Author Topic: Naturalism as a means of establishing reality  (Read 3130 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Hatter23

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3880
  • Darwins +257/-7
  • Gender: Male
  • Doesn't believe in one more god than you
Re: Naturalism as a means of establishing reality
« Reply #116 on: January 08, 2014, 08:25:39 AM »
If a person comes up with a reasonable argument, if the receiver refuses to listen to reason...it is still a reasonable argument...but not as far as the receiver is concerned. And that is what is happening here.
Ok, I'm listening.  What is the reasonable argument for naturalism?
Nothing you can accept.
I see.

This sounds exactly like what Christians say about our arguments falling on deaf ears and hardened hearts.... lol and then followed by the perfect dodge and on all the threads it could be on... Praise the Lord Mooby... hahaha

Because the concept of "when you drop something, it falls" or the countless basic tenets of reality you encounter on a daily basis is the same as theres an invisible omnipotent being that cares what you do &)
An Omnipowerful God needed to sacrifice himself to himself (but only for a long weekend) in order to avert his own wrath against his own creations who he made in a manner knowing that they weren't going to live up to his standards.

And you should feel guilty for this. Give me money.

Offline Angus and Alexis

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1487
  • Darwins +71/-24
  • Gender: Male
  • Residential Tulpamancer.
Re: Naturalism as a means of establishing reality
« Reply #117 on: January 08, 2014, 08:34:28 AM »
If God will allow Jesus to suffer, He can allow anyone to suffer no questions asked.

So god IS abusive?

K.

Who expects power? That is the opposite of being humble. Wanting power is demonic in origin. Certainly no Christian wants or needs power.

Oh really?
*points to Hitler, the British[1] and the Americans[2]*
 1. Not so much now...
 2. Even today...
Rule 1: No pooftas. Rule 2: No maltreating the theists, IF, anyone is watching. Rule 3: No pooftas. Rule 4: I do not want to see anyone NOT drinking after light out. Rule 5: No pooftas. Rule 6: There is NO...rule 6.

Offline Hatter23

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3880
  • Darwins +257/-7
  • Gender: Male
  • Doesn't believe in one more god than you
Re: Naturalism as a means of establishing reality
« Reply #118 on: January 08, 2014, 08:41:41 AM »
Naturalism is the basic concept that things happen, based on observation, without the need for supernatural entities there is no evidence for.

And its foundation is the kind of observation that starts with the foundation at levels of "if you drop something it falls" I.e. the level of observation that even the lowest of animals operate on, is the basic foundation.

It is absolutely consistent. Observation is evidence. Things seem to operate without outside unseen agency. When someone comes up with a supernatural explanation as an outside unseen agency, when science advances to a point that it can be falsified, it is always falsified.

All of this philowank(alternate epistemologies &)), disingenuous snipping, smoke, mirrors, insults, questioning the foundation of how everyone interacts with reality at the most rudimentary animal level, and so forth are just an attempt to create a gap large enough for their favored supernatural entity or explanation to fit in, be it ghosts, faeries, or one or more deities.



 
« Last Edit: January 08, 2014, 10:00:25 AM by Hatter23 »
An Omnipowerful God needed to sacrifice himself to himself (but only for a long weekend) in order to avert his own wrath against his own creations who he made in a manner knowing that they weren't going to live up to his standards.

And you should feel guilty for this. Give me money.

Online jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4849
  • Darwins +558/-17
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Naturalism as a means of establishing reality
« Reply #119 on: January 08, 2014, 09:13:24 AM »
I'd go one simpler, Hatter.  Naturalism is the concept that things happen, which we acquire through observation.  However, it's also what leads directly to god-belief, because at the level of instinct, we're wired to look for an active cause, rather than a passive one.  For example, if a rock comes flying out of the sky, the natural question most people instinctively pose is "who threw that?", because we know that rocks don't move on their own, and we also know that we can pick up and throw rocks.  It's not much of a step - for someone who doesn't know any better, anyway - to assume that an entity threw the rock.

Offline Angus and Alexis

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1487
  • Darwins +71/-24
  • Gender: Male
  • Residential Tulpamancer.
Re: Naturalism as a means of establishing reality
« Reply #120 on: January 08, 2014, 09:19:01 AM »
For example, if a rock comes flying out of the sky, the natural question most people instinctively pose is "who threw that?", because we know that rocks don't move on their own, and we also know that we can pick up and throw rocks.

Nitpick mode activate.

Gravity could cause a rock to "move", or alternatively, not a "who", but a "what" could throw it, robot/device. ;D
Rule 1: No pooftas. Rule 2: No maltreating the theists, IF, anyone is watching. Rule 3: No pooftas. Rule 4: I do not want to see anyone NOT drinking after light out. Rule 5: No pooftas. Rule 6: There is NO...rule 6.

Online jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4849
  • Darwins +558/-17
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Naturalism as a means of establishing reality
« Reply #121 on: January 08, 2014, 10:25:09 AM »
Nitpick mode activate.
I don't particularly like being nitpicked, because I used to do it and realized out just how annoying it was.

Quote from: Angus and Alexis
Gravity could cause a rock to "move", or alternatively, not a "who", but a "what" could throw it, robot/device. ;D
So when you see a rock land next to you, the first thought through your head is "what robot or device flung that at me?"  Really?

And while gravity causes things to fall, it doesn't cause them to go flying through the air to begin with.

Also, nitpick fail.

Offline Angus and Alexis

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1487
  • Darwins +71/-24
  • Gender: Male
  • Residential Tulpamancer.
Re: Naturalism as a means of establishing reality
« Reply #122 on: January 08, 2014, 10:33:52 AM »
So when you see a rock land next to you, the first thought through your head is "what robot or device flung that at me?"  Really?

Sure? Why not? ;D
Then again, in Australia, a rock falling indicates a cliff collapsing, or a pissed off drunk.

And while gravity causes things to fall, it doesn't cause them to go flying through the air to begin with.

If a rock slid off a cliff made of glass covered in oil it could... (Okay, just pulling your leg.)

Rule 1: No pooftas. Rule 2: No maltreating the theists, IF, anyone is watching. Rule 3: No pooftas. Rule 4: I do not want to see anyone NOT drinking after light out. Rule 5: No pooftas. Rule 6: There is NO...rule 6.

Offline Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12239
  • Darwins +269/-31
  • Gender: Male
Re: Naturalism as a means of establishing reality
« Reply #123 on: January 08, 2014, 10:34:54 AM »
Jaime was referring to the usual human assumptions, not to the entire realm of possibility.  Your nitpick ignores his point, and is meaningless in the context of his point.
The highest moral human authority is copied by our Gandhi neurons through observation.

Offline Angus and Alexis

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1487
  • Darwins +71/-24
  • Gender: Male
  • Residential Tulpamancer.
Re: Naturalism as a means of establishing reality
« Reply #124 on: January 08, 2014, 10:47:27 AM »
My apologies then...

Rule 1: No pooftas. Rule 2: No maltreating the theists, IF, anyone is watching. Rule 3: No pooftas. Rule 4: I do not want to see anyone NOT drinking after light out. Rule 5: No pooftas. Rule 6: There is NO...rule 6.

Online Boots

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1284
  • Darwins +95/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Living the Dream
Re: Naturalism as a means of establishing reality
« Reply #125 on: January 08, 2014, 02:50:53 PM »

What kind of parent would someone be if they never punished drowned their children when they did something wrong?

When a parent sets a curfew for drowns the child, the child thinks the parent is treating them unfairly and like a baby is dead. The irony is that if the parent gave did not drown the child no curfew , the child would think the parent loves them even though "no curfew" "no drowning" would indicate a lack of love and care for the child.

bad analogy fixed
* Religion: institutionalized superstition, period.

"Many of my ultra-conservative Republican friends...have trouble accepting the idea God is not a Republican. " ~OldChurchGuy

"We humans may never figure out the truth, but I prefer trying to find it over pretending we know it."  ~ParkingPlaces

Offline Hatter23

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3880
  • Darwins +257/-7
  • Gender: Male
  • Doesn't believe in one more god than you
Re: Naturalism as a means of establishing reality
« Reply #126 on: January 08, 2014, 03:15:32 PM »

What kind of parent would someone be if they never punished drowned their children when they did something wrong?

When a parent sets a curfew for drowns the child, the child thinks the parent is treating them unfairly and like a baby is dead. The irony is that if the parent gave did not drown the child no curfew , the child would think the parent loves them even though "no curfew" "no drowning" would indicate a lack of love and care for the child.

bad analogy fixed

That does fix the bad analogy. The whole BS about prison or child being corrected...makes no sense when you add in the elements said punishment is permanent and unseen.
An Omnipowerful God needed to sacrifice himself to himself (but only for a long weekend) in order to avert his own wrath against his own creations who he made in a manner knowing that they weren't going to live up to his standards.

And you should feel guilty for this. Give me money.

Offline SevenPatch

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 703
  • Darwins +108/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • A source will help me understand.
Re: Naturalism as a means of establishing reality
« Reply #127 on: January 08, 2014, 04:46:59 PM »
Just so we are clear, I was saying that your example incorrectly uses observation.  My next quotes explain how observation can properly be used.
In which way was my highly hypothetical example improper?

Again, so we are clear, I understand that your example was hypothetical.  I’m not sure why you have chosen to describe your hypothetical example as “highly hypothetical”.

By itself, your hypothetical example proves your point wonderfully.  That observation can provide an invalid view of reality.  You and I as well as the Three Stooges could be wrong about our observations although they might be consistent.  Or if you or I are insane, we could potentially observe what we want to observe and believe that the Three Stooges are telling us we’re starting a camp fire when instead they are warning us that we are actually setting ourselves on fire.

In a sense, your hypothetical example is taking observation at face value.  I’ve already acknowledged that doing this can reveal observation to be invalid.

Obviously observation by itself may or may not be valid based on the observer. 

This method of using observation cannot be the foundation for naturalism.  So as I said:

In a sense you are setting up a strawman.

You provide a method of using observation which cannot be the foundation for naturalism in order to defeat the idea that observation is the foundation for naturalism.  In your mind, this makes naturalism self defeating.  This is false however as the scientific method of using observation is actually the foundation for naturalism.

You first need to defeat the scientific method before you can show that naturalism is self defeating.

Ironically, if you were actually able to prove that naturalism is self defeating, you would prove that everything is, including our own thoughts and any philosophy (including your own gestalt conclusions).  How did I come to this conclusion?  With this question.

Is it possible to think without ever knowing the experience of observation?

The answer is no.

Are you saying then that crap can be consistent, verifiable, falsifiable and true (in the sense that it is true until it is not true)?
How do you define crap?
Oh, sorry.  Crap in the sense that something is not reliable, valid, or its reliability/validity are inscrutable under our current framework.

So you're saying that something is not reliable, valid, or its reliability/validity are inscrutable under our current framework can be consistent, verifiable, falsifiable and true (in the sense that it is true until it is not true)?  This is a form of solipsism.

Even if I were to assume that observation by scientific method somehow produced a model of reality that was organized crap, what proof would there be that it is indeed organized crap?
Absolutely none.  But the question here is whether naturalism is self-defeating, and members here have suggested that naturalism is not self-defeating if observation is not crap.  So we don't need proof to see that observation is crap; we need proof to show that it is valid.  If its validity is ambiguous, then naturalism has no evidence for it, which means that we cannot accept naturalism as valid per the rules of naturalism.  The onus is on the naturalist to show that naturalism is the correct world view.

I need proof that an observation which is consistent, verifiable, falsifiable and true (in the sense that it is true until it is not true) is also simultaneously not reliable, valid, or its reliability/validity are inscrutable under our current framework.  Otherwise it is just an unsupported illogical assumption.

We have proof to show that it is valid.  You’re making the unsupported illogical assumption that what is valid is also invalid without any proof.  Just because you can imagine that something which is valid might actually be invalid doesn’t make its validity ambiguous.

The onus is on you to provide proof of your claim that naturalism is self defeating.  Since you’ve already admitted that there is “absolutely none”, your claim fails.

How do other foundations exist without observation?  Thought?  This could be methodological solipsism, rationalism or idealism perhaps.
Those things you listed are not foundations; they are philosophies.  But you are semi-correct in that they don't use observation as a foundation; rather, all three of those examples use variations of the human mind/reason as their foundations.

I apologize, my second question “Thought?” was not properly expressed.  I meant to ask if thought was a foundation.  Which we agree that it is used as a foundation.  I however don’t believe that any variation of the human mind/reason or thought can be a foundation without observation.  Please see my earlier question “Is it possible to think without ever knowing the experience of observation?”.

Perhaps in response you might ask “Is it possible to experience observation without ever knowing reason or thought?”   The answer is yes.

Plants are capable of experiencing observation yet do not know reason or thought.

I believe the naturalists have shown how observation is a foundation.
Do you have any evidence for this belief?  All I've seen so far is naturalists stating that observation is true and then lampooning the person who asks how the statement they made is accurate.

The evidence is showing the correct method of observation and how it is valid or true.  Is something valid until it is no longer valid?  Is something true until it is no longer true?  If the answer to the previous two questions is yes then how is the statement they made not accurate?  If something is valid or true, then it is valid or true until it is not valid or not true.  Therefore the statement is accurate.

If you would like to show how observation is not true, be my guest.  This is how scientific method works.  The only reason observation is true is because no one has been able to show that it is not true.  This is why observation is a foundation.  No other foundation can exist without observation.


What you are doing is making an unsupported illogical assumption.
What assumption am I making?

That something which is valid is simultaneously invalid or is invalid without any proof.

EDIT: Modified two statements so they are clear and made one grammar correction.
« Last Edit: January 08, 2014, 05:16:38 PM by SevenPatch »
"Shut him up! We have a lot invested in this ride - SHUT HIM UP! Look at my furrows of worry! Look at my big bank account, and my family! This just HAS to be real!" - Bill Hicks

Offline Hatter23

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3880
  • Darwins +257/-7
  • Gender: Male
  • Doesn't believe in one more god than you
Re: Naturalism as a means of establishing reality
« Reply #128 on: January 08, 2014, 05:05:33 PM »


You provide a method of using observation which cannot be the foundation for naturalism in order to defeat the idea that observation is the foundation for naturalism.  In your mind, this makes naturalism self defeating.  This is false however as the scientific method of using observation is actually the foundation for naturalism.

You first need to defeat the scientific method before you can show that naturalism is self defeating.

Ironically, if you were actually able to prove that naturalism is self defeating, you would prove that everything is, including our own thoughts and any philosophy (including your own gestalt conclusions).  How did I come to this conclusion?  With this question.

Is it possible to think without ever knowing the experience of observation?

The answer is no.

QFT
An Omnipowerful God needed to sacrifice himself to himself (but only for a long weekend) in order to avert his own wrath against his own creations who he made in a manner knowing that they weren't going to live up to his standards.

And you should feel guilty for this. Give me money.

Offline Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12239
  • Darwins +269/-31
  • Gender: Male
Re: Naturalism as a means of establishing reality
« Reply #129 on: January 08, 2014, 05:07:35 PM »
What is observation, anyway?  Fundamentally, I mean, what is the definition being used in this thread?
The highest moral human authority is copied by our Gandhi neurons through observation.

Offline SevenPatch

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 703
  • Darwins +108/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • A source will help me understand.
Re: Naturalism as a means of establishing reality
« Reply #130 on: January 08, 2014, 05:30:50 PM »
What is observation, anyway?  Fundamentally, I mean, what is the definition being used in this thread?

I think it would be fair to say that most the accepted definitions of observation are accurate.

dictionary.reference.com uses the following definition

1. an act or instance of noticing or perceiving.
2. an act or instance of regarding attentively or watching.
3. the faculty or habit of observing or noticing.
4. notice: to escape a person's observation. 
5. an act or instance of viewing or noting a fact or occurrence for some scientific or other special purpose: the observation of blood pressure under stress.

Wikipedia also has an agreeable definition of Observation.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observation

"Observation is the active acquisition of information from a primary source. In living beings, observation employs the senses. In science, observation can also involve the recording of data via the use of instruments. The term may also refer to any data collected during this activity."

If we are indeed not discussing solipsism then we are discussing all observation, not just observation made by the self.

As Wikipedia states, observation employs the senses.  Mooby may be relying on the inaccuracy of senses to attempt to show that observation is not a valid foundation.  This is why the scientific method is used to remove inaccuracy and aid the senses so that observation can be valid.

EDIT: added text in bold.
« Last Edit: January 08, 2014, 05:45:33 PM by SevenPatch »
"Shut him up! We have a lot invested in this ride - SHUT HIM UP! Look at my furrows of worry! Look at my big bank account, and my family! This just HAS to be real!" - Bill Hicks

Offline Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12239
  • Darwins +269/-31
  • Gender: Male
Re: Naturalism as a means of establishing reality
« Reply #131 on: January 08, 2014, 05:40:37 PM »
Okay, then, if that's the case...don't all of those definitions require that there be something to observe?

Without something to observe, observation is impossible...right?
The highest moral human authority is copied by our Gandhi neurons through observation.

Offline SevenPatch

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 703
  • Darwins +108/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • A source will help me understand.
Re: Naturalism as a means of establishing reality
« Reply #132 on: January 08, 2014, 05:43:45 PM »
Azdgari, you are correct.
"Shut him up! We have a lot invested in this ride - SHUT HIM UP! Look at my furrows of worry! Look at my big bank account, and my family! This just HAS to be real!" - Bill Hicks

Offline Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12239
  • Darwins +269/-31
  • Gender: Male
Re: Naturalism as a means of establishing reality
« Reply #133 on: January 08, 2014, 07:09:18 PM »
Cool.  So then, the question should be "is observation possible" first, and folks should proceed from there.  Because an observable outside world is already established if we do that.

This isn't a "naturalism vs supernaturalism" issue, though.  I've yet to meet a supernaturalist who believes observation to be impossible in principle.
The highest moral human authority is copied by our Gandhi neurons through observation.

Offline Mooby

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1189
  • Darwins +71/-24
  • So it goes.
    • Is God Imaginary?
Re: Naturalism as a means of establishing reality
« Reply #134 on: January 08, 2014, 08:27:24 PM »
What worries me though is that what happens in the afterlife is (I presume) a binary situation, so for me at least it IS all about the destination rather than the journey, especially since that destination will apply for eternity.
Well first off I'm a Catholic so I believe in purgatory as well.  So that takes a little bit of pressure off the binary, though if you're talking with more Protestant Christians you'll definitely see the binary choice.

Personally, I think it's more about searching for truth and finding God, in whatever form He may be.  Maybe He's the God of Christianity, maybe He's Allah, maybe he's several polytheistic gods, maybe he's pantheistic, maybe you don't find God per se, but you find His peace and love through a well-formed conscience and turn towards Him without even knowing it.

Though I'm not asking you to agree with me, and if I'm wrong then I'm probably fucked.  It's ultimately up to you to figure out how much emphasis you're going to place on divine dice vs. just trying to live the best life you can and hoping for the best.

Quote
What also concerns me is that to find that god, I need to establish how I will know him when I see him - and not unluckily or unhappily accept a false god, or demon. 
As an agnostic theist, I can't give you too much help here.  I think there are many ways to see God and that you know Him by the fruits He bears, but as far as drawing a sketch for you, you'll have to find someone else.

Quote
I'm agreeing with you that naturalism may not be right, may not in fact produce correct results.  It does however produce consistent and predictable results, and (like I said) I am therefore happy to use it until a more reliable or useful system is revealed to me.
I'd argue that it's not so much naturalism as it is scientific empiricism that produces what appear to be consistent and predictable results.  You can transplant science into a philosophy that accepts the observable reality (natural) and also allows for the existence of an unobservable reality (supernatural).  Such a philosophy would still produce the consistent results of science, but would not be naturalism.

Somehow naturalists seem to make the leap from a tool's existence to a tool's supremacy: they go from "science can investigate the natural" to "the natural is all that exists" without any real justification.  There's a big difference between, "At least the natural exists" and "The natural is all that exists," yet at least the naturalists here seem to be conflating the two.

Again, it's fine if you want to accept naturalism for yourself, but I was asked why I personally found naturalism "unpalatable."  It's just not for me.  You're perfectly within your rights to continue to be a naturalist, but I'm also within my rights to not be convinced, especially if I can identify no real justification to adopt naturalism.



Naturalism is the basic concept that things happen, based on observation, without the need for supernatural entities there is no evidence for.

And its foundation is the kind of observation that starts with the foundation at levels of "if you drop something it falls" I.e. the level of observation that even the lowest of animals operate on, is the basic foundation.
The problem is that the reliability of "if you drop something it falls" is not so self-evident as to be beyond question.  You may think that it is, but were it actually self-evident it would not have been a central question of philosophy for the past 2,500 years.  If it were self-evident, we would not have philosophers such as Pyrrho, Al-Ghazali, Descartes, Hume, Nietzsche, Heidegger, or the founders of Jainism.  If it were self-evident, then several problems relating to the validity of observation would not be listed on Wiki's list of unsolved problems in philosophy.Wiki

Thus, the validity of observation is clearly not beyond question.



You provide a method of using observation which cannot be the foundation for naturalism in order to defeat the idea that observation is the foundation for naturalism.  In your mind, this makes naturalism self defeating.  This is false however as the scientific method of using observation is actually the foundation for naturalism.
I believe I addressed the scientific method as having the same problem in a prior post.  How does having a method of observation validate observation?

Quote
Ironically, if you were actually able to prove that naturalism is self defeating, you would prove that everything is, including our own thoughts and any philosophy (including your own gestalt conclusions).
No, this is not accurate.

Quote
Is it possible to think without ever knowing the experience of observation?

The answer is no.
This was Decartes' claim, that one could use the observation of a thought as the foundation of reality (cogito ergo sum.)  Cogito ergo sum does not establish naturalism, which is several layers above.  It does not establish the validity of external observation, or repeated observation, or anything else.  All it establishes is that there is at least one valid observation out there.  It certainly doesn't validate the scientific method.  Basically, the only coherent philosophy that can be synthesized from cogito ergo sum without invoking anything else is solipsism.

This is assuming you intend to observe the thought exists, of course.  Someone who starts with thought a priori may reject the question of whether that thought is validly observed as irrelevant or unworthy of consideration.

Quote
So you're saying that something is not reliable, valid, or its reliability/validity are inscrutable under our current framework can be consistent, verifiable, falsifiable and true (in the sense that it is true until it is not true)?
No, I'm simply saying that observation may not be reliable or valid.

Quote
I need proof that an observation which is consistent, verifiable, falsifiable and true (in the sense that it is true until it is not true) is also simultaneously not reliable, valid, or its reliability/validity are inscrutable under our current framework.
The existence of the bold is what's in question.

Quote
We have proof to show that it is valid.
Which is?

Quote
The onus is on you to provide proof of your claim that naturalism is self defeating.  Since you’ve already admitted that there is “absolutely none”, your claim fails.
I did not say this.

Quote
I apologize, my second question “Thought?” was not properly expressed.  I meant to ask if thought was a foundation.  Which we agree that it is used as a foundation.  I however don’t believe that any variation of the human mind/reason or thought can be a foundation without observation.  Please see my earlier question “Is it possible to think without ever knowing the experience of observation?”.
All three of the philosophies you mentioned have different views on the subject.  Solipsists observe their own minds but nothing else; observation in general is not known to be valid, but a specific observation is taken as true.  Rationalists don't consider observation as necessary, so I'd imagine whether observation is valid is inconsequential to them.  Idealism is a broad area encompassing multiple different views, but in general idealists tend to accept observations but not that the observations map to any external reality. 

Your question implies they're doing something that's externally verifiable as observation, which all three groups would probably reject.  Each appears to have at least some notion of observation, but all in different ways and none in a way that forms any sort of foundation for naturalism.

Quote
The evidence is showing the correct method of observation and how it is valid or true.
Ok.  I think you have done a good job of showing what you consider the correct method of observation, but I have yet to identify the how it is valid or true.

Quote
Is something valid until it is no longer valid?  Is something true until it is no longer true?  If the answer to the previous two questions is yes then how is the statement they made not accurate?  If something is valid or true, then it is valid or true until it is not valid or not true.  Therefore the statement is accurate.
Are you asking whether things are valid when they are valid and true when they are true?  If so, then I agree.

Quote
If you would like to show how observation is not true, be my guest.  This is how scientific method works.
You have not established that the scientific method is a method I should adopt.

The claim that observation is valid was presented to me by members wishing me to accept it.  The burden of proof is on the persons making that claim to establish it.  If they do not, I am justified in not accepting that claim.  That is how discussion works.

Quote
The only reason observation is true is because no one has been able to show that it is not true.
That is a textbook example of appeal to ignorance.

Quote
What assumption am I making?

That something which is valid is simultaneously invalid or is invalid without any proof.
That is not an assumption that I am making.
"I'm doing science and I'm still alive."--J.C.

Offline shnozzola

Re: Naturalism as a means of establishing reality
« Reply #135 on: January 08, 2014, 09:32:13 PM »
Mooby,
     What disappoints me about your position is, as an agnostic, I can understand demanding, lawyering, a validation of observation concerning naturalism.  It's only neutral logic.  But as an agonistic THEIST, you surprisingly don't seem to be interested enough in validation on the supernatural side - again, disappointing reasoning.
 
Though I'm not asking you to agree with me, and if I'm wrong then I'm probably fucked.

What?  What does that mean?  Fucked about what by whom.
“The best thing for being sad," replied Merlin, beginning to puff and blow, "is to learn something."  ~ T. H. White
  The real holy trinity:  onion, celery, and bell pepper ~  all Cajun Chefs

Offline Mooby

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1189
  • Darwins +71/-24
  • So it goes.
    • Is God Imaginary?
Re: Naturalism as a means of establishing reality
« Reply #136 on: January 08, 2014, 11:24:58 PM »
But as an agonistic THEIST, you surprisingly don't seem to be interested enough in validation on the supernatural side - again, disappointing reasoning.
The supernatural has no place in a discussion about naturalism, as naturalism contends that the supernatural does not exist.
 
Quote
What?  What does that mean?  Fucked about what by whom.
The afterlife, of course.  If it's not about the journey but rather about hitting a specific set of criteria...  :P
"I'm doing science and I'm still alive."--J.C.

Offline SevenPatch

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 703
  • Darwins +108/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • A source will help me understand.
Re: Naturalism as a means of establishing reality
« Reply #137 on: January 09, 2014, 01:20:58 AM »
You provide a method of using observation which cannot be the foundation for naturalism in order to defeat the idea that observation is the foundation for naturalism.  In your mind, this makes naturalism self defeating.  This is false however as the scientific method of using observation is actually the foundation for naturalism.
I believe I addressed the scientific method as having the same problem in a prior post.  How does having a method of observation validate observation?

I don't believe you have addressed the scientific method.  A proper method of observation separates valid observation from invalid observation.


Ironically, if you were actually able to prove that naturalism is self defeating, you would prove that everything is, including our own thoughts and any philosophy (including your own gestalt conclusions).
No, this is not accurate.

How was my claim not accurate?


Is it possible to think without ever knowing the experience of observation?

The answer is no.
This was Decartes' claim, that one could use the observation of a thought as the foundation of reality (cogito ergo sum.)  Cogito ergo sum does not establish naturalism, which is several layers above.  It does not establish the validity of external observation, or repeated observation, or anything else.  All it establishes is that there is at least one valid observation out there.  It certainly doesn't validate the scientific method.  Basically, the only coherent philosophy that can be synthesized from cogito ergo sum without invoking anything else is solipsism.

This is assuming you intend to observe the thought exists, of course.  Someone who starts with thought a priori may reject the question of whether that thought is validly observed as irrelevant or unworthy of consideration.

Thoughts by themselves are not observations.  cogito ergo sum is a thought based on observation.  Your response to my question indicates either you've misunderstood it, are mistaken or are dodging.

So you're saying that something is not reliable, valid, or its reliability/validity are inscrutable under our current framework can be consistent, verifiable, falsifiable and true (in the sense that it is true until it is not true)?
No, I'm simply saying that observation may not be reliable or valid.

Yet you have no evidence?  See next quote -

Even if I were to assume that observation by scientific method somehow produced a model of reality that was organized crap, what proof would there be that it is indeed organized crap?
Absolutely none.


I need proof that an observation which is consistent, verifiable, falsifiable and true (in the sense that it is true until it is not true) is also simultaneously not reliable, valid, or its reliability/validity are inscrutable under our current framework.
The existence of the bold is what's in question.

Okay, why?  Do you have evidence to support your claim?


We have proof to show that it is valid.
Which is?

See following quote:

Is something valid until it is no longer valid?  Is something true until it is no longer true?  If the answer to the previous two questions is yes then how is the statement they made not accurate?  If something is valid or true, then it is valid or true until it is not valid or not true.  Therefore the statement is accurate.

The onus is on you to provide proof of your claim that naturalism is self defeating.  Since you’ve already admitted that there is “absolutely none”, your claim fails.
I did not say this.

See following quote:

Even if I were to assume that observation by scientific method somehow produced a model of reality that was organized crap, what proof would there be that it is indeed organized crap?
Absolutely none.

I apologize, my second question “Thought?” was not properly expressed.  I meant to ask if thought was a foundation.  Which we agree that it is used as a foundation.  I however don’t believe that any variation of the human mind/reason or thought can be a foundation without observation.  Please see my earlier question “Is it possible to think without ever knowing the experience of observation?”.
All three of the philosophies you mentioned have different views on the subject.  Solipsists observe their own minds but nothing else; observation in general is not known to be valid, but a specific observation is taken as true.  Rationalists don't consider observation as necessary, so I'd imagine whether observation is valid is inconsequential to them.  Idealism is a broad area encompassing multiple different views, but in general idealists tend to accept observations but not that the observations map to any external reality. 

Your question implies they're doing something that's externally verifiable as observation, which all three groups would probably reject.  Each appears to have at least some notion of observation, but all in different ways and none in a way that forms any sort of foundation for naturalism.

The problem with all three is they make claims or assumptions which haven't been or can't be verified.


The evidence is showing the correct method of observation and how it is valid or true.
Ok.  I think you have done a good job of showing what you consider the correct method of observation, but I have yet to identify the how it is valid or true.

Whether you identify how something is true or valid won't make it not true or invalid.  You are using an appeal to ignorance.

Is something valid until it is no longer valid?  Is something true until it is no longer true?  If the answer to the previous two questions is yes then how is the statement they made not accurate?  If something is valid or true, then it is valid or true until it is not valid or not true.  Therefore the statement is accurate.
Are you asking whether things are valid when they are valid and true when they are true?  If so, then I agree.

Sure.

If you would like to show how observation is not true, be my guest.  This is how scientific method works.
You have not established that the scientific method is a method I should adopt.

The claim that observation is valid was presented to me by members wishing me to accept it.  The burden of proof is on the persons making that claim to establish it.  If they do not, I am justified in not accepting that claim.  That is how discussion works.

I agree that you have not established that observation is invalid and you have not provided evidence or proof to establish your claim.

The only reason observation is true is because no one has been able to show that it is not true.
That is a textbook example of appeal to ignorance.

Not really, although it might appear that way, it is meant to be a contraposition.  Appeals to ignorance apply to a claim that can't be proven false or true.

I observe that I cannot fly by rapidly moving my arms up and down.  This observation can be proven false or true and perhaps something inbetween.  Currently this observation is true and no one has shown it to not be true however you claim that my observation might be invalid but offer no evidence for your claim.


What assumption am I making?

That something which is valid is simultaneously invalid or is invalid without any proof.
That is not an assumption that I am making.

See following quote:

Are you saying then that crap can be consistent, verifiable, falsifiable and true (in the sense that it is true until it is not true)?

How do you define crap?
Oh, sorry.  Crap in the sense that something is not reliable, valid, or its reliability/validity are inscrutable under our current framework.
« Last Edit: January 09, 2014, 01:32:40 AM by SevenPatch »
"Shut him up! We have a lot invested in this ride - SHUT HIM UP! Look at my furrows of worry! Look at my big bank account, and my family! This just HAS to be real!" - Bill Hicks

Offline Ataraxia

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 521
  • Darwins +79/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • "I am large, I contain multitudes."
Re: Naturalism as a means of establishing reality
« Reply #138 on: January 09, 2014, 03:14:08 AM »
I have no problem realising and accepting that methodological naturalism cannot show philosophical naturalism to be true (which is the crux of what Mooby is banging on about).
What I do have issue with is the way that theists use this to shoehorn the supernatural into existence and also to use it as a stick to beat naturalism with. This is done while simultaneously pandering to naturalism in order to communicate that naturalism may not be true. It's an attempt to put the boot on the other foot and try to take attention and burden away from their inability to show that there is more to reality than nature.

Really, if you want to make the point that naturalism can't be shown to be true using natural methods, don't conveniently ignore the point that it can't be shown to be false either. It is for you to try and show that there is more than nature, otherwise the default position is held where we don't believe something until there is evidence for it. To do this, you must remove yourself from everything natural so that it can't contaminate this new methodology you have found to show the existence of the supernatural (the removal from nature itself would show naturalism to be false). Unfortunately, internet forums fall under the natural umbrella, but you can still futily bash naturalism with them.
"God is a comedian playing to an audience too afraid to laugh." - Voltaire

Offline Hatter23

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3880
  • Darwins +257/-7
  • Gender: Male
  • Doesn't believe in one more god than you
Re: Naturalism as a means of establishing reality
« Reply #139 on: January 09, 2014, 08:23:31 AM »
I have no problem realising and accepting that methodological naturalism cannot show philosophical naturalism to be true (which is the crux of what Mooby is banging on about).
What I do have issue with is the way that theists use this to shoehorn the supernatural into existence and also to use it as a stick to beat naturalism with. This is done while simultaneously pandering to naturalism in order to communicate that naturalism may not be true. It's an attempt to put the boot on the other foot and try to take attention and burden away from their inability to show that there is more to reality than nature.


Preceisely what I've been saying. Mooby's attempt at undermining observation as evidence is just a way of creating a gap large enough for his god to fit in. It is clear and obvious, despite his protestations.
An Omnipowerful God needed to sacrifice himself to himself (but only for a long weekend) in order to avert his own wrath against his own creations who he made in a manner knowing that they weren't going to live up to his standards.

And you should feel guilty for this. Give me money.

Offline Anfauglir

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 6198
  • Darwins +408/-5
  • Gender: Male
Re: Naturalism as a means of establishing reality
« Reply #140 on: January 09, 2014, 08:51:14 AM »
The supernatural has no place in a discussion about naturalism, as naturalism contends that the supernatural does not exist.

What tools or processes do you use to detect and identify the supernatural?  Say, to determine if something you experience was natural or supernatural?
Just because you've always done it that way doesn't mean it's not incredibly stupid.
Why is it so hard for believers to answer a direct question?

Offline Angus and Alexis

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1487
  • Darwins +71/-24
  • Gender: Male
  • Residential Tulpamancer.
Re: Naturalism as a means of establishing reality
« Reply #141 on: January 09, 2014, 08:58:09 AM »
What tools or processes do you use to detect and identify the supernatural?  Say, to determine if something you experience was natural or supernatural?



Ghostbusters have you covered, for all your supernatural needs.
Rule 1: No pooftas. Rule 2: No maltreating the theists, IF, anyone is watching. Rule 3: No pooftas. Rule 4: I do not want to see anyone NOT drinking after light out. Rule 5: No pooftas. Rule 6: There is NO...rule 6.

Offline Ataraxia

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 521
  • Darwins +79/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • "I am large, I contain multitudes."
Re: Naturalism as a means of establishing reality
« Reply #142 on: January 09, 2014, 09:10:38 AM »
The supernatural has no place in a discussion about naturalism, as naturalism contends that the supernatural does not exist.

What tools or processes do you use to detect and identify the supernatural?  Say, to determine if something you experience was natural or supernatural?

Exactly. Adding to that, if you believe you have experienced something supernatural, how do you bridge the gap between the supernatural and the natural in order to relay that information, not just to others, but also to the natural attributes of yourself?
"God is a comedian playing to an audience too afraid to laugh." - Voltaire

Offline jdawg70

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1973
  • Darwins +355/-8
  • Ex-rosary squad
Re: Naturalism as a means of establishing reality
« Reply #143 on: January 09, 2014, 09:39:39 AM »
k I'm going to be that guy:

What does 'supernatural' mean?  What's the difference between 'natural' and 'supernatural'?

It's just...I dunno.  Is this a categorical argument of some kind, trying to establish that, of phenomenon that are real, some can be put into the 'natural' bucket, and some can be put into the 'supernatural' bucket[1]?  Is 'natural' a subset of 'supernatural' (as the prefix implies), or are they distinct?

I don't mean to be thick or anything, but the phenomenon I associate with the word 'supernatural' - ghosts, vampires, magic - all seem to just boil down to 'sh*t I cannot explain'.  Which is all good and well I suppose, but there are a great many 'natural' phenomenon that I cannot explain.  Dark matter and dark energy are two obvious examples, but by-and-large we don't slap the label 'supernatural' onto those phenomenon.

I've said it before - whenever I hear the word 'supernatural' my brain immediately thinks of the old joke:
What do you call alternative medicine that works?
Medicine.

What do you call supernatural phenomenon that the has observable effects?
Natural phenomenon.
 1. Are there other buckets?  Subnatural?  Superdupernatural?
"When we landed on the moon, that was the point where god should have come up and said 'hello'. Because if you invent some creatures, put them on the blue one and they make it to the grey one, you f**king turn up and say 'well done'."
- Eddie Izzard

Offline Anfauglir

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 6198
  • Darwins +408/-5
  • Gender: Male
Re: Naturalism as a means of establishing reality
« Reply #144 on: January 09, 2014, 09:50:13 AM »
I'm agreeing with you that naturalism may not be right, may not in fact produce correct results.  It does however produce consistent and predictable results, and (like I said) I am therefore happy to use it until a more reliable or useful system is revealed to me.
I'd argue that it's not so much naturalism as it is scientific empiricism that produces what appear to be consistent and predictable results.  You can transplant science into a philosophy that accepts the observable reality (natural) and also allows for the existence of an unobservable reality (supernatural).  Such a philosophy would still produce the consistent results of science, but would not be naturalism.

Somehow naturalists seem to make the leap from a tool's existence to a tool's supremacy: they go from "science can investigate the natural" to "the natural is all that exists" without any real justification.  There's a big difference between, "At least the natural exists" and "The natural is all that exists," yet at least the naturalists here seem to be conflating the two.

Again, it's fine if you want to accept naturalism for yourself, but I was asked why I personally found naturalism "unpalatable."  It's just not for me.  You're perfectly within your rights to continue to be a naturalist, but I'm also within my rights to not be convinced, especially if I can identify no real justification to adopt naturalism.

Yes, good point - I was conflating naturalism and empiricism - hence my question in my post above. 

Every tool and process I am aware of is a naturalistic one.  The equipment and tests I have available detect natural things.  Angus pictured a Ghostbusters' PKE detector, which in the movies did indeed detect supernatural activity and forces, but I'm unaware of any real-life equipment that can detect the supernatural or (as I've said) could be used to differentiate between the two.

I suppose, in an ideal world, I would see a "thing", and pull out my natural and supernatural detectors.  One set would function, one would not, and I can then deduce what the "thing" was.  I can't do that.

I also look back at the way that detection and classification has gone over the centuries.  From a position where we were (to pluck numbers from the air) classing things 50/50 supernatural/natural, we have seen an inexorable shift from supernatural to natural.  I am honestly unaware of anything we thought was natural now been classed as supernatural.

It is this progression of classification, the increase of natural detection equipment and tests, and the lack (so far as I am aware) of supernatural detection equipment and tests, that lead me towards being a naturalist (to better answer your original question).

I realise there is an element of "of COURSE naturalistic equipment won't detect the supernatural!!!" there, but then all I can do is refer back to my question in the previous post.  Tell me how to detect the supernatural, and how I can reliably determine the difference between natural and supernatural events, and I will happily change my tune. 

I am presuming that you believe that both exist - that not everything is supernatural? 
Just because you've always done it that way doesn't mean it's not incredibly stupid.
Why is it so hard for believers to answer a direct question?