Atheist Elite College.

Morbert

Mark Hamill wrote: »

But cant scientists study any phenomenon?

How would scientists study a burning bush that spoke?

robindch

Morbert wrote: »

How would scientists study a burning bush that spoke?

Thermometer + microphone?

raah!

recedite wrote: »

Surely you mean "this is a case where someone believes science can provide answers in an area which most people believe it cannot".

When Galileo the Heretic supported the idea that the earth revolved around the sun, he was messing about in an area (celestial matters and the heavens) that had traditionally been the preserve of religionists. So by your criteria, was he an advocate of scientism, or just a pioneering scientist?

We still haven't found an example of anyone matching the earlier definition of scientism, ie one who says science can answer every question.

You're being awfully pedantic. It doesn't really matter, it wouldn't make the word an invalid description. We can use "scientistic" to describe people who over extend the boundaries of science. Yes different people have different conceptions on what the boundaries of science are, but when the word is used by the likes of popper it means something else. You can read the wikipedia page, but it really doesn't matter. I have no great affintity for the term. All that matters is that the arguments of Dawkins and Harris are not generalyl scientific. They think they are scientific (scientistically) but that is because they are wrong.

An example of this is Sam Harris , when he says "science can determine human values". Since hume it's been generally accepted that it can't. Hume's gap.

But as I said, all that matters is that his arguments about what is within the remit of science are not scientific arguments. You can choose whatever word you want, but when people say things like "I make statements that can be verified scientifically" they are being 'scientistic', likewise when someone says 'science is the only way to attain knowledge', then they are generally being scientistic, if what they are espousing is some philosophical position.

And it's not like the meaning of the term "scientistic" is restricted to that
off the cuff definition. And even if it was, that doesn't mean that we wouldn't be able to use the term scientistic to describe arguments of people who are not them selves proponents of scientism. (If it were this well defined ideology, which it's not)

Anyway, I don't think I want to waste anymore time on this childish point scoring, nor do I want to stay any longer in a thread where Galileo is compared with Sam 'circular' Harris.

Morbert

robindch wrote: »

Thermometer + microphone?

That will indeed confirm that it is a burning bush and that it is speaking. It would not, however, establish a natural explanation.

Mark Hamill

Morbert wrote: »

How would scientists study a burning bush that spoke?

Like anything else, gather evidence and make observations. Someone said they saw a burning bush and it spoke? Are there any ashes or burnt twigs, is there any possibility of the voice coming from a different source than the bush (a microphone on or near it, a person throwing their voice), is the witness mentally sound or honest etc. There may not be a natural explanation, but I dont see why you cant, at least, approach and examine the situation as if there is one.

RussellTuring

Morbert wrote: »

That will indeed confirm that it is a burning bush and that it is speaking. It would not, however, establish a natural explanation.

Are you approaching this on the assumption that burning bushes actually can speak?

Turtwig

Jesus Lads at least make a video recording of the bush actually burning and talking.

recedite

Its always a good idea to check for suspicious persons inside any parked vans, particularly those with blacked out windows, that may be in the vicinity of the talking bush.

Morbert

RussellTuring wrote: »

Are you approaching this on the assumption that burning bushes actually can speak?

Yes

Morbert

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Like anything else, gather evidence and make observations. Someone said they saw a burning bush and it spoke? Are there any ashes or burnt twigs, is there any possibility of the voice coming from a different source than the bush (a microphone on or near it, a person throwing their voice), is the witness mentally sound or honest etc. There may not be a natural explanation, but I dont see why you cant, at least, approach and examine the situation as if there is one.

Then let's change the scenario a little bit to illustrate my point. How would scientists analyse a burning bush that only spoke thousands of years ago?

recedite

Morbert wrote: »

How would scientists analyse a burning bush that only spoke thousands of years ago?

OK, in that case we are not looking at a talking bush. We are looking at a report or an allegation concerning a talking, fiery bush.
In that case we first look at the source of the story.
We find it comes via an oral tradition, (first problem is chinese whispers) from a mostly illiterate society of goatherds. The original sighting is attributed to an individual "prophet", but no witnesses present.
"Prophet" in this context could indicate someone with a direct communication channel to a deity, a conman trying to recruit followers, or it could be just a schizophrenic wandering the desert.

So, not a great source then.

Morbert

recedite wrote: »

In that case we first look at the source of the story.
We find it comes via an oral tradition, (first problem is chinese whispers) from a mostly illiterate society of goatherds. The original sighting is attributed to an individual "prophet", but no witnesses present.
"Prophet" in this context could indicate someone with a direct communication channel to a deity, a conman trying to recruit followers, or it could be just a schizophrenic wandering the desert.

So, not a great source then.

You are evaluating the historical reputability of the source. This is not the scientific method. Let's say, for any personal reason, you are convinced by the story of the burning bush. How would this impact any methodological naturalism you might subscribe to when reading science (not history) books, or carrying out scientific research?

OK, in that case we are not looking at a talking bush. We are looking at a report or an allegation concerning a talking, fiery bush.

It actually doesn't matter whether or not it occurred a thousand years ago, or in the present. It is a phenomenon that is not consistent with uniformitarianism. I just assumed it would be easier to illustrate my point if it occurred in the past.

recedite

Morbert wrote: »

Let's say, for any personal reason, you are convinced by the story of the burning bush.

I would suggest looking again at that personal revelation. What other explanations could there be? Any other peculiar voices being heard?

It actually doesn't matter whether or not it occurred a thousand years ago, or in the present.

It does yeah, we could examine the bush or its ashes. Interview the prophet to get an idea of his mental state and/or motives.
If everything checked out, the story gains credence, but its still difficult to prove if its a once off trick with no independent witnesses.

Mark Hamill

Morbert wrote: »

Yes

Then you are approaching wrong. A scientist starts from the null hypothesis and then analyses the evidence, you cant start with the assumption that a burning spoke, and then try to prove it, you test if there was a bush at all, if it was ever on fire and if it was capable of speaking.

Mark Hamill

Morbert wrote: »

You are evaluating the historical reputability of the source. This is not the scientific method.

Error analysis is not part of the scientific method?

Morbert wrote: »

Let's say, for any personal reason, you are convinced by the story of the burning bush. How would this impact any methodological naturalism you might subscribe to when reading science (not history) books, or carrying out scientific research?

It shouldn't, regardless of how much you are impacted by the story and how much you want it to be true. To be scientific in its analysis, you must be impartial and you must provide reproducible evidence.

Morbert wrote: »

It actually doesn't matter whether or not it occurred a thousand years ago, or in the present. It is a phenomenon that is not consistent with uniformitarianism. I just assumed it would be easier to illustrate my point if it occurred in the past.

It is only not consistent with uniformitarianism if you start with the assumption that the bush actually spoke and starting with the assumption that the claim is true (and then trying to prove it wrong) is not scientific at all.

Morbert

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Then you are approaching wrong. A scientist starts from the null hypothesis and then analyses the evidence, you cant start with the assumption that a burning spoke, and then try to prove it, you test if there was a bush at all, if it was ever on fire and if it was capable of speaking.

You did not ask if I assumed the burning bush spoke. You asked if I assumed "burning bushes actually can speak" i.e. it is logically possible that a supernatural event like a speaking bush can occur.

Error analysis is not part of the scientific method?

Error analysis is part of the scientific method. What I said was "You are evaluating the historical reputability of the source. This is not the scientific method."

It shouldn't, regardless of how much you are impacted by the story and how much you want it to be true. To be scientific in its analysis, you must be impartial and you must provide reproducible evidence.

So even if you believe the story of a burning bush, it shouldn't affect any methodological naturalism. This is what I was saying: Someone can believe in the story of a burning bush, or the resurrection of Jesus, but still be impartial/adopt methodological naturalism when either practising science, or learning about scientific theories or facts.

It is only not consistent with uniformitarianism if you start with the assumption that the bush actually spoke and starting with the assumption that the claim is true (and then trying to prove it wrong) is not scientific at all.

You only need to relax the assumptions of metaphysical naturalism (specifically, the assumption that it is impossible for a supernatural being to speak through a burning bush). You don't have to assume the bush actually spoke to understand the difficulty of investigating the claim with the scientific method.

recedite wrote:

but its still difficult to prove if its a once off trick with no independent witnesses.

Exactly. A once-off event like that, especially one that seems to be entirely decoupled from natural laws, does not lend itself to scientific investigation.

recedite

Morbert wrote: »

A once-off event like that, especially one that seems to be entirely decoupled from natural laws, does not lend itself to scientific investigation.

Lets say a massive bearded face appeared in the sky over Manhattan, introduced himself as a god, and starts shouting abuse at the unbelievers down below. Then various believers start shooting rapturously skyward.
That would be difficult to explain scientifically, but it would be easily verifiable.

But a needy nomad who says a bush went on fire and spoke to him, when nobody else was looking? Come off it

Morbert

recedite wrote: »

Lets say a massive bearded face appeared in the sky over Manhattan, introduced himself as a god, and starts shouting abuse at the unbelievers down below. Then various believers start shooting rapturously skyward.
That would be difficult to explain scientifically, but it would be easily verifiable.

But a needy nomad who says a bush went on fire and spoke to him, when nobody else was looking? Come off it

I am not arguing for or against the plausibility of the situation. I am arguing that the methodological naturalism of science does not make metaphysical claims about the existence of the supernatural.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=72782782&postcount=188

Mark Hamill

Morbert wrote: »

You did not ask if I assumed the burning bush spoke. You asked if I assumed "burning bushes actually can speak" i.e. it is logically possible that a supernatural event like a speaking bush can occur.

This only changes my point to "...., you cant start with the assumption that a burning bush could speak...", but the rest is the same, scientifically, you dont start from the assumption that a burning bush could speak, you start from the preposition "someone has claimed that a burning bush spoke" and examine the evidence as impartially as possible.

Morbert wrote: »

Error analysis is part of the scientific method. What I said was "You are evaluating the historical reputability of the source. This is not the scientific method."

Evaluating the historical reputability of a source is error analysis. You take account of witness bias (how much would a person in thsi time know about various natural phenomena that could make it seem like a bush was talking etc) and determine the value of each piece of evidence. It is very hard to get much definitive out of it (the older the event, the less evidence there is to examine and the more assumptions you have to make), but you can still do it. It makes very old events hard to investigate, but I've yet to hear of a better alternative.

Morbert wrote: »

So even if you believe the story of a burning bush, it shouldn't affect any methodological naturalism. This is what I was saying: Someone can believe in the story of a burning bush, or the resurrection of Jesus, but still be impartial/adopt methodological naturalism when either practising science, or learning about scientific theories or facts.

I never said someone couldn't belief something like that and still be impartial when practicing science. I said that they would be hypocrites for doing so, because they are applying the science when it suits them, which is not scientific.

Morbert wrote: »

You only need to relax the assumptions of metaphysical naturalism (specifically, the assumption that it is impossible for a supernatural being to speak through a burning bush). You don't have to assume the bush actually spoke to understand the difficulty of investigating the claim with the scientific method.

If you relax that assumption then you aren't being honest in the investigation with the scientific method. Either supernatural things can happen or they cant, you cant have a little bit of a supernatural thing happen when it suits you.

Morbert wrote: »

Exactly. A once-off event like that, especially one that seems to be entirely decoupled from natural laws, does not lend itself to scientific investigation.

It doesn't lend itself to any investigation, but that doesn't mean that it cant be investigated.

Mark Hamill

Morbert wrote: »

I am arguing that the methodological naturalism of science does not make metaphysical claims about the existence of the supernatural.

But it does. When examining something scientifically, you always ignore supernatural hypotheses and examine and test natural ones. You can call it an assumption rather than a claim, but I fail to see how it doesn't amount to the same thing.

RussellTuring

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Then you are approaching wrong. A scientist starts from the null hypothesis and then analyses the evidence, you cant start with the assumption that a burning spoke, and then try to prove it, you test if there was a bush at all, if it was ever on fire and if it was capable of speaking.

This is more or less what I was going to say.

Morbert wrote: »

You did not ask if I assumed the burning bush spoke. You asked if I assumed "burning bushes actually can speak" i.e. it is logically possible that a supernatural event like a speaking bush can occur..

Actually it was I who asked this. If you are investigating whether or not it was possible for a burning bush to have spoken and you already assume that it is, then you are not investigating it in a scientific manner. It is possible for many events to have happened but we use science to find out if it is at all probable that they have.

You only need to relax the assumptions of metaphysical naturalism (specifically, the assumption that it is impossible for a supernatural being to speak through a burning bush). You don't have to assume the bush actually spoke to understand the difficulty of investigating the claim with the scientific method.

As far as we know it's highly unlikely but if the evidence points to the contrary, we would have to reevaluate our current knowledge. If you're going into this thinking you already know the answer and not entirely willing to have your mind changed to align with the evidence, there's not much point in investigating since you're really not looking to find the truth.

Exactly. A once-off event like that, especially one that seems to be entirely decoupled from natural laws, does not lend itself to scientific investigation.

Rather, it doesn't lend itself to being found probable. However, if it is the explanation with the most support then what can we do besides accept it for now? If there are more credible explanations, why would we believe it?

Morbert

Mark Hamill wrote: »

This only changes my point to "...., you cant start with the assumption that a burning bush could speak...", but the rest is the same, scientifically, you dont start from the assumption that a burning bush could speak, you start from the preposition "someone has claimed that a burning bush spoke" and examine the evidence as impartially as possible.

And as I said before, someone is not being scientific when they believe a story about a burning bush, but that doesn't mean they aren't scientific when the look at data about phenomena that, unlike the burning bush, can be understood with scientific investigation.

Evaluating the historical reputability of a source is error analysis. You take account of witness bias (how much would a person in thsi time know about various natural phenomena that could make it seem like a bush was talking etc) and determine the value of each piece of evidence. It is very hard to get much definitive out of it (the older the event, the less evidence there is to examine and the more assumptions you have to make), but you can still do it. It makes very old events hard to investigate, but I've yet to hear of a better alternative.

I am not arguing for a better alternative. I am providing an example of a hypothetical phenomenon that could not be understood scientifically.

I never said someone couldn't belief something like that and still be impartial when practicing science. I said that they would be hypocrites for doing so, because they are applying the science when it suits them, which is not scientific.

Hypocracy isn't the word you're looking for, but anyway: It's simply a case of a burning bush being an unscientific belief, but reputable theories of the behaviour of nature being scientific. They would only be inconsistent if they claimed all beliefs must be scientifically established, and also believed in a burning bush.

If you relax that assumption then you aren't being honest in the investigation with the scientific method. Either supernatural things can happen or they cant, you cant have a little bit of a supernatural thing happen when it suits you.

You're not performing a scientific investigation on the bush at all. I am saying a scientific investigation is impossible.

It doesn't lend itself to any investigation, but that doesn't mean that it cant be investigated.

How can it be investigated? So far we have had suggestions like a thermometer and microphone, and an analysis of ashes, which would be able to verify that it is a bush and it burned. But there is no test we could do to determine whether or not the burning, talking bush was independent from the laws of nature.

When examining something scientifically, you always ignore supernatural hypotheses and examine and test natural ones. You can call it an assumption rather than a claim, but I fail to see how it doesn't amount to the same thing.

I have never claimed otherwise. You have just described methodological naturalism. I.e. You ignore supernatural hypotheses and examine and test natural ones, but do not have to make any metaphysical claims about the possible existence of the supernatural.

recedite

Morbert wrote: »

I am not arguing for or against the plausibility of the situation. I am arguing that the methodological naturalism of science does not make metaphysical claims about the existence of the supernatural.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=72782782&postcount=188

If the event were happening in modern times, in a public place, science could verify the event. Speech and fire are natural and measurable. We could look for and eliminate the possibility that someone was operating the bush remotely from a nearby van.
Following all that, if the phenomenon was verified, science in its current state of sophistication might not be able to make a metaphysical claim that it was/was not the voice of a god. That seems to be your point. But the bible with the actual burning bush story is a long way from this scenario.

Morbert

recedite wrote: »

If the event were happening in modern times, in a public place, science could verify the event. Speech and fire are natural and measurable. We could look for and eliminate the possibility that someone was operating the bush remotely from a nearby van.
Following all that, if the phenomenon was verified, science in its current state of sophistication might not be able to make a metaphysical claim that it was/was not the voice of a god. That seems to be your point. But the bible with the actual burning bush story is a long way from this scenario.

For the point I am making, either a burning bush or a voice from the sky are both suitable examples.

recedite

Well then, don't forget to come back and tell us when you find one.

Mark Hamill

Morbert wrote: »

And as I said before, someone is not being scientific when they believe a story about a burning bush, but that doesn't mean they aren't scientific when the look at data about phenomena that, unlike the burning bush, can be understood with scientific investigation.

You are still approaching event from the point of view that something supernatural actually happened and therefore its impossible to scientifically examine it. All phenomena, regardless of whether they turn out to be supernatural or not, can be approached scientifically. It may turn out that the phenomena is supernatural and therefore science is not going to be much help, but you cant start from the assumption that its supernatural and therefore science is not going to be any help, that would be hypocritical.

Morbert wrote: »

I am not arguing for a better alternative. I am providing an example of a hypothetical phenomenon that could not be understood scientifically.

But you dont know that it couldn't be understood scientifically, until you try to scientifically test it. And while it may turn out to be ultimately untestable, given humanities track record of assigning supernatural explanations to things that later turn out to be naturalistic (lightning, volcanoes etc), it would be rather silly to assume that any unexamined event is untestable (obscured by history or not).

Morbert wrote: »

They would only be inconsistent if they claimed all beliefs must be scientifically established, and also believed in a burning bush.

Is that not what they are doing? (Maybe its closer to claiming all beliefs must be scientifically established, except a burning bush?)

Morbert wrote: »

You're not performing a scientific investigation on the bush at all. I am saying a scientific investigation is impossible.

Things that are entirely impossible to scientifically investigate tend to be pretty much indistinguishable from not existing.

Morbert wrote: »

How can it be investigated? So far we have had suggestions like a thermometer and microphone, and an analysis of ashes, which would be able to verify that it is a bush and it burned. But there is no test we could do to determine whether or not the burning, talking bush was independent from the laws of nature.

You can try to recreate the conditions, determine the possibility that the witness was mistaken (crazy or lied or fooled by someone). Even if after all that, you are get no real result, you cant go making up whatever explanations suits your own ego, as you cant be sure that some evidence wont arrive in the future that gives more insight. When asked "where do we think the universe comes from?" on thsi forum, most atheists will say " we dont know" because that is the honest scientific answer, we dont have enough data to make an fully informed conclusion, but we also dont just insert whatever magical being we feel like it, because god of the gaps arguments are unscientific.

Morbert wrote: »

I have never claimed otherwise. You have just described methodological naturalism. I.e. You ignore supernatural hypotheses and examine and test natural ones, but do not have to make any metaphysical claims about the possible existence of the supernatural.

By assuming that supernatural entities dont exist and never allowing for the possibility, you are making a claim. Implicitly, but still a claim.

Morbert

Mark Hamill wrote: »

You are still approaching event from the point of view that something supernatural actually happened and therefore its impossible to scientifically examine it. All phenomena, regardless of whether they turn out to be supernatural or not, can be approached scientifically. It may turn out that the phenomena is supernatural and therefore science is not going to be much help, but you cant start from the assumption that its supernatural and therefore science is not going to be any help, that would be hypocritical.

But you dont know that it couldn't be understood scientifically, until you try to scientifically test it. And while it may turn out to be ultimately untestable, given humanities track record of assigning supernatural explanations to things that later turn out to be naturalistic (lightning, volcanoes etc), it would be rather silly to assume that any unexamined event is untestable (obscured by history or not).

It is not an assumption that the unexamined event is untestable. It is simply the case. As we have seen already, the best we could do is interview witnesses, or catch the event if we are lucky enough to have the equipment at the time.

Is that not what they are doing? (Maybe its closer to claiming all beliefs must be scientifically established, except a burning bush?)

They are claiming that, if a belief is to be scientifically established, it must be affirmed by the scientific method. So long as they accept that their belief in a burning bush is unscientific, there is no issue.

Things that are entirely impossible to scientifically investigate tend to be pretty much indistinguishable from not existing.

You can try to recreate the conditions, determine the possibility that the witness was mistaken (crazy or lied or fooled by someone).

And when all this has been done, and no "man behind the curtain" is ever found, we still can't conclude it is impossible for the event to have occured.

Even if after all that, you are get no real result, you cant go making up whatever explanations suits your own ego, as you cant be sure that some evidence wont arrive in the future that gives more insight. When asked "where do we think the universe comes from?" on thsi forum, most atheists will say " we dont know" because that is the honest scientific answer, we dont have enough data to make an fully informed conclusion, but we also dont just insert whatever magical being we feel like it, because god of the gaps arguments are unscientific.

I am not advocating any God-of-the-gaps theology. Many theists consider such arguments to be weak at best. But the burning-bush case is not God-of-the-gaps.

By assuming that supernatural entities dont exist and never allowing for the possibility, you are making a claim. Implicitly, but still a claim.

Which is why methodological naturalism is not the assumption that supernatural entities don't exist. Methodological naturalism merely means you apply a methodology to investigate a phenomenon as if it has a natural explanation.

Morbert

recedite wrote: »

Well then, don't forget to come back and tell us when you find one.

I don't believe any burning bush ever spoke. Also, I am a materialist.

recedite

Morbert wrote: »

I don't believe any burning bush ever spoke. Also, I am a materialist.

I half suspected that. But you seem to have a lot of tolerance for the burning bush story. Would you have equal respect for leprechauns, unicorns and flying spaghetti monsters? IMO the fact that none of these can be scientifically investigated is because they can't be found; it's not because of some philosophical line of demarcation between materialism and the supernatural.

Morbert

recedite wrote: »

I half suspected that. But you seem to have a lot of tolerance for the burning bush story. Would you have equal respect for leprechauns, unicorns and flying spaghetti monsters? IMO the fact that none of these can be scientifically investigated is because they can't be found; it's not because of some philosophical line of demarcation between materialism and the supernatural.

I also agree that it is because they can't be found. But this does not mean I am ok with the idea that scientism and science are the same thing.