[Vision2020] Eugenie Scott's Talk at U of I

[John D]

--- Michael <metzler at moscow.com> wrote:

> I do agree that it is legitimate to argue for the
fact that Creation science
> is not good science by giving individual examples of
bad science.  But this
> is only the case if it is done in a clearly
argumentative way; Scott's
> method was purely rhetorical.  She spent much time
getting folks laughing at
> a few very isolated examples; the examples given did
not form any sort of
> coherent argumentative picture at all outside of
illustrating what was
> supposed to be assumed as the general imbecilic
nature of Creation science.
> With the little amount of knowledge I have about
Creation science, one thing
> was certain about her examples: they would not be
largely characteristic of
> the work done by the many brilliant PhD scientists
laboring who identify
> themselves with Creation science. 

In this paragraph you are first saying giving examples
of bad creation science is legitimate, and then, in
the next sentence, suggesting the very same thing is
not legitimate.

Don't get emotional about people in the audience
laughing with examples of creation science or about
assumed suggestions of imbecility. You either do your
research well and produce convincing results, or you
don't. Creation science doesn't.

There are some PhD scientists sympathetic to creation
science, but very few of them actually do creation
research. None of them have produced valid research
results.
What do you know about the 'brilliant' work of the
researchers you mention? A link or reference to some
work would be nice.

> (for those of you who heard the talk: Given the
strong rhetorical method of
> Scott, I did not find scrutinizing any given example
interesting.  However,
> Dr. Gordon Wilson of New St. Andrews pointed out
that the picture of the
> white and black moths that Scott could only role her
eyes over was actually
> a very well argued point.  These moths do not spend
their time on the bark
> of trees but under leaves. 

False. The moths spend their time on trunks, branches,
and trunk/branch joints. If the moths rest more
commonly under branches, this would only require an
adjustment of selection coefficients, but doesn't
change the main idea of differential bird predation.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wells/iconob.html#moths

> If so, Scott did not bother to carefully understand
the argument she was 
> ridiculing. But as Dr. Wilson pointed out, you can
find bad science anywhere 
> if you are just looking for a few isolated
examples.)

Are you trying to say (again) there is valid
creationist science out there? If so, show it!
 
> My point was that the examples Scott gave were not
found within publications
> that were necessarily posing as scientific, academic
journals.

That would be because there is no creationist science
to be found in true academic journals.

> Ted and I have already addressed this misconception
of her argument and my
> criticism. To reiterate: Scott claimed that Phil
Johnson was guilty of a
> 'false dilemma' or 'false alternative' as are many
other folks.  This false
> dilemma is claimed to show up explicitly in Phil
Johnson's wedge strategy.
> However, this claim of Scott's is erroneous for two
reasons.  First of all,
> and most importantly, part of Phil Johnson's work is
arguing for this very
> conclusion. 

Scott is wrong because what she says goes against the
work of Johnson?

> He argues for the fact that the only two viable
options are
> evolution or creation.  

He is wrong. There are more than two viable options.

> For him to commit a false alternative fallacy, he
would have to wrongly assume 
> that these are the only two options.

Exactly.

How about a historical example. For a long time,
classical (Newtonian) mechanics was the ruling theory
in physics. We now know this theory is false. Would
disproving classical mechanics 200 years ago have
proven that instead paranormal phenomena are
responsible for physical events? Maybe that would have
proven that invisible pink unicorns are toying aroung
with planets and galaxies? Of course not. We now have
the theory of relativity, a different and better
explanation of the physical world, but still a natural
one. 

> Debates can be won by not leaving all relevant
options on the table.

Yes, but that would be called cheating.

> But not only does Phil Johnson not assume this
alternative, this is the very 
> thing he is trying to convince people of.

Now you have me confused. In the same sentence you are
saying Johnson is not using the flawed strategy, but
also trying to convince people of that strategy.

> From what I can recall of the wedge strategy is just
this: to give rational 
> evidence and argument for the fact that evolution
and creation are the only 
> two viable options.  Perhaps he is wrong, but he
would have to be interacted 
> with regarding the evidence and arguments he gives
for this conclusion; simply 
> crying 'false alternative' is a straw man as strawy
as they come.  

Scott did not just cry 'false alternative'. She
explained why it was so.

> But given the fact that I became convinced half way
through the talk that 
> Scott was primarily interested in holding an
evolutionary pep rally instead 
> of giving a solid argument, this was not surprising
to me. 

Try keeping an open mind.
 
> Secondly, noting other 'logical possibilities' does
not entail a 'false
> alternative' as long as the participants in a
discussion are only interested
> in the proposed limited options.  

Scott clearly was not interested in artificially
limiting the options to just evolution and creation.

> In fact, this is almost always the way discussion
and argument works. The 
> historical and cultural context of this broad debate
very naturally limits 
> the two options to creationism and evolution.

I don't see why that would be true. Can you explain?

> Just because anther option might be a logical
possibility does not mean that 
> this option is probable or interesting for any given
group of people.  

It is interesting to anyone who honestly wants to
discuss this topic.

So, let's see if I understand you. Let's say a
phenomenon can potentially be explained four ways: A,
B, C, and D. For some reason, a group of people hates
explanation A, and loves explanation B. They convince
everyone A and B are the only two options, ignoring C
and D. They then attack A, hoping that will further
the cause of B.
Are you arguing this is a valid approach? You can't be
serious!

> I think you are confusing two things that Scott
herself kept separate.
> Distinguishing between Philosophical and
Methodological Naturalism was a
> very separate and clearly articulated point.

Yes. She said science operates in the natural world.
In her own words: you can't put God in a test tube, or
keep him out of it. Science can't probe the
paranormal.

> stances.  The problem however, is that Scott was
trying to show that
> limiting the discussion in the classroom to the
physical world of scientific
> study is in no way meant to deny the existence of
God.  She said that
> Christians were still allowed to believe in God and
that a purely
> Methodological Naturalism does not entail a
Philosophical Naturalism.  

Agreed. Why is that a problem?

> Now, much could be said about this distinction, but
none of it is really
> needed since Scott went on and presented not a
thesis of Methodological
> Naturalism, but rather a thesis of robust
Philosophical Naturalism.
> Therefore, her argument did not only not work, she
fails precisely where she
> claims to win.  Scott agrees that it is very
important to NOT be a
> Philosophical Naturalist; to do that would to
embrace assumptions
> antithetical to a theistic worldview.  And then she
goes on and demonstrates
> that she demands nothing short of a Philosophical
Naturalism in the science
> classroom-scientism 101 of the beastly and
tyrannical kind.   

Were we even attending the same lecture? I don't know
where you are getting this from. This is not what she
said. She said science operates in the natural world
and this is independent of a person's spiritual life.

> This is not my argument. Methodological Naturalism
is naturalism 'only in
> practice.' For the sake of a limiting methodology,
we practically 'assume'
> the only items of interest to be those items of
physical science.  When we
> rule out paranormal or normal non-physical causes or
explanations (such as
> experience), this makes us work hard at finding as
many physical, scientific
> explanations as possible; it keeps us honest and
within the sphere of
> physical models. Since this sort of naturalism is
only methodological, we
> can put up our hands and reference non-physical
entities or causation at
> anytime we feel it is necessary.  

Science does not deal in the paranormal. However,
science routinely DOES deal with normal non-physical
causes. I give you Economics, Sociology, Psychology,
Behavioral Ecology,... 

> However, Philosophical Naturalism is the thesis that
all there is in the
> world to know can be fully knowable via Naturalistic
explanation.  There is
> nothing in the world that does not permit scientific
understanding.  This is
> why Scott shunned the idea that there was anything
we "just can't know" via
> science.

How could you ever know that you can never know
something?

> This is what was so important about how she answered
the question
> regarding the mystery of the human mind.  She was
clear that the mind is not
> mysterious; there is nothing about the mind that
cannot be understood
> through science and natural, physical explanation. 
This is an explicit and
> clear statement of what is called Philosophical
Materialism, or to use her
> terminology, Philosophical Naturalism.  When the
mystery of the Mind is
> proposed, of essential reference is not just the
nervous system and neurons,
> but human experience, subjectivity, individuality,
intentionality along with
> those items of reality that seem to attach
themselves to all this, such as
> beauty, love, morality, and 'meaning.'  All of these
things, according to
> Philosophical Materialism, can be fully explained,
and therefore 'reduced'
> to physical description via scientific explanation. 
This is a point of view
> at war with a Christian view and even plain old
folk-traditional thought.

The concepts you list here are routinely
scientifically studied in the fields I listed above.


		
__________________________________ 
Yahoo! FareChase: Search multiple travel sites in one click.
http://farechase.yahoo.com