Young Earth Creationism Vs. Science (Statler Waldorf Contd)

[rjh4 is back]

Oh come on that sounds like a complete cop out .

If you say so.

Either the premises are sound and valid or they are not...

Well I agree with you there. But maybe I don't have enough information to be able to tell which it is.

Can you name a single methodology that has gathered more results?

I don't know. We haven't discussed how you are counting results, how you are evaluating the truthfulness of premise 2, etc. So I really don't know if I could do this or not. And I really don't think it necessary to get into all of that.

If not then you are epistemically unjustified in accepting any other methodology as the most effective.

Maybe. But who said I did accept any other methodology as the most effective?

A waste of time?

Yes. 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.

If you say so.

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)"

That is exactly correct. And what is the problem with that? Are you suggesting that the supernatural is not a logically possible answer? If so, why? Certainly methodological naturalism cannot help you determine whether or not the supernatural is a logically possible answer. Its basic assumption, according to you, is metaphysical naturalism which necessarily excludes supernature and, therefore, there is no possiblity of it (methodological naturalism) concluding the supernatural is a logically possible answer.

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.

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.

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

---

Generally big shot scientists in other fields don't bother to say they are Dr such and such or Professor so and so.

That is certainly not my experience. I have been around plenty of PhDs in my work (all of whom would consider it an insult to be called a creationist). I have even supervised plenty of them. The vast majority use the title regularly and introduce themselves that way, etc.

---

Milesian school of the Ionian Pre-Socratic philosophy

I really was hoping for more of an explanation and citation of where I could look. Can you help me out a bit more?

The point is the role religion may or may not have played in development the scientific method does not bear on the validity of the tenants of the religion...

I think I already agreed with you on that.

Methodological naturalism does not follow uniquely from Bacon's theory of god. Nor does christianity show any signs of converging upon the form that would produce Bacon's theory of god. Indeed the most aggressive strains of christianity shows quite the sign of the reverse. So to credit god or his religion with the result of one man's imagination is little short of rediculous.

I guess I see your point.

If the concept that a quality of a man's work does not in itself validate the cause that prompted him to perform the work, and his work could in fact prove the invalidity of the cause, is still too abstract, you might related to another example: Do you suppose the fact that Maya cosmology led directly to Mayan development of sophisticated algebra means Maya cosmology is therefore better than algebra?

Maybe. It probably depends on how one would define and evaluate "better", i.e., from what perspective.

Do you see any obstacle in the algebra developed for the service of Mayan cosmology being incorporated into a system that can then be used to discredit Maya cosmology?

No.