Church + Girlfriend problem.

[Jon Miller]

What is under the 'realm' of science is that which:

1 Is part of the Universe.
2 Can be explained by mathematics.
3 Can be probed by experiments.

Obviously 2 & 3 can increase in time, as new techniques and mathematics are developed. But note that there can always be something outside of the realm of 2 & 3.

You could go further and say that what is supernatural is what can never be in the 'sphere' of 2 & 3.

Jon Miller

[Tim_Augustus]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
How can something be outside of the natural world???

If something is supernatural or metaphysical, it is by definition outside of the natural universe.

I do actually agree with you - but the point is that science has no application as far as purely metaphysical belief systems go.

And for many people, there is no conflict between a scientific approach to the natural world and their metaphysical belief system.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Tim_Augustus
Science has nothing to say about supernatural or metaphysical concepts - the scientific method deals only with the natural universe and that which can tested by observation and experimentation.

I was saying that the foundation of science is naturalism (more precisely, ontological naturalism), which holds that nature is all there is. There's nothing outside it.

It's kind of hard to conduct experiments with flies when one of them is acutally Zeus, innit? Or perhaps the batch of mould you see growing there is only an illusion Loki put on you. Wouldn't that be a bummer?

[Bill3000]

The moment you allow things that do not follow physics, is the moment you render science useless. You cannot perform experiements that follow certain laws of the universe if there truely are blatent violations of these, and I'm not talking about a mere law approximation, either.

No. Everything must follow the laws of nature, whether or not they are the versions in which we currently understand them.

[DaShi]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


I was saying that the foundation of science is naturalism (more precisely, ontological naturalism), which holds that nature is all there is. There's nothing outside it.

Real science isn't so narrowminded.

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Bill3000
The moment you allow things that do not follow physics, is the moment you render science useless. You cannot perform experiements that follow certain laws of the universe if there truely are blatent violations of these, and I'm not talking about a mere law approximation, either.

No. Everything must follow the laws of nature, whether or not they are the versions in which we currently understand them.

It depends on how you define physics. If you define physics to be that which we can probe using technology and think about using mathematics, that deal directly with forces and such things, then you are wrong.

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

JM

[Tim_Augustus]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


I was saying that the foundation of science is naturalism (more precisely, ontological naturalism), which holds that nature is all there is. There's nothing outside it.

Ontological naturalism is a belief system - you believe (but cannot prove or disprove) that the physical universe is all that is.

Science, on the other hand, inherently practices methodological naturalism - the method assumes that there is no supernatural elements intefering with observations and experiments.

Actually, you should read that wikipedia article; it makes a similar distinction to the one I have made.

It's kind of hard to conduct experiments with flies when one of them is acutally Zeus, innit? Or perhaps the batch of mould you see growing there is only an illusion Loki put on you. Wouldn't that be a bummer?

[Jon Miller]

Once more you say it better than I.

JM

[DaShi]

Though not as good as me.

[Tim_Augustus]

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Tim_Augustus
Ontological naturalism is a belief system - you believe (but cannot prove or disprove) that the physical universe is all that is.

Science, on the other hand, inherently practices methodological naturalism - the method assumes that there is no supernatural elements intefering with observations and experiments.

Note that this assumption is invalid unless you take the position of ontological naturalism.

Granted, those examples are fanciful, but they illustrate my point nicely.

If you have supernatural entities that can mess around with the laws of physics nobody can do science anymore.

[Jon Miller]

No. In science you do always have effects from outside of what you can currently measure (have technology for) or talk about (have the mathematics for) which effect the experiment. This does not mean that you can not do science. You can do science, and we have been successful at it, by including effects from outside of what we can explain in our uncertainties and/or by coming up with models (as mathematical theories, or even as just a phenomenological curve).

Yes, there does not appear to be anything from outside of the realm of science hugely messing arround with our data, but that does not mean that there is not something outside the current realm of science (in fact, we know that there is (I am not claiming the supernatural here, rather that there is considerable parts of the unviserse outside of what we can measure with our technology and discuss with our mathematics)).

If we followed your position Urban Ranger, science would never have started...

Jon Miller

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
No. In science you do always have effects from outside of what you can currently measure (have technology for) or talk about (have the mathematics for) which effect the experiment.

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.

Originally posted by Jon Miller
If we followed your position Urban Ranger, science would never have started

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

[DaShi]

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.

That's because he's not talking about it. He's talking about science. You're just talking nonsense now.

[Tiamat]

If this has been said before please forgive but I"m to tired to sift through 8 pages right now. I just know when we go to church we have stuff the preacher reads and we respond as a congrigation in saying "so sayeth we all" I think it real simply goes back to the church of long ago and that part just didn't get lost in translation so to speak.