Church + Girlfriend problem.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by DaShi
You're just talking nonsense now.

Shows how much you know.

There's an old saying about keeping your mouth shut and all.

[Bill3000]

If you define physics to be the way the universe works, than you just made physics worthless as a science.

Not the way the universe works. The study of finding how the universe works. As well, explain how this definition would make physics "worthless", as it clearly isn't. This would be worthless if you allow the existence of the supernatural which could change how the universe works on a whim, but this is only why this definition of the supernatural is impossible.

[DaShi]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


Shows how much you know.

There's an old saying about keeping your mouth shut and all.

I've reduced you to "shut up!"

So where in JM's elegant post did he even mention ontological naturalism? If he didn't, your response to it doesn't make any sense.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by DaShi

your response to it doesn't make any sense.

You passed up an opportunity to be more brutally honest with UR.

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Bill3000


Not the way the universe works. The study of finding how the universe works. As well, explain how this definition would make physics "worthless", as it clearly isn't. This would be worthless if you allow the existence of the supernatural which could change how the universe works on a whim, but this is only why this definition of the supernatural is impossible.

What I am saying is that the 'supernatual' is just that part of the universe which we can never understand (do experiments on or discuss mathematically).

That does not say that we can't do physics (experiments&mathematics) on that part which it is possible to do them on. And just because we can't probe all regions (possibility space) doesn't mean that it isn't useful to probe the ones that we can. Science's success shows that if there is something (inherently supernatural or not) out there 'messing' with us, it isn't doing so in a that has disrupted our science so far.

It is similiar to the question if aliens are responsible for the highly energetic cosmic rays we see. While this would make useless the theories (with black holes or quasars) that we currently have about them, it doesn't invalidate the method. In addition, it wouldn't invalidate the process.

Jon Miller

[DaShi]

Originally posted by MrFun



You passed up an opportunity to be more brutally honest with UR.

We're not allowed.

[Tim_Augustus]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


No, Jon, that is not what ontological naturalism is about. It means nature is all we have, there's nothing outside. The consequence of that is laws of nature hold sway, not interfered by outside, supernatural influences.



You appear to have a misunderstanding of what ontological naturalism is.

Ontological naturalism strikes me as being a religious belief system - not the foundation of science.

While science assumes a naturalistic position as part of the method (hence methodological naturalism), it does not seek to rule it out (as, of course, it cannot).

How would you conduct a test to determine whether a supernatural entity is interfering with your observations? As long as the interference is consistent, you could never tell the difference.

And I don't really agree with your concept, Jon - if something is part of the real or natural universe, and it can be observed and experimented on (now or in the future) then it is not supernatural. What I was refering to was the supposed conflict between a religious belief that, for example, one's (nonphysical) 'soul' goes to heaven to be with God, and the view that science can make accurate predictions from observed physical phenomena and therefore be used to expand our knowledge of the physical universe. As there is no way of using science to prove that there is no soul and no heaven and no god, there is no conflict.

[Jon Miller]

I agree that if it can be experimented on (now or in the future) that it isn't supernatural. I was just saying that we can't tell the difference between the supernatural and what we can't observe/experment on right now.

Jon Miller

[Tim_Augustus]

And apologies to Snoopy for having this discussion in his thread...

[Tim_Augustus]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
I agree that if it can be experimented on (now or in the future) that it isn't supernatural. I was just saying that we can't tell the difference between the supernatural and what we can't observe/experment on right now.

Jon Miller

Ah, I see.

No argument from me then

[Jon Miller]

I am replying to the obvious argument that what we saw as supernatural a few thousand years ago (like lightning) is not seen as supernatural now, since we now can do science on it.

JM

[MrFun]

Originally posted by DaShi


We're not allowed.

[Tim_Augustus]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
I am replying to the obvious argument that what we saw as supernatural a few thousand years ago (like lightning) is not seen as supernatural now, since we now can do science on it.

JM

True...

Mind you, our concept of science (and the universe) has grown somewhat since then

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Tim_Augustus
Ontological naturalism strikes me as being a religious belief system - not the foundation of science.

It's a philosophy, just like methodological naturalism.

However, I submit that methodological naturalism is philosophically untenable, just like agnostiscism.

Originally posted by Tim_Augustus
While science assumes a naturalistic position as part of the method (hence methodological naturalism), it does not seek to rule it out (as, of course, it cannot).

Well, naturalism is not science, it is the philosophical foundation of it. Just like mathematics is not science, but you don't have science without mathematics.

Originally posted by Tim_Augustus
How would you conduct a test to determine whether a supernatural entity is interfering with your observations? As long as the interference is consistent, you could never tell the difference.

You don't, but that's not the point.

If you have a supernatural entity interfering with your observations, your observations no longer corresponds to what's going on in nature, regardless whether this interference is consistent or not.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by DaShi
So where in JM's elegant post did he even mention ontological naturalism? If he didn't, your response to it doesn't make any sense.

There's a thing called context.