Cells' Molecular Motor Diversity Confounds Evolution

[Underseer]

I'm glad not to incense a senseless response sent from those whose sense of scents is off center.

Anyway, the point being, naturalism doesn't have to be impervious to reason and facts for it to serve its purpose (although at a certain stage in mental development, many minds that cling to naturalism are impervious to reason and facts- it's called saying "nanananana").

I think what you are saying is that "naturalists" are not willing to accept "magic" as an "explanation" to anything. "you mix O with H.. and then MAGIC.. and then you get water" is not helpful or explanitory in any way.

You owe me 1 million dollars. I can prove this. ready? 1, 2, 3, MAGIC! See. that is proof.

A magical invisible catfish with actuarial skills told me that he owes you $100, not $1,000,000. Since my explanation involves both magic and and argument from authority fallacy, my explanation is more correct than your explanation!

 

[Keith&Co.]

I think what you are saying is that "naturalists" are not willing to accept "magic" as an "explanation" to anything. "you mix O with H.. and then MAGIC.. and then you get water" is not helpful or explanitory in any way.

You owe me 1 million dollars. I can prove this. ready? 1, 2, 3, MAGIC! See. that is proof.

A magical invisible catfish with actuarial skills told me that he owes you $100, not $1,000,000. Since my explanation involves both magic and and argument from authority fallacy, my explanation is more correct than your explanation!

Plus, it's a more believable number. I'm sure any jury will agree to a debt of $100.

 

[Kharakov]

Yeah, equating naturalism with the scientific method is something certain naturalists love to do, but it's hardly correct.

Are you talking about methodological naturalism or metaphysical naturalism. Methodological naturalism is a requirement of science; metaphysical naturalism is not.

I see one little problem with absolute methodological naturalism.
The ultimate problem with ("Godel incompleteness" of) methodological naturalism is
1) if/when we know the complete framework of natural laws
2) something occurs that indicates something exists outside of the framework of natural laws, which can influence events within the framework
3) we might end up with a methodological naturalist (who happens to be a closeted metaphysical naturalist) saying "well, the framework is wrong" rather than "the framework is correct, and there is evidence of something outside of the natural framework influencing events"

And certainly at that point it would be unscientific to propose a new, incorrect framework, in an attempt to explain supernatural phenomena. This is the point where methodological naturalism splits from the scientific method.

 

[Kharakov]

These are modern religious scientists but the desire to see god reflected in his creation is hardly a new one for theists.

I'd think that understanding of nature would allow one to perceive God's influence upon nature. In other words, to know something is supernatural, one must understand the natural (or at least have an adequate grasp of it) and only then would one know that something is supernatural.

It was a reference to an earlier discussion between us regarding your implication that the universe could be the result of a mathematical meta function that describes both the history, present and future of all its components. I can't remember which forum it was in. Apologies if it was a bit obscure, I know you have been very active on these boards.

No problem. I was being a bit nit picky about your joke about a journal... which I don't believe I ever said existed.

1) Do you contend that the scientific method should be un-hitched from methodological naturalism?

At the very end- perhaps it should. Depends on the evidence.

That we should seek explanations for events that cannot be observed, tested, replicated or verified?

I think we have to pursue natural knowledge until we've established an adequate understanding of nature. This will allow us to perceive whether acts are supernatural or not.

2) What sort of evidence do you have, or think would be sufficient, to make naturalism a defunct philosophy of knowledge and philosophical world-view? Specifically, I guess, in terms of the cells molecular motor - see mods this is not a derail

Uhh. Well, I suppose if Mitochondria stop conspiring to rule the world, maybe we could actually get a little natural science done that allows us to determine whether something supernatural is going on.

Seriously though- naturalism doesn't have to disappear because something supernatural exists. It's still a pragmatic way for some of us to interact with one another.

 

[Kharakov]

I think what you are saying is that "naturalists" are not willing to accept "magic" as an "explanation" to anything. "you mix O with H.. and then MAGIC.. and then you get water" is not helpful or explanitory in any way.

You owe me 1 million dollars. I can prove this. ready? 1, 2, 3, MAGIC! See. that is proof.

A magical invisible catfish with actuarial skills told me that he owes you $100, not $1,000,000. Since my explanation involves both magic and and argument from authority fallacy, my explanation is more correct than your explanation!

Ok, I still don't understand how a  hydroxyl radical (or HO, as it's known in certain circles) is water? And the fact that it isn't water, but instead the highly reactive HO, I don't see how a magical invisible catfish could survive in a bunch of HOs?

Although I could see a HO doing something fishy for a 100 bucks... so you might be on to something there.

 

[Malintent]

A magical invisible catfish with actuarial skills told me that he owes you $100, not $1,000,000. Since my explanation involves both magic and and argument from authority fallacy, my explanation is more correct than your explanation!

Ok, I still don't understand how a  hydroxyl radical (or HO, as it's known in certain circles) is water? And the fact that it isn't water, but instead the highly reactive HO, I don't see how a magical invisible catfish could survive in a bunch of HOs?

Although I could see a HO doing something fishy for a 100 bucks... so you might be on to something there.

I didn't state how many H's or O's. You just assumed one of each so it would fit your organic chemistry agenda

 

[Underseer]

Are you talking about methodological naturalism or metaphysical naturalism. Methodological naturalism is a requirement of science; metaphysical naturalism is not.

I see one little problem with absolute methodological naturalism.
The ultimate problem with ("Godel incompleteness" of) methodological naturalism is
1) if/when we know the complete framework of natural laws
2) something occurs that indicates something exists outside of the framework of natural laws, which can influence events within the framework
3) we might end up with a methodological naturalist (who happens to be a closeted metaphysical naturalist) saying "well, the framework is wrong" rather than "the framework is correct, and there is evidence of something outside of the natural framework influencing events"

And certainly at that point it would be unscientific to propose a new, incorrect framework, in an attempt to explain supernatural phenomena. This is the point where methodological naturalism splits from the scientific method.

That depends on what you mean by "framework."

Many creationists use a "framework" of the second law of thermodynamics that would make snowflakes an impossibility, and don't even get me started on their "information theory" (that doesn't even count as a hypothesis because none of its proponents will define "information" with enough specificity to actually test their "theory") or even worse, the claim that "something can't come from nothing" framework that conveniently ignores the fact that something comes from nothing in our universe all the time.

Methodological naturalism isn't some atheistic plot against theism. Heck, it was Christian scientists who started the tradition of methodological naturalism. Do you think those Christian scientists were part of some conspiracy to "move the goalposts" on theists?

No one is moving the goalposts on you. The reason you cannot convince anyone of your supernatural claims is because you don't have anything substantial backing up those claims. Thus, you realize that the only way people will accept your claims as truth is if we relax the definitions of truth.

 

[Malintent]

back to the OP... Evolution is all about explainations for the diversity of life. The "diversity of cell's molecular moter" is a prediction of the theory. Science is not "confounded" by this diversity... It is what would be expected.

 

[Kharakov]

Ok, I still don't understand how a  hydroxyl radical (or HO, as it's known in certain circles) is water? And the fact that it isn't water, but instead the highly reactive HO, I don't see how a magical invisible catfish could survive in a bunch of HOs?

Although I could see a HO doing something fishy for a 100 bucks... so you might be on to something there.

I didn't state how many H's or O's. You just assumed one of each so it would fit your organic chemistry agenda

What did you do at your bachelor party? Three shiny HOs and we made it rain dear.

 

[Kharakov]

Methodological naturalism isn't some atheistic plot against theism. Heck, it was Christian scientists who started the tradition of methodological naturalism. Do you think those Christian scientists were part of some conspiracy to "move the goalposts" on theists?

Probably, but that isn't even pertinent to the point made. Who cares who developed methodological naturalism, when the point made stands if it was created by an invisible pink marshmallow masquerading as a unicorn, or a fluffy perplexing scavangous beast from Zorlon 6.

I see one little problem with absolute methodological naturalism.
The ultimate problem with ("Godel incompleteness" of) methodological naturalism is
1) if/when we know the complete framework of natural laws
2) something occurs that indicates something exists outside of the framework of natural laws, which can influence events within the framework
3) we might end up with a methodological naturalist (who happens to be a closeted metaphysical naturalist) saying "well, the framework is wrong" rather than "the framework is correct, and there is evidence of something outside of the natural framework influencing events"

And certainly at that point it would be unscientific to propose a new, incorrect framework, in an attempt to explain supernatural phenomena. This is the point where methodological naturalism splits from the scientific method.

No one is moving the goalposts on you. The reason you cannot convince anyone of your supernatural claims is because you don't have anything substantial backing up those claims. Thus, you realize that the only way people will accept your claims as truth is if we relax the definitions of truth.

Yeah, they'd have to be as relaxed as your definition of "claim". Evaluate the logic of the statements in the above quote.. ohh wait, nevermind.

You understand the problems MN runs into when dealing with the SN, correct? In the case of a SN event occurring, any explanation relying upon MN is going to be incorrect.

 

[Kharakov]

back to the OP... Evolution is all about explainations for the diversity of life. The "diversity of cell's molecular moter" is a prediction of the theory. Science is not "confounded" by this diversity... It is what would be expected.

Yeah. I'm pretty sure that ship has sailed. I don't think anyone took the claim that "science" was confounded by something seriously. And claims of complete lack of supernatural intervention in the evolutionary process are just as logical.

 

[abaddon]

... at that point it would be unscientific to propose a new, incorrect framework, in an attempt to explain supernatural phenomena ... In the case of a SN event occurring, any explanation relying upon MN is going to be incorrect.

Name an SN event. What “supernatural phenomena” are you talking about?

 

[Malintent]

back to the OP... Evolution is all about explainations for the diversity of life. The "diversity of cell's molecular moter" is a prediction of the theory. Science is not "confounded" by this diversity... It is what would be expected.

Yeah. I'm pretty sure that ship has sailed. I don't think anyone took the claim that "science" was confounded by something seriously. And claims of complete lack of supernatural intervention in the evolutionary process are just as logical.

Who made that claim?

rationalism prevents the claim that "magic" happened in a process, as an explaination for causal events. That is not the same as making the claim that invoking "magic" is not necessary to adequately identify the cause of events.

 

[Underseer]

back to the OP... Evolution is all about explainations for the diversity of life. The "diversity of cell's molecular moter" is a prediction of the theory. Science is not "confounded" by this diversity... It is what would be expected.

Yeah. I'm pretty sure that ship has sailed. I don't think anyone took the claim that "science" was confounded by something seriously. And claims of complete lack of supernatural intervention in the evolutionary process are just as logical.

Emphasis added.

Am I correct in understanding that you are making the claim that it is illogical to reject the claim that supernatural forces are involved in evolution?

 

[Kharakov]

... at that point it would be unscientific to propose a new, incorrect framework, in an attempt to explain supernatural phenomena ... In the case of a SN event occurring, any explanation relying upon MN is going to be incorrect.

Name an SN event. What “supernatural phenomena” are you talking about?

I wasn't speaking of some specific event- I was talking about the necessity of mastery of natural knowledge in order to detect an event that is supernatural. Of course, it could be the case (which.. given the circumstances I'm leaning towards this scenario) that there is always a natural explanation for a supernatural event. In other words, supernatural events are hidden within nature.

 

[Kharakov]

Yeah. I'm pretty sure that ship has sailed. I don't think anyone took the claim that "science" was confounded by something seriously. And claims of complete lack of supernatural intervention in the evolutionary process are just as logical.

Who made that claim?

No0ne as far as I know.

rationalism prevents the claim that "magic" happened in a process, as an explaination for causal events. That is not the same as making the claim that invoking "magic" is not necessary to adequately identify the cause of events.

I think you mean naturalism? If that is the case, yeah, some forms of naturalism exclude all forms of supernatural (and some go as far as defining something supernatural as natural, saying "well, it's all natural, GRANOLA!@#!#").

- - - Updated - - -

Yeah. I'm pretty sure that ship has sailed. I don't think anyone took the claim that "science" was confounded by something seriously. And claims of complete lack of supernatural intervention in the evolutionary process are just as logical.

Emphasis added.

Am I correct in understanding that you are making the claim that it is illogical to reject the claim that supernatural forces are involved in evolution?

If there is supernatural meddling with evolution, supernatural forces are part of evolution. It's pretty simple. Evolution could go on naturally for extensive periods of time, and then some supernatural force could influence it, allow it to go forward again, and then poke it again. Poke.