Re: [asa] Anti-Creationist Psychobabble On the Web - non-naturalagents?

Perhaps the matter can be made clearer using different language. There
are subjects and objects. The purely physical universe, what we
experiment with, is object. The individual doing the experimenting is a
subject, but may also be considered an object in other contexts. God is
pure subject.

The experimenter is agent in conducting the experiment, but is not
normally considered part of the experiment, although this is not
consistent with the modern view, notably with quanta, where the
experimenter is considered part of the experiment. The input to the
experiment is viewed as agent in regard to the effect. The effect is not
viewed as agent, although it may be agent to a further effect. The
application of "natural" to agency is likely confined to the input, not
to the experimenter. Indeed, in analyzing psychological experiments,
thought is probably not considered a natural agency unless more or less
restricted to nerve impulses and the like.

There is another sense of "agent" connected to activity, in the sense of
its opposition to passivity. All purely physical entities were viewed as
passive, whether they passed an impulse or received it. If they passed an
impulse, they could be thought of as agents, but not in the sense of
being active. The same term used in different contexts involved different
meanings.
Dave (ASA)

On Sun, 5 Apr 2009 22:50:22 -0600 wjp <wjp@swcp.com> writes:
> Perhaps we've gotten side tracked with the ambiguity of the term
> "agent."
> My original question was in response to what George had said:
> "There is simply no way to incorporate the actions of non-natural
> agents
> into a scientific research program."
>
> The line of response to my question (Can you give an example of a
> natural
> agent?) was to indicate that an "agent" may be viewed as anything
> with
> causal powers (my summary), i.e., an efficient cause.
>
> What my question was intended to point to was the scientist in the
> scientific research program.
>
> Can we view the scientist as a "natural agent" in the sense of
> agency
> provided above? He certainly has causal powers. But, then again,
> so
> does God, and we don't call God a natural agent (I think).
> Must the behavior of the "agent" be bound by law in order for it to
> be
> natural? This notion has the advantage of distinguishing human
> agency
> from that of billard balls. But then is human willfulness not
> natural?
> Moreover, I don't know that I want to be committed to a science that
>
> requires ALL natural agency to be bound by laws. But perhaps this
> is the
> paradigm suggested by methodological naturalism (MN).
>
> Simply put, where is the scientist as an agent, the science-maker,
> fit into MN?
>
> bill powers
>
> On Sat, 4 Apr 2009 20:00:21 -0600 (MDT), Bill Powers <wjp@swcp.com>
> wrote:
> > I would ask a different question:
> >
> > Can you give an example of a natural agent?
> >
> > bill powers
> >
> > On Sat, 4 Apr 2009, Gregory
> > Arago wrote:
> >
> >> "There simply is no way to incorporate the actions of non-natural
> agents
> > into a scientific research program." - Keith Miller
> >>
> >> The same question applies that was recently asked to George
> Murphy.
> >>
> >> Can you please give an example of non-natural agents? Can such
> > agents *not* be supernatural or is that a contradiction in terms?
> I.e. in
> your view, does non-natural = supernatural? In your text below, that
> surely
> > seems to be the case (e.g. the term 'supernatural' is used 6
> times, once
> > before and 5 times after your use of 'non-natural').
> >>
> >> Is there a scientific definition of 'non-natural agents' or is
> that
> > impossible due to the limitations of natural science itself?
> >>
> >> Keith seems to have a rather narrow and insignificant meaning of
> > 'non-natural agents,' unless he would clarify what he means. (And
> I'm not
> > talking about ID.) Perhaps non-natural agents are best discussed
> in a
> > non-natural sciences (i.e. non-natural scientific language)?
> >>
> >> Gregory
> >>
> >>
> >> -- On Sat, 4/4/09, Keith Miller <kbmill@ksu.edu> wrote:
> >>
> >> From: Keith Miller <kbmill@ksu.edu>
> >> Subject: Re: [asa] Anti-Creationist Psychobabble On the Web
> >> To: "AmericanScientificAffiliation Affiliation" <asa@calvin.edu>
> >> Received: Saturday, April 4, 2009, 3:40 AM
> >>
> >>
> >> The nature of science and the meaning and significance of
> methodological
> > naturalism is a topic of significant importance for me. It
> figures very
> > prominently in my effort at public science literacy, and defusing
> the
> > public "creation/evolution" debate.
> >>
> >>
> >> I have published several essays that address this issue, the most
> recent
> > is my chapter "The misguided attack on methodological naturalism"
> in the
> > edited volume "For the Rock Record: Geologists on Intelligent
> Design"
> > published by the University of California Press.
> >>
> >>
> >> I include an excerpt from that essay below.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> The absence of references to supernatural cause in scientific
> > description is not just an agreed philosophical limitation of
> science, but
> > it is a consequence of the practical inability of science to
> detect divine
> > action. It is interesting that even what little scientific
> research is
> > conducted by ID advocates is conducted using MN. There simply is
> no way
> > to incorporate the actions of non-natural agents into a scientific
> > research program. What ID proponents typically do is to overlay
> > philosophical and religious understandings on scientific
> conclusions.
> > They invest particular scientific observations with theological
> meaning.
> > It is entirely appropriate for anyone to apply his or her
> religious and
> > philosophical perspectives to interpreting science. However, that
> does
> > not make such philosophical perspectives themselves scientific.
> >>> From the perspective of scientific inquiry, a supernatural agent
> is
> > effectively a black box, and appeals to supernatural action are
> equivalent
> > to appeals to ignorance. A supernatural agent is unconstrained by
> natural
> > “laws” or the properties and capabilities of natural entities
> and
> > forces -- it can act in any way, and accomplish any conceivable
> > end. As a result, appeals to such agents cannot provide any
> insight
> > into understanding the mechanisms by which a particular observed
> or
> > historical event occurred. Belief in the creative action of a
> > supernatural agent does not answer the questions of how something
> happens.
> > “A miracle occurs here” is no more an answer to the question
> of
> > “How?” than is “We don’t know.”
> >> This same point can be made beginning from a theological
> perspective.
> > As understood in Christian theology, divine action includes the
> doctrine
> > of providence, which concerns God’s sustaining and upholding of
> the
> > natural world, and divine cooperation with and governance of
> nature.[1]
> > Divine action in this sense does not imply any break in the
> continuity of
> > cause-and-effect natural processes. An internally complete
> scientific
> > description would be completely consistent with this theological
> view.
> > Scientific and theological understandings are seen as
> complementary –
> > science would simply be providing a description of natural
> phenomena as
> > they are upheld by divine providence.
> >> However, what of divine miracle? The traditional Christian
> theological
> > understanding of miracle is that of a sign that draws attention to
> or
> > confirms some aspect of the revelation of God's character or will
> – it
> > carries theological meaning. A miracle in this sense does not
> require
> > that the sign break natural law or interrupt chains of
> > cause-and-effect. Only the subset of miraculous actions that
> involve
> > divine intervention and the breaking of natural chains of
> cause-and-effect
> > are potentially in conflict with a scientific explanation.
> >> Can “law-breaking” miraculous events in natural history be
> detected
> > or falsified scientifically? Although not falsifiable, a specific
> claim
> > of divine action of this kind could be brought into question if a
> series of
> > natural cause-and-effect processes could be shown to plausibly
> account for
> > the miracle. However, such a conclusion says nothing about God's
> > action in and through those processes. If, on the other hand, no
> such
> > plausible series of natural events is currently known to account
> for the
> > miracle, then scientists will continue to search for such a
> natural
> > explanation. A true break in the continuity of natural processes
> is
> > indistinguishable from current ignorance.
> >> Scientific investigation cannot conclude that a particular event
> in the
> > history of life, or a particular feature of the natural world,
> must be the
> > consequence of a supernatural agent. We are of course free to
> make those
> > claims from a theological perspective. But those claims must be
> evaluated
> > on their theological and philosophical merits. ...
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> [1] For a concise discussion of providence and miracle see J.
> > Polkinghorne, 1989, Science and Providence: God’s Interaction
> with the
> > World. Boston: Shambhala Publications, 114p.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> I would encourage those interested to get the book and read the
> essay in
> > its entirety.
> >>
> >>
> >> All the best,
> >>
> >>
> >> Keith
> >
> >
> >
> __________________________________________________________________
> > Instant Messaging, free SMS, sharing photos and more... Try the
> new Yahoo!
> > Canada Messenger at http://ca.beta.messenger.yahoo.com/
>
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>
>
____________________________________________________________
Digital Photography - Click Now.
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/fc/BLSrjpTDvmTm0404G51w5N6kTg7VmeHiGuPyKGI9dh3OcnVct52izsybGSE/

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Mon Apr 6 18:44:35 2009