Paul Nelson has actually responded to a challenge in a timely fashion. I am shocked. Of course, his response is ineffectual and wrong, so ultimately I’m not too surprised at all.
Josh comments on Nelson’s reply. I’ll just pile on.
Nelson complains that the question of whether ID should be taught in the schools was actually not the formal issue of the debate, and hammering him on that topic is inappropriate; OK, fair enough, but he has to appreciate that that is our immediate concern. ID itself is boring and uninteresting and various versions of it have been held by individuals for a long time…the only difference now is that we have this well-funded institute pushing to have ID enshrined in public policy. Any debate on this matter is going to have to address it, otherwise it is a purely evasive exercise designed to put up a pretense of scientific legitimacy—a subterfuge to support the credibility of the Discovery Institute’s policy and education aims.
He wants to focus the argument on the sufficiency of methodological naturalism to explain the history of life on earth. In part, he basically wants to make a god of the gaps argument, highlighting any inadequacies in modern understanding of evolution as an indictment of the principle that methodological naturalism works, or can work. He tries to claim, most unconvincingly, that naturalism is a “stultifying” principle, and raises what he thinks is a show-stopper of a question.
Ask oneself a simple question. Suppose life actually were designed by a nonhuman intelligence — would methodological naturalism allow us to discover that? If the answer is no, then methodological naturalism hinders scientific discovery and dictates the shape of reality as thoroughly as philosophical naturalism. If the answer is yes, then methodological naturalism is superfluous and says nothing more than that science should be empirical and testable.
If it stops anyone, though, it’s because it is such a wooly-headed mess of a question.
First of all, his premise is loaded and misleading; “designed by a nonhuman intelligence” does not imply an unnatural cause. There is nothing in the basic idea of an alien intervention that is outside the bounds of possible natural events, and so of course the appropriate answer is “yes”, in principle, and we can say that without defying methodological naturalism in any way. If he is postulating in his usual underhanded way something more—a miracle from a divine being outside our universe—then we would still have to say “yes”, and the gang at the Discovery Institute would have to agree. Isn’t that the whole ID/Scientific Creationism research program, to find explanations for and correlates of a mysterious intervention, using the tools (or at least the trappings) of science? If Cthulhu poofed a swarm of flying squid into existence above the city of Morris, I’d have to say that their origin might well be unnatural, but the evidence of their existence would still be at hand.
The conclusion that saying “yes” means science is “nothing more” than empirical and testable is fine with me, although implying that that is something trivial is bothersome. Saying that science is a process grounded in well-established techniques that are known to work, that continue to drive progress, and are universally accessible seems like a powerful statement to me.
The really damning thing to me, though, is that while Nelson is whimpering that we cruel dogmatic scientists exclude his alternative, more inclusive methods from the domain of science, he never tells us what ID adds to our toolbox. He says that what he wants is that “All that any ID theorist could ask is to have his or her case evaluated on its merits, in light of the evidence.” In light of the evidence? That just sounds like methodological naturalism to me. So what is he doing complaining about methodological materialism in the first place?
If there is something else, some other way of learning about the world that doesn’t involve observation and experiment and the empirical accumulation of data, he should spell it out. As it is, Nelson is confusing the process with the outcome; his real complaint is not with methodological naturalism, but that scientists haven’t concluded that a nonhuman intelligence created life on earth…a conclusion which he has not supported with evidence.
I guess in geology class they need to teach that there was a massive flood several thousand years ago that an “intellgence” arranged to look like the earth has billions of years of history.
As has been noted before, why stop at biology?
Of course, we can invert ID logic to make a “naturalism in the gaps” argument.
How can there be only one God, when Psalm 82 clearly states that there are many? Could it be the YHWH isn’t the one who created the universe? Perhaps it was a natural process and YHWH showed up later, as a kind of supernatural squatter.
How could the patriarchs, who supposedly lived between 1000 and 2000 BC, have walked among the Edomites and Moabites, who did’t live until 700 BC? Perhaps they had a machine (a Hindu Vimana?) that could reach velocities approaching light speed, and due to relativistic effects they were able to travel forward in time. This naturalistic explanation also helps us understand how the patriarchs could live so long.
How could Christ have ever lived on Earth, when the Epistle to the Hebrews clearly states that He only lived in Heaven?
Perhaps we might invoke the naturalistic explanation that a proto-gnostic mystery cult founded by Paul later served as the basis for the religion now known as Christianity. http://pages.ca.inter.net/%7Eoblio/jhcjp.htm
This “naturalism in the gaps” approach would easily explain how Christianity gained widespread acceptance due to its message of salvation, the plight of the poor in ancient Rome, and the tendency for primitive humans to assign agency to natural forces. Since there are so many gaps in the Bible, I think we could found an entire institute to study and promote these gaps. We could even formulate a wedge policy, to sell these ideas to the public.
condensed version:
When using a word, don’t lose sight of what it means in practice. “Naturalism” simply means following the evidence. There is a corollary: don’t imbibe of the argument from ignorance (aka id). For this reason IDists can’t abide naturalism.
“Supernatural” doesn’t mean anything in particular. How do you know science can’t discover something just because it is supernatural? The reason usually given for this is that if something becomes understood, it isn’t called supernatural anymore. Drop that word. Here is the real amazing fact: if you postulate an agent that can by assumption effect matter in such a way that we cannot detect it, then we cannot detect it. Whoopee.
Naturism is the only hope for discovering DisCo’s Designer – unless it decides to start a talk show.
Ask oneself a simple question. Suppose life actually were designed by a nonhuman intelligence — would methodological naturalism allow us to discover that?
I assume Paul the Fuckhead means “life on earth” when he says “life.”
Otherwise we are left asking who “designed” this “nonhuman intelligence” with nothing to do except sit around and come up with a million different versions of my favorite body part: The Rectum.
Fyi: it’s Paul’s favorite body part too but he doesn’t like to share that fact with the public.
The basic concept of a “being outside our universe” intervening in our universe is self-contradictory. The universe is ontologically closed by definition.
You’d think philosophers, whose entire job consists of nothing but analyzing logical arguments, would do a better job of detecting fallacies and contradictions. Of course, they have to be competent… which Mr. Nelson clearly is not.
We can summarize Nelson’s argument: that science has yet to explain something suggests that it will never and can never explain such a thing. He then makes the remarkable claim that one cannot disagree with this statement. It is true that one cannot disagree with the antecedent (science has yet to explain some things), but it simply doesn’t follow that this shows that those things can’t be explained.
Another way to summarize Nelson’s “argument” is as follows: anything that happened on earth more than 250 years ago is subject to rational debate if it disagrees with my interpretation of this holy book.
In what way has methodological naturalism proven to be “stultifying”?
Err, in case the above wasn’t clear, the quote is from Nelson’s article. I have no idea what he’s referring to (besides the aether maybe, but that imo is an example of people who stopped looking for answers).I’ve been chastised for trying to make sense of creationist claims; apparently I’m a slow learner in that regard heh.
Ask oneself a simple question. Suppose life actually were designed by a nonhuman intelligence — would methodological naturalism allow us to discover that?
Sure, why not?
A la the cartoon from some years ago. Copius math on the left. Copius math, with QED on the right. In the middle a box that says “Then a miracle occurs.”
It is well within the realm of possibility that rational inquiry can ascertain to a fare thee well all the antecedents, and all the consequences, for a particular phenomena, and conclude the only way to get from one to the other is through a Miracle.
In other words, a God of the Gaps argument, only this time the gap is proven, not wished.
For a guy as sarcastic as this Nelson is, he sure leaves himself open to pummeling.
Raguel asks: “In what way has methodological naturalism proven to be “stultifying”?”
Obviously, it is “stultifying” because it has yet to “prove” his most cherished assumptions. If it can’t even prove the “obvious”, clearly it’s not very useful. ;-)
– Paul Nelson: justification for dismantling of the machinery of scientific investigation
– attr. Caliph Omar: justification for burning the Library of Alexandria, and thus setting back human progress by a few centuries
A la the cartoon from some years ago. Copius math on the left. Copius math, with QED on the right. In the middle a box that says “Then a miracle occurs.”
I have a friend called Ed, a fellow maths student, who at one point was in the habit of “proving” things he couldn’t see how to prove by working forward from the question as far as he could, then working backward from the solution as far as he could, and in the middle writing “by Van Der Braun’s theorem” (which is nonexistent). A worrying number of his supervisors didn’t actually notice this.
Every time I read Dembski’s maths, I think of Ed.
Hmm… Divine revelation via wardrobe malfunction. That would certainly be something for the talk shows. Any creationists who manage to be successful with the naturist methodology should probably then be allowed a few fig leaves though. It’s traditional after all.
i’m tired of hearing about amateur (and professional) philosophers and their cravings for metaphysical certainty. please stop writing about id. no one cares except a few americans and they weren’t going to become biologists anyway. this blog is so interesting when it sticks to science. i really don’t see what difference id can make to biology. if “intelligence” is a hidden causal factor, fine — so what? nothing chages. if it isn’t, same difference.
There was a simple letter in The Globe and Mail (which styles itself Canada’s national newspaper) today, which commented:
Paris Hilton, no one made you read the post and responses so stop perpetuating exactly what you’re arguing against. But I will take you up on your request. Here’s what you asked for: Kennedy, M., et al. 2006. Science v311:1446-1449. Read and discuss.
Does anyone besides me have a problem with using molecular clock data as evidence of when certain groups of organisms appear? Their geology work is excellent, but the molecular clock data I have to remain skeptical of for the following reasons:
(1) the organisms alive today are not the ones alive 1Ga or 0.5Ga ago, so how safe is the assumption that they had the same mutation rates of conserved sequences?
(2) Would they have had all the same genetic repair mechanisms found in modern organisms, and would those mechanisms have had the same repair rate that they do today? (I do realize this question is impossible to answer)
(3) Would the incidence rate of external causes of mutations, in particular ionizing radiation, have varied? If so is this accounted for and how?
(4) I can buy the idea of a surface biota of prokaryotes at 1Ga, it’s easy to envisage an epieric sea that upon regression leaves quite a bit of surface and subsurface microbes lying about trying like hell to adapt. But mosses, lichens, and liverworts at 700Ma ago?
Okay, my gripe isn’t with Kennedy, et al., but rather the validity of molecular clock studies applied over geological time.
Just this past week I received the following comment in response to a post I wrote critical of ID:
It’s very similar to Paul Nelson’s comment about a nonhuman intelligence except for the “not of this universe” proviso. Is this an ID talking point that’s making the rounds? It seems just another argument for “unnatural causes”.
It seems just another argument for “unnatural causes”.
Oh, they have these preconceived notions about a bunch of stuff because of their religious beliefs. They’re just looking for any old excuse they can find so that they jam their religion everywhere. Nothing to be concerned about, really. I’m sure they’re very nice people.
PZ: The conclusion that saying “yes” means science is “nothing more” than empirical and testable is fine with me
Pete Dunkelberg: “Naturalism” simply means following the evidence.
Guys… if you mean, “empirical”, “testable” or “following the evidence”, then say “emprical”, “testable” or “evidence-based”. Don’t use the words “natural” and “naturalism” when you actually mean something else.
If the answer is no, then methodological naturalism hinders scientific discovery and dictates the shape of reality as thoroughly as philosophical naturalism.
Suppose life were not designed by a “nonhuman” intelligence, but rather evolved by a blind, unguided process. Would ID (or some other methodological research program permitting unseen, uncharacterized, unconstrained Minds) allow us to discover this aspect of biotic reality? If yes, then ID is superfluous because it discovers a reality that has no need for its additional postulate. If no, then ID warps reality by giving priority to God-of-the-Gaps arguments.
These games are fun, but ultimately uninformative. Suppose reality is such that nature is not governed by laws that are regular and uniform in space and time, would our science be of any use… Suppose reality is such that it didn’t exist 1 millisecond ago, would our science be of any use… Suppose reality is that we’re all stuck in some Matrix-like simulation and there is a whole other reality, would our science be of any use…
So what? That there may be an Ultimate Reality not achievable through our current methods does not mean that our current methods are somehow limited or useless or that it should be amended. This is like a child playing a game of chess, and whining that limiting the bishop to diagonal movements on one color limits the potential (or “inhibits further exploration” or “dictates the shape of reality”) of the game. Bullshit. The game of chess is fascinating and rich precisely because there are bounds to what may be done in playing it. And there is no evidence whatsoever that the exploration of chess is likely to hit a dead-end anytime soon. So with our current formulation of scientific research. It is fruitful beyond any other program out there.
Nelson’s science-envy is now apparent. He really wants to play in the game of science really badly. But he just doesn’t want to play by the rules. The funny thing is, while the rest of the players of science are busy doing their thing, he is buzzing around like a fly asking inane questions like, “What if the Reality of Chess is such that you can move any number of times in a row? Wouldn’t the current one-move rule be superfluous and stultifying?”
As mentioned earlier, there are two solutions for poor Paul. One, he can go back to his own little corner and play the many-move game of Chess by himself (or with his imaginary Friend). Or, he can try to persuade others that a many-move game of Chess is more intellectually satisfying than a one-move game of Chess. After all, there is no Law of Congress (or the Universe) that prevents him from doing either. Just, don’t teach our children that there is some “controversy” about Chess. And buzz off.
Thanks to our “axiomatic” doctrine of methodological naturalism, we have little to no scientific understanding of Santa, orcs, ghosts, astrology, God, angels, dragons, the tooth fairy, Tarot cards, and the Easter Bunny.
My favorite quote from Nelson’s word-turd is this:
“Given” the unsolved problems with the method that brought us from the dark ages to robots on Mars? Given? It reminds me of another classic argument:
Does anyone besides me have a problem with using molecular clock data as evidence of when certain groups of organisms appear?
Wad of id:
In your analogy, you seem to be making the same mistake that Nelson is: confusing the rules of science with the rules of games. The former are descriptive, the latter are prescriptive.
In chess or football, a committee comes up with rules, and the players are prohibited from breaking those rules.
In science, on the other hand, scientists do whatever it is that they do. Then sociologists and philosophers come along and observe, and try to condense their voluminous observations into a smaller set of descriptive rules, such as “scientists use methodological naturalism”.
Scientists try to understand the world, using any technique that works, and avoiding methods that would tend to introduce error. If prayer, oneiromancy, or LSD gave the right answer more than 50% of the time, I’m sure they’d use that.