[atlaw]

The axiom of Naturalistic Science dictates there is no supernatural, so the 'towel' never gets thrown in, even if it should.

Do you have an example of when it should?

It is not the business of science to locate the supernatural.

Agreed.

The correct way to deal with a phenomena with no natural explanation is to say, 'this is beyond science', and then leave it at that until more empirical evidence is available.

This makes no sense. Where is this generic "empirical evidence" coming from? And what is it "empirical evidence" of? You seem to be saying that the correct way for science to investigate the presently inexplicable is to just not investigate it.

The naturalistic method of saying, 'we cannot explain it naturally, so we will just make up some conjecture and call it fact' does not have a very good track record either and is not empirical science.

Of course, this cute caricature of science is nonsense. But you know that.

I find it almost funny, The Naturalistic method of science commits the exact fallacy, to the other extreme, that you are falsely claiming my method of empirical science commits.

What fallacy are you talking about? And what, specifically, is your "method of empirical science," and how does it differ from the scientific method?

Empirical science is wherever the evidence leads.

Once again, that big pile of generic evidence. How do you know where that evidence is leading if you don't ask, don't hypothesize, don't infer or deduce, don't theorize?

[Fichori]

"The axiom of Naturalistic Science dictates there is no supernatural, so the 'towel' never gets thrown in, even if it should."

"Do you have an example of when it should?"

The Big Bang is a very good example.

Empirical science will show that origins is not in the field of empirical science.

"It is not the business of science to locate the supernatural."

"Agreed."

"The correct way to deal with a phenomena with no natural explanation is to say, 'this is beyond science', and then leave it at that until more empirical evidence is available."

"This makes no sense. Where is this generic "empirical evidence" coming from? And what is it "empirical evidence" of? You seem to be saying that the correct way for science to investigate the presently inexplicable is to just not investigate it."

On the contrary, it makes perfect sense, it is simply a logical description of empirical process, not empirical evidence of a phenomena.

There is a difference between investigation and conclusion.

And yet, you agree that the supernatural is not the business of science, and then you turn around and reprimand me for saying science should not explain the inexplicable.(i.e., supernatural)?

"Empirical science is wherever the evidence leads."

"Once again, that big pile of generic evidence. How do you know where that evidence is leading if you don't ask, don't hypothesize, don't infer or deduce, don't theorize?"

All those aspects of science are fine, just as long as your axiom does not dogmatically disqualify empirically qualifiable evidence.

Once again, you have jumped from the discussion about the philosophical aspects of science to evidence.

"What fallacy are you talking about? And what, specifically, is your "method of empirical science," and how does it differ from the scientific method?"

You said my method was too quick to 'throw in the towel' and in fact, the Naturalistic method never 'throws in the towel'.

In my opinion, the latter is worse than the former.

If you wish to discuss this further, I would ask that you refrain from continued bait-n-switch, strawman and elephant hurling tactics.


Do you wish to discuss empirically scientific evidence or do you wish to discuss the philosophy of science.

Please chose only one.
(we can discuss the other at a different time.)

[mrjesse]

(Said Fichori) The naturalistic method of saying, 'we cannot explain it naturally, so we will just make up some conjecture and call it fact' does not have a very good track record either and is not empirical science.

(Said atlaw)Of course, this cute caricature of science is nonsense. But you know that.

Actually, my inquiry into the big bang so far is looking like the big bang is rather close to conjecture.

But I think Fichori has a valid point here. The philosophy on which science is run does dogmatically reject as untrue any evidence that infers a super-natural first cause.

If it were proved that no such super-natural first cause existed, then science's dogma would be harmless and uneeded. But such a fact is not known: It is possible that there is was a super natural first cause. Thus science dogmatically rejects something that is a possibility.

But that doesn't mean that scientists don't try to figure things out anyway -- so then there's the big bang. It's taught in schools and universities across this country as being true. Well I might ask why teach something that's so shaky as if it's known to be true? Well, comes the answer, we haven't got any better ideas.

So herein arises a serious problem: The real answer may be "Well, we haven't got any better ideas that don't infer a super-natural first cause."

No matter how convincing the evidence might be that there was a super-natural first cause, it would be dogmatically rejected due to it not being a purely natural process, and the next-best qualified explanation will be taught, no matter how far-out.

Now my point here is not that there is lots of such evidence (I've made that point in previous posts) but that the system has a certain flaw, that is a serious one. And like any tool, the better we understand it and its flaws, the better we can use it and not be caught off guard by its flaws.

One question often asked of creationists by evolutionists is "Well how come your research doesn't show up in the peer reviewed scientific journals?" -- good question -- but it doesn't matter how good the research is, how accurate or anything else -- if it infers a super-natural first cause, regardless of whether the evidence supports it -- it will be refused. Not because it is wrong or poorly done -- but for the simple reason that it's defined as not science because it infers a super-natural first cause. See 293

There really is a dogma and a bias here: "Science" does reject something that is a possibility, regardless of evidence, and this is a terrible state of affairs. If evidence supports the existence of supernatural things as being part of life, then so be it. There is no honest need to dogmatically rule out non-natural means.

-Jesse

Courtesy ping to Fichori, Coyoteman