addressalign-toparrow-leftarrow-rightbackbellblockcalendarcameraccwcheckchevron-downchevron-leftchevron-rightchevron-small-downchevron-small-leftchevron-small-rightchevron-small-upchevron-upcircle-with-checkcircle-with-crosscircle-with-pluscrossdots-three-verticaleditemptyheartexporteye-with-lineeyefacebookfolderfullheartglobegmailgooglegroupshelp-with-circleimageimagesinstagramFill 1linklocation-pinm-swarmSearchmailmessagesminusmoremuplabelShape 3 + Rectangle 1ShapeoutlookpersonJoin Group on CardStartprice-ribbonShapeShapeShapeShapeImported LayersImported LayersImported Layersshieldstartickettrashtriangle-downtriangle-uptwitteruserwarningyahoo

Seattle Analytic Philosophy Club Message Board › Report on the Demarcation/ID meeting on ID blogs

Report on the Demarcation/ID meeting on ID blogs

Gene L
user 19640341
Group Organizer
Seattle, WA
Post #: 288
William T.
15496715
Chicago, IL
Post #: 17
I really wish I could have made this meetup - it really sounds like this was a fluid discussion unlike any other.

For the past few weeks I've been reading through "The Nature of Nature" which contains contributions from 40 or so authors on both sides of the debate over the role naturalism should play in science. It's pretty cool to see how various views play out in it. Honestly, it's some of the best $20 I've ever spent.

It's edited by two people who are from the ID camp - which I'm not sure I agree with, but nonetheless it strikes a pretty good balance in the articles and authors that are included in the book.

Great topic choice Gene!
Gene L
user 19640341
Group Organizer
Seattle, WA
Post #: 289
Here is a comment I posted on the ID blog Uncommon Descent in the post about the meeting.

As I mentioned last night, a priori methodological naturalism (simply saying that science cannot ever appeal to the supernatural as part of the definition of science) is problematic. However, it seems quite reasonable to adopt provisory methodological naturalism. This means that we use naturalistic explanations because they have worked so well in the past (in statistical terms, our Bayesian pre-test priors for naturalistic explanations are extremely high). So this means that we could consider supernatural explanations, but the evidence would have to be extremely high. For example, if your car does not start, you would think of a natural cause, and would need a tremendous amount of evidence to consider a supernatural cause.

If we consider ID in these terms, and submit that it might be science, one would have to have an extremely high level of evidence to even consider a supernatural cause. So that fact that a large number of biologists do reject ID would seem to suggest that the evidence is not nearly this high. Now what of those who do accept ID? In the Bayesian statistical framework previously mentioned, I suspect this is because their pre-test probability for considering supernatural causes is substantially higher. Let’s say that this comes from what the philosopher Alvin Plantinga calls “warrant”.

So understood in this framework, perhaps the debate is not between interpretation of the evidence provided, but rather is about a large difference between pre-test priors which determine post-test probabilities.

There was a comment by Casey about not wanting to delve into the scientific issues in depth. I prefer this for two reasons. First, it is a philosophy club. Second, I am unsure of the value of scientific debates between even very knowledgeable non-experts. An appropriate debate might be between say, Behe and a professional evolutionary biologist.
William T.
15496715
Chicago, IL
Post #: 19
I think all that makes perfect sense - and I especially agree that in a philosophy club matters of how things operate is a different issue from the philosophical question of whether or not something is science. You definitely handled this well. smile
Powered by mvnForum

Our Sponsors

  • DesignYum.com

    Our group is being sponsored by this outstanding design blog.

People in this
Meetup are also in:

Sign up

Meetup members, Log in

By clicking "Sign up" or "Sign up using Facebook", you confirm that you accept our Terms of Service & Privacy Policy