for all scientists.
Theories would only inovolve methadological naturalism. For his statement to be true in the terms you specify they must be atheists. That's the test. He fails.
Which they do. Otherwise ID would be accepted as scientific. ID is the perfect opportunity to refute Lewontin's statement, however the 'scientific' communities reaction to ID merely confirms Lewontin's statement.
Their reaction to ID is due to it’s inability to be reconciled with the methodological naturalism of the scientific method. You’re trying to conflate methodologcial and metaphysical naturalism. You’ll have to peddle that fallacy to someone else. I’m not buying it.
Not at all. Their reaction is due to their fear of allowing that 'Divine Foot' in the door. While ID does not require a supernatural creator, acknowledging any type of designer is allowing that 'Divine Foot' in the door and they simply won't even begin to go there.
"You’re trying to conflate methodologcial and metaphysical naturalism. You’ll have to peddle that fallacy to someone else. I’m not buying it."
I'm not the one that does that. Science peddles that fallacy every day. That's why science fears ID so intensely. ID opens the door to the fact that methodological naturalism does not affirm philosophical naturalism.
IOW, you know science better than the scientists. What an arrogant buffoon you are.
Better? Oh no. They know they do that as well.
That was Lewontin's point, remember?
You mean Lewontin’s opinion? Either he’s claiming a fraudulent authority to speak for all scientists, or your misrepresenting his comments as representative of all scientists. One or both of you is a liar.
Nope, he's admitting that scientists approach the evidence with an 'a priori' commitment to the philosophy of naturalism. The treatment of the IDer's is proof of the truth of Lewontin's statement.
Were ID scientists not rejected as 'religionists', you might have an argument; but their treatment proves that no opinion other than a naturalistic one will be tolerated in 'science'. Lewontin's admission is correct.
All you have to do is find one that doesn't and he's proven wrong. There are plenty of examples to be found.
ID is rejected because it's inconsistent with methodological naturalism and the scientific method.
In order for science to operate the way you think it should it will have to abandon methodological naturalism and the scinetific method, and accept supernatural explanations as valid scientific theory - in all disciplines. The arguments that hurricae Katrina was caused by God's punishment of New Orleans because there were too many fags and fornicators will be elevated to valid scientific theory.
Yeah, IDer's who aren't considered to be scientists.
"ID is rejected because it's inconsistent with methodological naturalism and the scientific method."
So is an 'a priori' commitment to philosophical naturalism but that doesn't seem to stop 'science'.
"In order for science to operate the way you think it should it will have to abandon methodological naturalism and the scinetific method, and accept supernatural explanations as valid scientific theory - in all disciplines. The arguments that hurricae Katrina was caused by God's punishment of New Orleans because there were too many fags and fornicators will be elevated to valid scientific theory."
No, that's the fallacy of appeal to consequences of a belief.
Chemists, applied physicists, materials research, metallurgy, ceramics, botanists, pharmacology, there's all kinds of other fields of science - and you submit that Lewontin speaks for them all. Not likely.
No, that's the fallacy of appeal to consequences of a belief.
Yes, let's pretend your beliefs don't have any consequences.
I think you are referring the fields of methodological science that do not commit the fallacy of assuming that the existence of natural, physical laws means that philosophical naturalism is therefor true. Those would be the technological and applied sciences. As opposed to the 'sciences' that claim to be able to see back into the unobservable past and concoct just-so naturalistic stories based on an 'a priori' commitment to philsophical naturalism..
"Yes, let's pretend your beliefs don't have any consequences."
Ah yes, you want to assume that Pascal's Wager isn't applicable.
I think I'm considering "all scientists". That's who you submit Lewontin's comments apply to. Put the goal post down, and leave it there.
Ah yes, you want to assume that Pascal's Wager isn't applicable
I just all 'em like I see 'em.
What you are doing is called the fallacy of denying the antecedent. Clearly Lewontin explains why philosophical naturalism is at the foundation of 'science'. Otherwise, those scientists who propose ID as an explanation would be given equal consideration. The fact that they are dismissed outright shows that the 'scientific community' has an 'a priori' commitment to the philosophy of naturalism.
"Put the goal post down, and leave it there."
Not until you promise to stop moving it.
If he does, then his comments are demonstably false.
If he doesn't then they can't be taken as representative of "science".
You can't have it both ways.
Great reiteration of the fallacy of denying the antecedent.
We've been over this. The question was explicitly asked and explicitly answered. It's your antecedent, and now you're the one trying to deny it. One more time, put the goal post down and leave it there, and quit trying to blame me for the holes in your argument.
That's OK. We can go over it again if we need to.
"The question was explicitly asked and explicitly answered. It's your antecedent, and now you're the one trying to deny it."
You are the one using fallacious statements to deny the antecedent in hopes of falsifying the consequent. That is the fallacy of denying the antecedent.
"One more time, put the goal post down and leave it there, and quit trying to blame me for the holes in your argument."
One more time, not until you agree to stop moving them and stop using logical fallacies as arguments for non-existent 'holes'.
Your argument is a fallacy of appeal to an invalid authority. I’m simply demonstrating that fallacy. He doesn’t and can’t speak for all scientists.
My argument isn't based on the 'authority' of Lewontin, but on the authority of what can be observed, i.e. that 'theories' based on philosophical naturalism are the only form of theory that is allowed in 'science'. Were that not true, then ID would be equally as valid.
Your argument is the fallacy of denying the antecedent because your opposition is based solely on the claim that Lewontin doesn't speak for all scientists, not on any evidence contrary to his statement.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.