Re: [asa] C.S. Lewis on ID

David -

First you'd need to say what you understand "the scientific method" to be. There is no agreed upon "method" that science must follow in order to be science, although some introductory texts try to give the impression that there's a kind of recipe that scientists have to follow. It is certainly not just Baconian induction. Basically science involves the use of (1) observation and (2) reason in order to understand the world - in either order. Both have to be there but you can start with observations and then try to understand them or start with a theory & then see how well it corresponds to what you observe. & of course in practice it has to go back and forth - some observations may support a theory but others demand that it be extended, or changed, or dropped, and theoretical developments may call for specific types of observation (i.e., what we call experiment).

Now the very fact that "observation" is part of the mix already suggests that there are going to be problems trying to introduce God, or the gods, into a theoretical explanation. We can't observe God in the same way we observe other causes. But MN, or the principle "ascribe nothing to the gods" has in fact been the tacit understanding of the vast majority of people doing scientific work since the seventeenth century. That observation doesn't have to do with what they believe, for many have been Christians or persons of other faiths who believe that God is indeed active in the world. But they don't use that as part of scientific explanations. MN, as distinguished from metaphysical naturalism, is not a claim about the way reality is but a claim about what science is. & it's a negative, not a positive, claim. It doesn't try to explain anything but rules out certain types of explanation as not scientific. & it isn't a particularly subtle claim. The only point at which any subtilty might arise is in decoding various aliases for "God" - like "the Designer."

As I said, that claim has, until recently, been pretty much a tacit one that many scientists haven't given a lot of thought to. They just know that appealing to divine action to explain some phenomenon in a paper sent to a refereed journal just "isn't done." The ID movement has forced scientists to give more attention to this idea.
It's a little like the way that the orthodox understanding of the divinity of Christ wasn't set down officially until the challenge of Arius forced the church to make it explicit.
It's unfortunate If we have to tell students explicitly now that appeals to divine agency aren't proper science but the fault lies with the IDers.

I've sometimes quoted Bridgman's statement of scientific method as "doing your damnedest with your mind with no holds barred." In itself that doesn't rule out appeal to divine agency but again I think that's because Bridgman, whose "operationalism" is rather similar to positivism, took that for granted. I'm sure that if one of his grad students in high pressure physics had suggested that something they'd observed in the gap be explained by saying that it was part of God's design, Bridgman would have told him that during working hours that particular hold was barred.

Shalom
George
http://home.neo.rr.com/scitheologyglm
  ----- Original Message -----
  From: David Clounch
  To: George Murphy
  Cc: ASA
  Sent: Friday, November 28, 2008 10:58 PM
  Subject: Re: [asa] C.S. Lewis on ID

  Good evening George, Happy Thanksgiving.

  I think the simple concept you are referring to is really just the scientific method. The method that every scientist assumes is the scientific method . Why is it that anything other than the scientific method needed? I'd like to know more about why something else is needed if indeed all one is doing is science. Poe/Mytyk seem to raise the question of whether MN undermines Bacon's concept of the scientific method. Asking that question is certainly not conspiratorial.

  But, taking a guess at why something other than the scientific method is needed: De Vries seems to try to use the term as a sort of synonym for scientific method. But why invent a new term? I propose it is because De Vries is trying to build a firewall that didnt exist before, and wasn't part of the scientific or education community's conciousness.

  You yourself George give a hint as to why something else is needed when you raise the issue of "Ascribe nothing to the gods". This is given in answer to a question about final or ultimate causes, about whats behind whats observed. About what should be believed or what can be allowed to be believed, but which is beyond the reach of the simple answer given by the scientific method. And its not a question the scientific method can address. It is really is a theological question, not a scientific question. And this is why MN is needed. When one is asking philosophical questions. Its a sort of firewall that says "don't confuse that ultimate question with the scientific method". When one has already asked a final question then and only then does MN comes into play. But when one hasn't asked any final questions then the scientific method is sufficient. And totally irrelevant.

  I mean, George, if I asked you what the temperature is outside, and you replied "Ascribe nothing to the gods", I would think you had too much pepperoni for dinner last night (to put it kindly).

  DeVries gets into this because he is a theologian and is thus grappling with ultimate questions. He starts with theology and goes toward science, and boom, out pops MN. The burden is upon the person who says we can start with science and end up worrying about MN. No. Science doesn's ask the kind of questions that make MN necessary. I dont think MN pops out of observation + inference. Not unless one is already thinking about ultimate causes in the first place.

  I don't have any problem with MN in it's proper context. But when a government starts saying its the basis for science rather than the scientific method, then I object. Government can legitimately say "don't ask the final questions". But isn't that the same as just saying "science is based on the scientific method?" I cannot imagine anybody ever possibly objecting to that.

  But, the problem is, it's impossible to exclude a religious group by doing that!!!! (by limiting science or the teaching of science to the scientific method). That is why MN is trotted out by governments seeking to juggle some religious ideas over and above others. That is the exact offense the Edwards case was intended to prevent. States cannot engage in that type of preference.

  Just look at the complexity of the Poe/Mytyk analysis of Bacon's concept of science, and how MN may or may not modify it in subtle ways. Do we really want a state to promote teaching all the subtle ins-and-outs of MN and how it relates to the scientific method? Do we want a state to include why the scientific method isn't good enough? (Well, Johnny, its like this, first there was the scientific method, but then there is that big fat GOD QUESTION, and we need a way to give you proper judgement on that, and welllll, wink wink nod nod...etc). Is it proper for states to even raise this question? My liberal bones say, "I object!!!!!" Government should just stick with the scientific method and call it a day.

  Is that a red herring? I'd call it a "don't ask, dont tell" type of policy.

   So George, I don't think you and I really disagree all that much. Unless you seek to have government get involved in juggling ideas about final causes. Then I would oppose that at every turn. But I haven't heard you say that, either.

  I do think that you and I could come to an agreement about MN and whether it is the same as , or different than, the scientific method. And possibly so could everyone on this list. But that wouldn't stop some state legislator or school board member from mis-applying the concept or morphing it into an inappropriate use, or using it as a weapon in an ideological war. That is the danger. If MN == scientific method and != theology then it has no independent meaning.
  I do not understand why people defend it so vigorously and set it up as an icon. There must be a reason.
    
  Best Regards,
  David Clounch

  On Sat, Nov 29, 2008 at 7:28 AM, George Murphy <GMURPHY10@neo.rr.com> wrote:

    I referred of course to the content of what is called "methodological naturalism." It is that content, the ancient principle "Ascribe nothing to the gods" (quoted here recently by Burgy) as a guide for understanding the world that has been an accepted principle of science for centuries. & the reason that "does not engage the average scientist in a lab coat" is because it is accepted almost automatically by such scientists. No serious scientist, including those who pray every day "Give us this day our daily bread," will be content to explain a puzzling result of an experiment by saying "God did it." Therein lies both the content of MN & its distinction from metaphysical naturalism. When the specific phrase "methodological naturalism" was first used is of interest for historians & the editors of the OED but doesn't touch the question of the principle's content & how long it's been accepted.

    Christianity can indeed give proper theological grounding for that principle when science is viewed in a Christian perspective. But of course that grounding will have value only for Christians.

    Shalom
    George
    http://home.neo.rr.com/scitheologyglm
      ----- Original Message -----
      From: David Clounch
      To: ASA
      Sent: Thursday, November 27, 2008 10:56 PM
      Subject: Re: [asa] C.S. Lewis on ID

      So the PSCF article by Poe and MyTyk (http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2007/PSCF9-07dyn.html) is off base, and DeVries did not in fact use the term for the first time in the peer reviewed literature in 1986?
      Can you point to literature discussing the term prior to 1986. And to non-Christian sources?

      Poe: Karl Giberson and Donald Yerxa have
      argued that the term is the focus of a quarrel
      within the Christian community, but that
      "the quarrel over methodological naturalism
      and theistic science does not engage the
      average scientist in a lab coat ..."3

      And so on. This is all completely off base? It should be easy to show the quarrel going on outside the Christian community, if in fact it actually did. But in that case one wonders why the various referenced authors in the article bother to claim what they did. Seems to me PSCF deserves a rebuttal article. Until I see one I see no reason not to remain skeptical of your claim, George.

      This issue seems to me to be important not only to the ASA but to the entire world. Just as the Gregorian reform gave us equal rights (circa 1075) I believe Christianity gave us methodological naturalism.

      Best Regards,
      David Clounch
          

      On Thu, Nov 27, 2008 at 7:06 AM, George Murphy <GMURPHY10@neo.rr.com> wrote:

        You do indeed disagree terribly here. MN has been part of the scientific community's tacit understanding of how science works for the past ~350 years and is held by scientists of different religious faiths as well as atheists and agnostics. The reason that it is maintained consistently is that it has been found to lead to fruitful scientific work. MN is quite consistent with good Christian theologies but is not dependent upon any of them.

        Shalom
        George
        http://home.neo.rr.com/scitheologyglm
          ----- Original Message -----
          From: David Clounch
          To: john_walley@yahoo.com
          Cc: Marcio Pie ; ASA
          Sent: Wednesday, November 26, 2008 12:53 AM
          Subject: Re: [asa] C.S. Lewis on ID

          John,

          I terribly disagree.
          MN is a Christian theological solution to a theological problem and should not be taught in schools.
          ................................

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sat Nov 29 14:56:12 2008