Posted on 09/03/2008 3:47:09 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
Your's is based on the assertion that he does. Either that, or you're wanting to draw conclusions about science based on what could very we be nothing more than the self-absorbed musings of an over inflated ego assuming that all scientists must be just like him.
Once again, no. I take Lewontin's statement and compare it to the observable foundation of scientific theories and the reaction to the concept of ID. I find that Lewontin's statement is correct on that basis, not on the basis of who Lewontin is or whom he is or is not speaking for.
"Either that, or you're wanting to draw conclusions about science based on what could very we be nothing more than the self-absorbed musings of an over inflated ego assuming that all scientists must be just like him."
This argument would represent the fallacy of the false dilemma combined with the fallacy of appeal to authority. Whenever I see multiple fallacies being combined into an 'argument', I know that there is no objective basis to the statement. It's just rhetoric.
Then the statement can only be correct with regard to the scientists that Lewinton does speak for, and for all we know that is only himself. There's no evidence he's qualified to speak for anyone else.
He could be the only scientist with this a priori committment to philosophical naturalism, and the rejection of ID by other scientists due to issues involving methodological naturalism.
You can submit that Lewinton rejects it because of this, but you have no factual basis to submit that anyone else does. Examination of the actual metaphysical beliefs of all scientsts shows the common belief that Lewontin claims is simply not there.
No, that would be the fallacy of appeal to popular opinion. Whether others agree with a statement or not has no bearing on its accuracy.
"He could be the only scientist with this a priori committment to philosophical naturalism, and the rejection of ID by other scientists due to issues involving methodological naturalism."
Were that true, then we would not see science presenting "the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories". Since we do see those things, the argument is not based on an appeal to authority but an examination of the evidence.
Were the strict requirements of methodological naturalism applied to the 'Big Bang', 'abiogenesis' and 'evolution' they would fail due to their foundation in philosophical naturalism. Since they do not, methodological naturalism is not their foundation. It is the fallacy of equivocation and a non sequitur to assume that the existence of natural physical laws means that philosophical naturalism is reality.
"You can submit that Lewinton rejects it because of this, but you have no factual basis to submit that anyone else does. Examination of the actual metaphysical beliefs of all scientsts shows the common belief that Lewontin claims is simply not there."
Again, appealing to the 'beliefs of all scientists' is the fallacy of appeal to popularity and is still irrelevant.
It does if that statement submits that it expresses the opinions of others. You can't claim to know what other's opinions are, and then claim their opinions have no bearing on the accuracy of the statement.
Were that true, then we would not see science presenting "the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories". Since we do see those things, the argument is not based on an appeal to authority but an examination of the evidence.
Your quote is an appeal to the authority of the author.
Again, appealing to the 'beliefs of all scientists' is the fallacy of appeal to popularity and is still irrelevant.
And again, I'm not the one appealing to the "beliefs of all scientists". You are doing that by submitting that the "we" in Lewinton's comments is all scientists and implicitly asserting he is qualified to speak for them by basing your claims on his statements.
“Spanish spelling would be ‘evolución’, with the ‘c’ pronounced like ‘th’ in ‘moth’.”
That is what Behe says. God must be dead since we haven't seen anything of him for the last few hundred million years.
Looking at the evidence of the theories of science shows that the statement is correct. Trying to find exceptions and then claim that the general statement is invalid is the converse fallacy of accident.
"Your quote is an appeal to the authority of the author."
It's not my quote, it's Lewontin's quote. One must only look at the evidence to see the validity of the quote.
"And again, I'm not the one appealing to the "beliefs of all scientists". You are doing that by submitting that the "we" in Lewinton's comments is all scientists and implicitly asserting he is qualified to speak for them by basing your claims on his statements."
Nope, I can look at Lewontin's quote and compare what he said to what I see in the 'theories' of science. When I do that I see philosophically-naturalistic theories without exception. This tells me that Lewontin's quote is accurate, not that Lewontin said it.
Your argument assumes that rejection of ID can only be due to an a priori committment to metaphysical naturalism (IOW the person must be an atheist).
Examination of the evidence of the scientist's actual beliefs shows that theory being rejected even where that committment is not evident, and can be explicitly show to be absent.
If this is how ID theory works, I wouldn't let it anywhere near a classroom. If you have to start telling lies about what other people's religious beliefs are, leave science and your twisted version of "reason" out of it and just make the accusations to their faces directly, where your nose is within arm's reach.
It is a non sequitur that a person committed to philosophical naturalism in the creation of 'scientific' theories must also be an atheist. It is simply a rule of the game.
It is also a continuation of the converse fallacy of accident along with the fallacy of appeal to popular opinion to argue that the personal opinion of any number of scientists has any relevance to the issue.
The only issue is whether science generates any theories that are not based on philosophical naturalism. There are none and Lweontin's admission is accurate.
You're arguing there is personal, a priori committment to philosophical naturalism, above and beyond simply what is required for scientific work. Philosophical naturalism denies the existence of supernatural forces or beings. That is what Lewontin describes, and what you are attribute to all scientists, even in their private lives outside the lab, just like Lewinton.
The only issue is whether science generates any theories that are not based on philosophical naturalism.
It is to you, and that's why you have to reject all the evidence that doesn't support Lewinton's assertions that all scientists share his committment to that philosophy. You are apparently going to be Lewontin's conterpart in this. If he's determined not to let a divine foot in the door, then you're going to be determined to force it there.
Nice try, but the commitment doesn't have to be personal in every single case for the statement to hold true. Arguing that finding exceptions who conform to the rule but supposedly do not conform to the philosophical requirement doesn't change the outcome. That is the converse fallacy of accident. We see philosophical naturalism in every single origins theory proposed by 'science' without exception. It is the outcome that proves the rule.
"It is to you, and that's why you have to reject all the evidence that doesn't support Lewinton's assertions that all scientists share his committment to that philosophy."
There is no evidence that doesn't support Lewontin's statement. This is why you focus on the individual beliefs as though finding an exception invalidates the fact that all origins theories are philosophically natural. It does not. All origins theories are philosophically natural and Lewontin's statement is confirmed by that evidence.
"You are apparently going to be Lewontin's conterpart in this. If he's determined not to let a divine foot in the door, then you're going to be determined to force it there."
I am not forcing any divine foot into any door. I merely point out that the 'theories' of science are, without exception, based on philosophical naturalism. That point stands on it's own and your move toward the fallacy of appeal to consequences of a belief is just that, another fallacy.
We see methodological naturalism. You imagine philosophical naturalism by erroneously extrapoltating Lewonton's personal philosophy to all scientists.
Once again, it is the fallacy of composition and a non sequitur to conclude that the existence of natural physical laws means that philosophical naturalism is reality.
Meaningless drivel. Theories based on supernatural causes are incompatible with both methodological and philosphical naturalism. You're simply trying to attribute any rejection of those theories exclusively to philosophical naturalism to get around the problems with trying to reconcile them with methodological naturalism and the scientific method. It isn't working, and it isn't going to work.
You believe that identifying fallacies and non sequiturs in your thinking and arguments is 'meaningless drivel'. In fact, it is the very source of the problem.
"Theories based on supernatural causes are incompatible with both methodological and philosphical naturalism."
No, origins theories based on supernatural causes are merely in direct opposition to theories based on philosophical naturalism. They are just as consistent as those based on philosophical naturalism, merely opposite.
"You're simply trying to attribute any rejection of those theories exclusively to philosophical naturalism to get around the problems with trying to reconcile them with methodological naturalism and the scientific method. It isn't working, and it isn't going to work."
You're simply insisting that the fallacy of composition and the non sequitur of assuming philosophical naturalism is a logical foundation for assuming that foundation as the basis for origins theories. It isn't working, and it isn't going to work.
You litany of complaints about logical fallacies isn’t covering up your refusal to address methodological naturalism.
I have said many times that the existence of natural physical laws (methodological naturalism) does not translate into philosophical naturalism except as the fallacy of composition and non sequitur.
If it does not translate to philosophilosophical naturalism, then rejection of supernatural explanations does not require philosophical naturalism.
The 'a priori' adoption of philosophical naturalism for origins theories is simply a reality of 'science'. There is no logical requirement that it be so. It simply is. You are moving back toward the converse fallacy of accident again.
But you have already said that you consider identifying fallacies and non sequiturs in your thinking as 'meaningless drivel', so it's not surprising that you would fall back into it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.