Young Earth Creationism Vs. Science (Statler Waldorf Contd)

[theVOID]

So you accept the premise is true?

I don't know if I would go that far. However, I won't argue against it.

Oh come on that sounds like a complete cop out . Either the premises are sound and valid or they are not... Can you name a single methodology that has gathered more results? If not then you are epistemically unjustified in accepting any other methodology as the most effective.

Because I like beer and weed?

I'd been drinking with a mate for a few hours, had a few sessions, then came back and had a few more beers and sessions and did some stoned philosophy

That's one of the biggest reasons I like weed, I can continue to think about anything that I would be able to with seemingly no impediment and not often with markedly different conclusions (I blame the beers for my gaff above ).

I'll admit I sometimes forget what I was about to do when I'm stoned, but that's fairly rare, in any case it's minuscule relative to the effects of other things as 'acceptable' as pain medication or alcohol or even a bad diet.

I suppose you have some opinion?

I have an opinion on just about everything. In this case, I think getting drunk/stoned is a waste of one's time. But it is your time to do with what you will.

A waste of time? No more so than any other recreational activity and far less so than a great many as I can actually be productive while stoned.

That is not true, methodological naturalism deliberately narrows down the scope of investigation to natural causes, that assumption is at the foundations of repeatability, testability, falsifiability etc. Non-natural claims are none of the above.

I don't think narrowing down the scope of investigation to natural causes necessarily means making an assumption of metaphysical naturalism.

That is exactly what it means. Have you ever seen a proposed test for something that did not involve measuring natural causes, or a time where an anomaly arises in data and the scientists have said "oh, that must just be one of the times where the universe isn't consistent as usual"?

So while I agree with you that "methodological naturalism deliberately narrows down the scope of investigation to natural causes, that assumption is at the foundations of repeatability, testability, falsifiability etc. Non-natural claims are none of the above." and I do not have a problem with that, I still disagree that methodological naturalism requires an assumption of metaphysical naturalism as you first proposed.

That's like saying "I'm going to investigate x and only look for information of x from a tiny portion (natural) of all the logically possible answers (supernaturalism+naturalism)"

If you have no way of measuring the non-natural or any way of determining the start of a causal chain was non-natural then you might as well be assuming that there is only nature.

I'm not sure how one would distinguish my position from yours, except possibly in the mindset of the scientist doing the work.

What position are you talking about here?

That methodological naturalism requires an assumption that nature behaves in a relatively consistent manner and not an assumption of metaphysical naturalism.

[/quote]

The scientist might not make the assumption of metaphysical naturalism, but the methodology is grounded in it. Unless you know of a way of measuring non-natural things with all the rigours of science then again, you might as well accept that the method makes that assumption.