Sunday, September 02, 2012
Ways of "Knowing"
And so it continues ...
Larry has "responded" to John Wilkins in the way he usually does ... by erecting a straw man about "ways of knowing" ... while accusing John of his own fault.
John, perhaps more charitably than my instincts require, replies:
Constantly trotting out "evidence" contradicting something that is not claimed is exactly the kind of philosophical misunderstanding that at least some scientists need to be reminded of.
Larry has "responded" to John Wilkins in the way he usually does ... by erecting a straw man about "ways of knowing" ... while accusing John of his own fault.
John, perhaps more charitably than my instincts require, replies:
I am not, I repeat not, arguing for there being "different ways of knowledge" here, although that is an interesting topic in its own right. Larry's constant repetition of this claim is a red herring. I am not trying to produce knowledge, nor, to my best awareness, have I ever done so, except accidentally and then as a historian of ideas, not as a philosopher. Philosophy does not produce knowledge; that is the job of science. Philosophy examines ways knowledge is claimed to be produced, and the implications of what that knowledge might be for other views we hold. For example, we do not show that free will exists or not. If there is a neurobiological cause of all our actions, then that is the scientific result, and there's an end to it (until some other science is done that refutes or refines that claim). What the philosopher does with that is try to figure out what, of our prior views on free will, must be abandoned in the light of these results, and what can be retained or revised. It might turn out that, for example, freedom of the will is simply a legal concept, and so we do not need to base it upon causal indeterminacy (my view, by the way). That is not knowledge. That is an argument from knowledge.To his credit, Larry seems to understand the distinction, if not the consequences:
[Philosophy] helps us understand rational thinking and it helps us weed out faulty arguments. That's why Chris DiCarlo, a philosopher, is giving many lectures in my course on critical thinking. Philosophers are experts on this topic. Thinking clearly is an absolute prerequisite for discovering knowledge. But it doesn't appear to be sufficient. ...Wait a minute! "The scientific way of thinking"? What is the "way of knowing that relies on evidence" that informs us of what the "the scientific way of thinking" is? Unless, of course, what we are really talking about the way Larry Moran thinks ... something that might not be all that interesting to the world at large. Determining what the "scientific way of thinking" is, and necessarily must be, a historical and philosophical examination. As John says:
People who think scientifically do NOT think that their way of thinking DISPROVES religious beliefs—at least not in the sense that stands up to rigorous philosophical analysis. What they say is that there is no evidence of god(s). Since the scientific way of knowing requires evidence for beliefs it follows, as night follows day, that belief in god(s) is not compatible with the scientific way of thinking.
Larry thinks, and I quote, "As far as I can tell, philosophers just made [methodological naturalism] up without ever thinking seriously about the evidence of how scientific thinking actually works outside in the real world." Really? Methodological naturalism has been the ruling view of science since Thales of Miletus in the 6th century BCE. It is the view that we cannot investigate through natural means what does not follow rules. It is the idea that the sensible world, at any rate, is ruled by laws and regularities. It is the invention of "nature" as an idea.John's point is well demonstrated by Larry's and Coyne's constant refrain that there is no scientific evidence of the efficacy of "intercessory prayer." But that's the point of philosophers like Ruse, Sober, Pigliucci and John. The only way that intercessory prayer would produce scientific evidence of its efficacy is if "God" was like a "natural law" ... one prayer, one healing. Statistical studies only tell us that God is not a natural law we can rely on to do what we expect he/she/it always does. But what theist claims that God is a "natural law"?
To reject methodological naturalism is to in effect reject science as a possibility. It is not the claim that there is nothing else, nor is it the claim that science must be restricted to the physical world (at various times scientists have thought the paranormal, the spiritual, and even the theological were amenable to scientific investigation). If Larry thinks that he can scientifically investigate something that has no empirical evidence, I invite him to demonstrate that. In the meantime, any claim that is, as I have often called it, "empirically inoculated" is beyond the scope of science to investigate.
That doesn't mean that we must accept it as a reasonable claim to hold though. There is a difference between saying "science does not disprove x" and saying "science proves x". That we cannot show there is no divine hand in evolution is no reason to think there is. Even the most enthusiastic of theistic evolutionists would concede that. So why is Larry concerned about methodological naturalism? Is it because he wants all knowledge claims to be restricted to scientific claims, and therefore needs to argue that no claim is beyond the scope of scientific investigation? And is that not scientism?
Constantly trotting out "evidence" contradicting something that is not claimed is exactly the kind of philosophical misunderstanding that at least some scientists need to be reminded of.
Comments:
<< Home
Okay, I responded to a comment by "TJ" over at Wilkin's place ... TJ replied but I could not, because of some problem with WordPress, post a full reply. Here is the exchange with TJ in italilics and me bolded. It'll take a couple of comments.
TJ
September 2, 2012 at 11:46 pm
I strongly agree with your idea of philosophy as a tool to teach sound thinking and produce "clarity", expressed in your previous post. Sound, clear, critical thinking is vital to the scientific approach. However, as others have already noted, the simple answer to Larry's straightforward question is buried in the eighth paragraph ("Philosophy does not produce knowledge; that is the job of science"). And in a meandering post that tries to go everywhere (including psychology!) except tackling the question head-on. So much for clarity in this case. (I also think you're selling philosophy short, as with Larry I too think philosophy produces knowledge… and when it does so it's done scientifically.)
Larry also painstakingly explained that you are missing that it's not just scientists that use the scientific method to discover knowledge; he's not carving out some hallowed ground for a segregated science, which is what you seem to be arguing against, he's claiming for science/asking whether all endeavors that produce knowledge use the scientific method. He already accepted the charge of scientism, not just for himself but for economists, historians, etc. You talked about charity in arguing, but you seem to not take Larry at face value there and it makes your last paragraphs strange in the extreme, given the strength in the reality of his observation.
Finally, while I agree with the idea of philosophy as "stress testing" knowledge, there is such a thing as nonsense and absurdity. Imagine the person who created airbags. It's a waste of everyone's time to come up with a stress test for this product on skateboards or oatmeal (if that can even be imagined). Products in the US carry warning labels like "do not use this mug as a flotation device"… why… would… anyone…? And this "why would anyone" puzzlement is exactly the reaction when philosophers become too enamored with word games unmoored from reality. That's certainly the reaction you see to the absurd nonsense in Sober's talk. You ought again to treat Larry with charity and address the parallel he draws with the FSM.
johnpieret
September 3, 2012 at 12:59 am
And in a meandering post that tries to go everywhere (including psychology!) except tackling the question head-on.
So says the person who pays lip service to philosophy but wants every issue to be as simple as delaring what you don't like to be "nonsense and absurdity." Guess what … that's what Larry's IDiots say about evolutionary science and, if the best response you can give is that they are talking nonsense and absurdity, then you have made no better argument then they have. That's not word games unmoored from reality … it is the very basis of rationality. Unless you've given up on the need for that.
TJ
September 2, 2012 at 11:46 pm
I strongly agree with your idea of philosophy as a tool to teach sound thinking and produce "clarity", expressed in your previous post. Sound, clear, critical thinking is vital to the scientific approach. However, as others have already noted, the simple answer to Larry's straightforward question is buried in the eighth paragraph ("Philosophy does not produce knowledge; that is the job of science"). And in a meandering post that tries to go everywhere (including psychology!) except tackling the question head-on. So much for clarity in this case. (I also think you're selling philosophy short, as with Larry I too think philosophy produces knowledge… and when it does so it's done scientifically.)
Larry also painstakingly explained that you are missing that it's not just scientists that use the scientific method to discover knowledge; he's not carving out some hallowed ground for a segregated science, which is what you seem to be arguing against, he's claiming for science/asking whether all endeavors that produce knowledge use the scientific method. He already accepted the charge of scientism, not just for himself but for economists, historians, etc. You talked about charity in arguing, but you seem to not take Larry at face value there and it makes your last paragraphs strange in the extreme, given the strength in the reality of his observation.
Finally, while I agree with the idea of philosophy as "stress testing" knowledge, there is such a thing as nonsense and absurdity. Imagine the person who created airbags. It's a waste of everyone's time to come up with a stress test for this product on skateboards or oatmeal (if that can even be imagined). Products in the US carry warning labels like "do not use this mug as a flotation device"… why… would… anyone…? And this "why would anyone" puzzlement is exactly the reaction when philosophers become too enamored with word games unmoored from reality. That's certainly the reaction you see to the absurd nonsense in Sober's talk. You ought again to treat Larry with charity and address the parallel he draws with the FSM.
johnpieret
September 3, 2012 at 12:59 am
And in a meandering post that tries to go everywhere (including psychology!) except tackling the question head-on.
So says the person who pays lip service to philosophy but wants every issue to be as simple as delaring what you don't like to be "nonsense and absurdity." Guess what … that's what Larry's IDiots say about evolutionary science and, if the best response you can give is that they are talking nonsense and absurdity, then you have made no better argument then they have. That's not word games unmoored from reality … it is the very basis of rationality. Unless you've given up on the need for that.
TJ
September 3, 2012 at 1:19 am
Talking about stress testing air bags on oatmeal makes no sense. It's absurd. It's unmoored from reality. Talking about the FSM directing evolution is also absurd and unmoored from reality. This is what Sober's overly long presentation boils down to. Please explain how philosophy distinguishes between them, since clearly intelligent folks are missing something.
Perhaps you're taking offense (my apologies) because you think there's value in the exercise of testing air bags on skareboards, say, and I suppose I could see that there's something amazing about being even able to construct such things. Perhaps we might even figure out something new and useful. Perhaps not for the oatmeal, but then again maybe you'd argue that seeing failure is instructive as well?
I'm really trying to guess what your answer might be, all by myself and despite rather content free snark; you talk a lot about charity and trying to understand, but you're not showing much in practice. I tried to point out how philosophy is useful and where we agreed. I tried to point out where I think you're talking past Larry and seem to be missing points important to the other side–they may not seem important to you perhaps, but then it would be good to know why and at any rate, what you think, I'm curious and want your opinion. If it's a waste of your time, my apologies.
And here is my intended reply:
Haven't actually read John's post? Here, let me help:
If Larry thinks that he can scientifically investigate something that has no empirical evidence, I invite him to demonstrate that. In the meantime, any claim that is, as I have often called it, "empirically inoculated" is beyond the scope of science to investigate.
That doesn't mean that we must accept it as a reasonable claim to hold though. There is a difference between saying "science does not disprove x" and saying "science proves x". That we cannot show there is no divine hand in evolution is no reason to think there is. Even the most enthusiastic* of theistic evolutionists would concede that. So why is Larry concerned about methodological naturalism? Is it because he wants all knowledge claims to be restricted to scientific claims, and therefore needs to argue that no claim is beyond the scope of scientific investigation? And is that not scientism?
The issue is not whether air bags are the same as god(s), the issue is how you come to think air bags are the same as god(s).
... you talk a lot about charity and trying to understand, but you're not showing much in practice.
Don't mistake me for John Wilkins. I, in many ways, wish I could be more like him, but I am, by profession a lawyer, and lawyers have no such instruction to be charitable. Still, I try, in these debates, to be at least civil if not snark free.
... maybe you'd argue that seeing failure is instructive as well?
Well, if you take Popper seriously, it is the very basis of science. But, as John has noted, nobody takes him seriously anymore ... though in a few instances I think they should. Yes, failure in science is instructive ... but about what? Let's take Larry's an Jerry's favorite example ... "intercessory prayer."
The only way that intercessory prayer would produce "scientific" evidence of its efficacy is if "God" was like a "natural law" ... one prayer, one healing. Statistical studies can only tell us that God is not a natural law we can rely on to do what we expect he/she/it always does. But what theist claims that God is a natural law"?
That's the point of philosophers like Ruse, Sober, Pigliucci and John. Constantly trotting out "evidence" contradicting something that is not claimed is exactly the kind of philosophical misunderstanding that at least some scientists need to be reminded of.
September 3, 2012 at 1:19 am
Talking about stress testing air bags on oatmeal makes no sense. It's absurd. It's unmoored from reality. Talking about the FSM directing evolution is also absurd and unmoored from reality. This is what Sober's overly long presentation boils down to. Please explain how philosophy distinguishes between them, since clearly intelligent folks are missing something.
Perhaps you're taking offense (my apologies) because you think there's value in the exercise of testing air bags on skareboards, say, and I suppose I could see that there's something amazing about being even able to construct such things. Perhaps we might even figure out something new and useful. Perhaps not for the oatmeal, but then again maybe you'd argue that seeing failure is instructive as well?
I'm really trying to guess what your answer might be, all by myself and despite rather content free snark; you talk a lot about charity and trying to understand, but you're not showing much in practice. I tried to point out how philosophy is useful and where we agreed. I tried to point out where I think you're talking past Larry and seem to be missing points important to the other side–they may not seem important to you perhaps, but then it would be good to know why and at any rate, what you think, I'm curious and want your opinion. If it's a waste of your time, my apologies.
And here is my intended reply:
Haven't actually read John's post? Here, let me help:
If Larry thinks that he can scientifically investigate something that has no empirical evidence, I invite him to demonstrate that. In the meantime, any claim that is, as I have often called it, "empirically inoculated" is beyond the scope of science to investigate.
That doesn't mean that we must accept it as a reasonable claim to hold though. There is a difference between saying "science does not disprove x" and saying "science proves x". That we cannot show there is no divine hand in evolution is no reason to think there is. Even the most enthusiastic* of theistic evolutionists would concede that. So why is Larry concerned about methodological naturalism? Is it because he wants all knowledge claims to be restricted to scientific claims, and therefore needs to argue that no claim is beyond the scope of scientific investigation? And is that not scientism?
The issue is not whether air bags are the same as god(s), the issue is how you come to think air bags are the same as god(s).
... you talk a lot about charity and trying to understand, but you're not showing much in practice.
Don't mistake me for John Wilkins. I, in many ways, wish I could be more like him, but I am, by profession a lawyer, and lawyers have no such instruction to be charitable. Still, I try, in these debates, to be at least civil if not snark free.
... maybe you'd argue that seeing failure is instructive as well?
Well, if you take Popper seriously, it is the very basis of science. But, as John has noted, nobody takes him seriously anymore ... though in a few instances I think they should. Yes, failure in science is instructive ... but about what? Let's take Larry's an Jerry's favorite example ... "intercessory prayer."
The only way that intercessory prayer would produce "scientific" evidence of its efficacy is if "God" was like a "natural law" ... one prayer, one healing. Statistical studies can only tell us that God is not a natural law we can rely on to do what we expect he/she/it always does. But what theist claims that God is a natural law"?
That's the point of philosophers like Ruse, Sober, Pigliucci and John. Constantly trotting out "evidence" contradicting something that is not claimed is exactly the kind of philosophical misunderstanding that at least some scientists need to be reminded of.
As long as I started this, I'll continue:
TJ
September 3, 2012 at 5:00 am
I did get confused about authorship. How far off the mark your comment was from the general discussion now makes a lot more sense. You repeat the concluding paragraphs that try to psychoanalyze a strawman rather than address Larry’s point head-on; I have nothing further to say on that. You also seem to think because I made a metaphor regarding stress testing and detecting nonsense using airbags, it therefore equates to airbags being gods to me; that’s plain weird. You then make all sorts of leaps. For example it is the case that better outcomes for those receiving prayer would be detectable (it doesn’t need to be one prayer to one healing, any statistical deviation is measurable). Certainly many theists held expectations that it would be–after all most religious folks pray with requests (and not for acceptable, as perhaps they ought to).
Ultimately the sum of your argument seems to be that god is entirely supernatural and can never be measured or tested (since then that would be measurable in our world and subject to science). Which means god can have no discriminatory impacts in the natural world, it must all be mechanistic (or appear to be). Indeed that is Sober’s very point. Which means he always interferes in a predictable way, or doesn’t act, or doesn’t exist. Whichever, god is thereby irrelevant. The history of science is in fact replete with examples of things that were mysterious and attributed to god’s actions and each as proved in fact mechanistic (so far, admittedly).
You’re of course entirely right that in your view there’s no point in scientifically looking at god’s influence, that would be entirely pointless. That’s not the way most people imagine god, it’s without doubt heretical in Christianity. You claim that no theist thinks of god as a natural law, but most people do expect that they will mechanically get into heaven or hell depending on their abiding by rules, rules which are themselves to be bidding natural laws in this world. Yet must have no objective means of being tested to gain consensus (it has to be a matter of faith, without which there is no religion).
I feel the need after all this straying to remind you that Larry posed a specific question. How does any of this amount to a way to obtain knowledge? I suppose for theology, they can say that visions, apparitions of angels are sources of knowledge, ways to learn god’s natural laws we should follow. I’m happy to concede that these events (and claims) are untestable since if they are untestable they are not a reliable means of knowledge–knowledge being something that you can treat sceptically, test, check, repeat. In sum, most certainly not on faith.
I’m sorry but your response over at your blog don’t advance the discussion. I’ll wait for the OP’s response.
TJ
September 3, 2012 at 5:00 am
I did get confused about authorship. How far off the mark your comment was from the general discussion now makes a lot more sense. You repeat the concluding paragraphs that try to psychoanalyze a strawman rather than address Larry’s point head-on; I have nothing further to say on that. You also seem to think because I made a metaphor regarding stress testing and detecting nonsense using airbags, it therefore equates to airbags being gods to me; that’s plain weird. You then make all sorts of leaps. For example it is the case that better outcomes for those receiving prayer would be detectable (it doesn’t need to be one prayer to one healing, any statistical deviation is measurable). Certainly many theists held expectations that it would be–after all most religious folks pray with requests (and not for acceptable, as perhaps they ought to).
Ultimately the sum of your argument seems to be that god is entirely supernatural and can never be measured or tested (since then that would be measurable in our world and subject to science). Which means god can have no discriminatory impacts in the natural world, it must all be mechanistic (or appear to be). Indeed that is Sober’s very point. Which means he always interferes in a predictable way, or doesn’t act, or doesn’t exist. Whichever, god is thereby irrelevant. The history of science is in fact replete with examples of things that were mysterious and attributed to god’s actions and each as proved in fact mechanistic (so far, admittedly).
You’re of course entirely right that in your view there’s no point in scientifically looking at god’s influence, that would be entirely pointless. That’s not the way most people imagine god, it’s without doubt heretical in Christianity. You claim that no theist thinks of god as a natural law, but most people do expect that they will mechanically get into heaven or hell depending on their abiding by rules, rules which are themselves to be bidding natural laws in this world. Yet must have no objective means of being tested to gain consensus (it has to be a matter of faith, without which there is no religion).
I feel the need after all this straying to remind you that Larry posed a specific question. How does any of this amount to a way to obtain knowledge? I suppose for theology, they can say that visions, apparitions of angels are sources of knowledge, ways to learn god’s natural laws we should follow. I’m happy to concede that these events (and claims) are untestable since if they are untestable they are not a reliable means of knowledge–knowledge being something that you can treat sceptically, test, check, repeat. In sum, most certainly not on faith.
I’m sorry but your response over at your blog don’t advance the discussion. I’ll wait for the OP’s response.
John Pieret
September 3, 2012 at 7:46 am
it doesn't need to be one prayer to one healing, any statistical deviation is measurable
That was, of course, shorthand for any statistical deviation. Why would you expect, on the proposition that there is an infinite being with unknowable motives, to find a "statistical deviation," without first making a philosophical "leap" as to what evidence you "should" find? And if that is what you are doing, how do you designate the very thing you are doing as not "knowledge" but "knowledge" nonetheless?
after all most religious folks pray with requests
As Larry and Coyne always do, you retreat, at the drop of a philosophical hat, to an argument against religions instead of the original subject. We were talking about methodological naturalism, not your opinion about religions.
god is thereby irrelevant
Precisely what John said: "That doesn't mean that we must accept it as a reasonable claim to hold though." The problem is your claim doesn't come via a "way of knowing that relies on evidence." If you "know" god is irrelevant, then there is a way of knowing that isn't evidence based. If there is no such thing as knowledge that isn't evidenced based, you don't "know" that a god of that type is "irrelevant." You can't (reasonably) appeal to philosophy and deny its usefulness in the same breath.
How does any of this amount to a way to obtain knowledge?
As I said before you first posted: Is "knowing" whether your argument is logical and follows from your premises itself "knowledge"? If not, what is the point of all this?
I'm sorry but your response over at your blog don't advance the discussion. I'll wait for the OP's response.
May I politely and respectfully point out that that is a cop-out as egregious as any that William Lane Craig has used.
September 3, 2012 at 7:46 am
it doesn't need to be one prayer to one healing, any statistical deviation is measurable
That was, of course, shorthand for any statistical deviation. Why would you expect, on the proposition that there is an infinite being with unknowable motives, to find a "statistical deviation," without first making a philosophical "leap" as to what evidence you "should" find? And if that is what you are doing, how do you designate the very thing you are doing as not "knowledge" but "knowledge" nonetheless?
after all most religious folks pray with requests
As Larry and Coyne always do, you retreat, at the drop of a philosophical hat, to an argument against religions instead of the original subject. We were talking about methodological naturalism, not your opinion about religions.
god is thereby irrelevant
Precisely what John said: "That doesn't mean that we must accept it as a reasonable claim to hold though." The problem is your claim doesn't come via a "way of knowing that relies on evidence." If you "know" god is irrelevant, then there is a way of knowing that isn't evidence based. If there is no such thing as knowledge that isn't evidenced based, you don't "know" that a god of that type is "irrelevant." You can't (reasonably) appeal to philosophy and deny its usefulness in the same breath.
How does any of this amount to a way to obtain knowledge?
As I said before you first posted: Is "knowing" whether your argument is logical and follows from your premises itself "knowledge"? If not, what is the point of all this?
I'm sorry but your response over at your blog don't advance the discussion. I'll wait for the OP's response.
May I politely and respectfully point out that that is a cop-out as egregious as any that William Lane Craig has used.
"The only way that intercessory prayer would produce scientific evidence of its efficacy is if "God" was like a "natural law" ... one prayer, one healing."
Really? If I doubt the proposition that my father is well disposed towards me, I can test it by asking him to do or give various things. If he always or often complies, that is evidence for the proposition. If he never does, that is evidence against.
I can say that without assuming that he is like a "natural law". The only assumption is that the proposition "he is well disposed towards me" has some real-world value. If it hasn't, what does it mean?
Really? If I doubt the proposition that my father is well disposed towards me, I can test it by asking him to do or give various things. If he always or often complies, that is evidence for the proposition. If he never does, that is evidence against.
I can say that without assuming that he is like a "natural law". The only assumption is that the proposition "he is well disposed towards me" has some real-world value. If it hasn't, what does it mean?
David
That's evidence for you personally but it's not evidence for me because I don't have the opportunity to observe what you do.
1) there's no peer-reviewed professional paper that I or anyone else can read.
2) I can't replicate your results in my lab - for one thing I couldn't recreate the conditions that you and your father would need to interact.
3) I have a problem with your experimental design. What if all you ask for is cocaine and hookers and your father refuses? Isn't it possible he's refusing because he does like you?
What you're arguing is for eyewitness testimony, and we know scientifically how reliable that is.
That's evidence for you personally but it's not evidence for me because I don't have the opportunity to observe what you do.
1) there's no peer-reviewed professional paper that I or anyone else can read.
2) I can't replicate your results in my lab - for one thing I couldn't recreate the conditions that you and your father would need to interact.
3) I have a problem with your experimental design. What if all you ask for is cocaine and hookers and your father refuses? Isn't it possible he's refusing because he does like you?
What you're arguing is for eyewitness testimony, and we know scientifically how reliable that is.
# posted by 
: 7:21 PM
: 7:21 PM
TB's point is well taken, David. Yours is an argument from the absence of evidence. Generally speaking, the adage "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" is correct. The exception is when you have a hypothesis which is so tightly constrained that certain scientific evidence must be produced by certain methods if it is scientifically true. YEC, to the extent they claim it is "scientific," is such a hypothesis and is refuted by science. The notion of intercessory prayer isn't because the prayers are asking a being of infinite knowledge to do what's best for someone based on his/her/its unknowable standards.
Now, of course, some religious people will expect a healing because of a prayer. Worse, many religious people will claim any good medical outcome is a result of prayer. But these are religious beliefs, not scientific hypotheses. As I and John Wilkins have frequently said, it is perfectly fine to argue against those beliefs but bringing scientific evidence to bear against them is hard to imagine. We don't (as Hume pointed out many years ago) actually get scientific evidence of causation. What we get is evidence of a tight (in our opinion) correlation, in time and space, between what we call a "cause" and what we call an "effect," which is sufficient for the purposes of science but does not translate to non-scientific arguments. Is someone "cured" of cancer by chemotherapy (which often fails) or by prayer? Where is the scientific evidence of the cause? If someone gets well, against all medical expectations in what we call "spontaneous remission" as a placemarker for our ignorance, was it due to what we reasonably believed was failed treatment or to something else?
What we are really discussing here is why methodological naturalism is an inherent part of science that simply does not allow the (rational) statement that "science is the only way of knowing."
Now, of course, some religious people will expect a healing because of a prayer. Worse, many religious people will claim any good medical outcome is a result of prayer. But these are religious beliefs, not scientific hypotheses. As I and John Wilkins have frequently said, it is perfectly fine to argue against those beliefs but bringing scientific evidence to bear against them is hard to imagine. We don't (as Hume pointed out many years ago) actually get scientific evidence of causation. What we get is evidence of a tight (in our opinion) correlation, in time and space, between what we call a "cause" and what we call an "effect," which is sufficient for the purposes of science but does not translate to non-scientific arguments. Is someone "cured" of cancer by chemotherapy (which often fails) or by prayer? Where is the scientific evidence of the cause? If someone gets well, against all medical expectations in what we call "spontaneous remission" as a placemarker for our ignorance, was it due to what we reasonably believed was failed treatment or to something else?
What we are really discussing here is why methodological naturalism is an inherent part of science that simply does not allow the (rational) statement that "science is the only way of knowing."
A quick note about wordpress comments.
My recent experience is that the comment box is too small, so some of what you type disappears below the boundary.
However, if you keep typing, regardless, then the box magically expands.
It's a bit annoying. I'm not sure why WP made that change. But it isn't a problem once you are used to it.
Note that I use firefox on linux. I also use "noscript", but blocking scripts on WP pages can cause additional problems.
I hope that help, but no guarantee.
My recent experience is that the comment box is too small, so some of what you type disappears below the boundary.
However, if you keep typing, regardless, then the box magically expands.
It's a bit annoying. I'm not sure why WP made that change. But it isn't a problem once you are used to it.
Note that I use firefox on linux. I also use "noscript", but blocking scripts on WP pages can cause additional problems.
I hope that help, but no guarantee.
# posted by : 3:27 PM
: 3:27 PM
I've been using Google's Chrome at John's site of late and that seems to work well with WordPress. I used IE before, mostly out of laziness. You reap what you sow, I suppose. ;-)
This is a fantastic web site. Good sparkling user interface and nice informative blogs. I will be coming back soon, thanks for the great blog.
2015-12-18keyun
chanel bags
ugg boots sale
oakley sunglasses wholesale
ugg boots outlet
air max 90
nike running shoes for men
uggs boots for women
uggs on sale
ugg boots
hollister kids
ray-ban sunglasses
hollister jeans
air force 1 trainers
true religion jeans outlet
louis vuitton outlet
michaek kors outlet
cheap uggs sale
ugg boots outlet
jordan 11s
louis vuitton handbags
coach outlet
jordan 11 concord
instyler
gucci outlet
nike huarache white
ray ban outlet
coach outlet online
tory burch outlet
ugg outlet store
uggs for chea
cheap ray ban sunglasses
canada goose
oakley store
coach outlet online
michael kors outlet
abercrombie & fitch
coach outlet
toms outlet
ray bans
fitflop clearance
chanel bags
ugg boots sale
oakley sunglasses wholesale
ugg boots outlet
air max 90
nike running shoes for men
uggs boots for women
uggs on sale
ugg boots
hollister kids
ray-ban sunglasses
hollister jeans
air force 1 trainers
true religion jeans outlet
louis vuitton outlet
michaek kors outlet
cheap uggs sale
ugg boots outlet
jordan 11s
louis vuitton handbags
coach outlet
jordan 11 concord
instyler
gucci outlet
nike huarache white
ray ban outlet
coach outlet online
tory burch outlet
ugg outlet store
uggs for chea
cheap ray ban sunglasses
canada goose
oakley store
coach outlet online
michael kors outlet
abercrombie & fitch
coach outlet
toms outlet
ray bans
fitflop clearance
2016-01-09keyun
cheap ugg boots
louis vuitton outlet
louis vuitton bags
oakley sunglasses
cheap tods
uggs for men
tory burch shoes
oakley sunglasses
michael kors outlet
hollister kids
michael kors outlet clearance
nike huarache white
cheap ray ban sunglasses
kobe 8
coach clearance
cheap air jordans
louis vuitton outlet stores
jordan shoes
ugg boots outlet
cheap oakley sunglasses
timberlands
michael kors outlet
celine handbags
coach outlet
michael kors outlet
louis vuitton purses
ray ban outlet
coach outlet
canada goose outlet online
fake oakley sunglasses
uggs outlet
canada goose coats
ugg australia outlet
nfl jerseys wholesale
hollister kids
coach outlet
christian louboutin shoes
louis vuitton bags
gucci outlet
Post a Comment
cheap ugg boots
louis vuitton outlet
louis vuitton bags
oakley sunglasses
cheap tods
uggs for men
tory burch shoes
oakley sunglasses
michael kors outlet
hollister kids
michael kors outlet clearance
nike huarache white
cheap ray ban sunglasses
kobe 8
coach clearance
cheap air jordans
louis vuitton outlet stores
jordan shoes
ugg boots outlet
cheap oakley sunglasses
timberlands
michael kors outlet
celine handbags
coach outlet
michael kors outlet
louis vuitton purses
ray ban outlet
coach outlet
canada goose outlet online
fake oakley sunglasses
uggs outlet
canada goose coats
ugg australia outlet
nfl jerseys wholesale
hollister kids
coach outlet
christian louboutin shoes
louis vuitton bags
gucci outlet
<< Home
