firedragon
Veteran Member
Err. See, you should know the subject at hand and not think of "depends on the field". Anyway, lets think of a specific field then.
Take social Research for example.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Antireligious rule of Science
- Thread starter questfortruth
- Start date
Err. See, you should know the subject at hand and not think of "depends on the field". Anyway, lets think of a specific field then.
Take social Research for example.
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
I also explain why it's not a hypothesis and why it is more a methodology, or a guideline for scientific methodology, instead.
I didn't leave it at just "it's not".
Methodological naturalism is not a hypothesis because:
- it doesn't make testable predictions concerning a specific phenomenon
- it doesn't address a set of facts within a well-defined scope
- it doesn't address a specific phenomenon that it attempts to explain
Naturalism (philosophy) - Wikipedia
Methodological naturalism concerns itself with methods of learning what nature is.
(...)
In a series of articles and books from 1996 onward, Robert T. Pennock wrote using the term "methodological naturalism" to clarify that the scientific method confines itself to natural explanations without assuming the existence or non-existence of the supernatural, and is not based on dogmatic metaphysical naturalism. Pennock's testimony as an expert witness[30] at the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial was cited by the Judge in his Memorandum Opinion concluding that "Methodological naturalism is a 'ground rule' of science today"
firedragon
Veteran Member
The idea that that this is "ground rule", or that its "the practice" is a hypothesis.
You said its not. So I am trying to explain to you but if you cannot engage that's perfectly fine. Maybe you dont understand what a hypothesis is.
Your prerogative.
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
Errr... different fields require different approaches, dude. I'ld think that that is fairly obvious.
For example, researching the physics of black holes or solar formation is going to be a bit hard to do in a lab - you can't really create a star or a super massive black hole to experiment with.
But researching a specific biological process is something you potentially CAN do in a lab. So your approach is going to differ...................
I'm not a scientist nore am I knowledgeable on "social research".
But like always, in generic terms again, I'ld think that one gathers relevant data, looks for patterns, analyses said patterns, attempts to explain those patterns (=formulate a hypothesis) and then tries to predict what other data one should or shouldn't find based on that explanation, as a test for the hypothesis.
Also, methodological naturalism is primarily about the natural sciences. Like physics, biology, chemistry, etc.
Still not sure what the relevance of these questions are to the topic at hand (of methodological naturalism not being a "hypothesis", but rather ground rules on how to do science).
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
Explain.
And I stand by that.
Are you? I don't see you elaborating into an argument to try and explain anything.
All I see you do is simply assert it.
You're not even addressing the points I'm raising.
That's some blatant projection right there.
firedragon
Veteran Member
Right. So you dont understand what a hypothesis is. Thus you just said "no" without knowing what someone is talking about. You see brother, sometimes its better to practice a little bit of humility and "ask". Bye.
Terrywoodenpic
Oldest Heretic
A scientist does not consider God or occult at all when conducting his research or coming to conclusions.
If what he discovers whilst doing this work, disagrees with or disproves any religious precepts or scripture. he would more than likely be totally unaware of it, and it would have no bearing on his published work at all.
A scientist as a member of a religion, may have personal beliefs that he has to reconcile with his work as a scientist.
However he must never let any such belief affect his study or his conclusions.
Any person that does so, forfeits his status as a scientist, and lays himself and his work open to criticism and probable derision.
If what he discovers whilst doing this work, disagrees with or disproves any religious precepts or scripture. he would more than likely be totally unaware of it, and it would have no bearing on his published work at all.
A scientist as a member of a religion, may have personal beliefs that he has to reconcile with his work as a scientist.
However he must never let any such belief affect his study or his conclusions.
Any person that does so, forfeits his status as a scientist, and lays himself and his work open to criticism and probable derision.
Tambourine
Well-Known Member
But they do not. They only form a cohesive picture of experiments.
If we cannot derive general principles via induction, then no amount of induction will help in that regard.
rational experiences
Veteran Member
The religious theme is that humans are equal, the law stated that we owned what God had created O as One planetary body mass/history and also said that string theists were Satanists. For if you tried to quote a human owned a "beast" parent like an Ape theme you would be proven lying.....as a thinker/theist.
Which is all that you were originally. The highest state self formed owned life human, as a thinker, contemplating the invention of human sciences...by humans/brothers for humans, but inferred to a new state....a machine body as a PRETEND God.
To be where you are today. With such fake thesis as, I believe a human has electricity inside of them. I want electricity as an eternal infinite resource. I will falsify natural information.........reality. I build a machine, it owns no volition or self chosen action. Until I press the button the machine remains static, then I react it, just inside of the machine holding itself.
Yet when you begin to review how a theist comes about advice, by lots and lots of thoughts all strung together, the string theory is just lots of his thinking capabilities.
To come to a false preaching prophecy in mathematical fake God terms.....that the spoken word invented/created creation....as the self warning.
When you live as an equal human male to female and own consciously the relationship as natural consciousness. Then today a male/group science his story has displaced self mind to equal partnership and owns a machine in that place quoting fake "Mother" themes.
maths....Mother he falsely stated....referencing false female quotes as space is a womb, empty, gave birth to the spirits of the gases. Then quote God was the Father Earth O planet that spurted its spirits from volcanic reaction likened to his penis into the spatial body. Then quotes, now I will think O Earth is a Mother who then gave birth to her owned historic spirits.
Why space never gave birth, space just held and allowed cooling to evolve the holding of mass cooled.
So male self human with life partner falsely now has sex with robotic machines.
Stephen Hawking, consciously aware in a sacrificed slowly sacrificed life conscious review, much like the Jesus theme...quoted males in science are trying to remove life by machine as if machines would take place of the human life.
Consciousness making its own human correct review.
Male science theme...I am the Creator of the new born baby. Jesus theme...yet Jesus theme also involved science/temple/Pyramid. Yet thesis was first thought, just by natural male adult.
Says, I want the machine to give me electricity. So you should see that PRETEND then quotes, the female human Mother body, owner of electricity is the same and equal condition to my life pressing a button on my machine life partner to invent electricity. By pretending and falsifying natural worded information.
Religious quoted reviews....law imposed. Never give the O one God Earth stone a name again in science, so never change the fusion....fused state. Which is radiation (heated) therefore Satanic themes.
Stated alchemy was banned when they realised water cooling with a mineral was displaced to build own a melted body/machine. Realised that history.
Knew that defining Mother terms was fake....males in the organization never supported the female Mother in science terms. Only the One God male theme about Earth with the spatial body conditions, cold converting the gases into a statement mystery and the evolution of the Immaculate non burning gas status.
Science knowledge "alight and burning".
When you are first a natural life partner whose consciousness is about the sexual being.....then it is what consciousness naturally exists as. When you displace use of natural words into inferences, then you began to lie in the sciences.
As a female, a Healer, a spiritual researcher, an attacked sacrificed life, brain irradiated to learn what the theme crown of thorns meant, as brain prickling.....I came to realise that science is a liar, as their history.
They might own what they claim is a wisdom to convert and destroy what natural cosmological history owned forming, but it does not own the status "intelligence", instead as quoted it is artificial intelligence by design.
In human reality.
Father in spirit speaking voiced messages, which I never knew existed or even thought a reality told me that a chemical reaction is not electricity. It is an energetic release. If you tried putting the worded reference to the knowledge of what electricity actually is by scientific worded definitions we would be super fried.
Father said, when a word is used and given originally one term of its holy meaning, when you detail in male life that a Sophist is a human in a group who by worded use is a contrivance, then you already knew it was true.
When you quote and think in pretend land, thinking about space, you vision space as space with the word term space. Never did you vision it as a living organic bio human female Mother womb.
Now to use a term "womb", the female had to be living as a human for you to make that comparison. For male and female terms are only found in bio chemical life forms, in animals and humans.
How the teaching about we own the history O of the God stone and what the entity planet Earth O one God had historically formed itself in its owned body was how the relative scientific advice was previously taught. And it was also stated that no human being came from any beast body. Seeing an animal was first quoted in human life to be the beast, and when it has babies it has animal beast babies.
Claiming as a natural and highest life form human owned life that you know something that no one else did...first of all is lying. Secondly you then have to coerce other human selves to agree in a cult group mentality of only a human agreement.
It was never any God or higher form of spirit agreement to claim self in a status or category, I am higher than, more intelligent than or greater than any other human in my thinking capabilities...for you would be proven wrong.
Which is all that you were originally. The highest state self formed owned life human, as a thinker, contemplating the invention of human sciences...by humans/brothers for humans, but inferred to a new state....a machine body as a PRETEND God.
To be where you are today. With such fake thesis as, I believe a human has electricity inside of them. I want electricity as an eternal infinite resource. I will falsify natural information.........reality. I build a machine, it owns no volition or self chosen action. Until I press the button the machine remains static, then I react it, just inside of the machine holding itself.
Yet when you begin to review how a theist comes about advice, by lots and lots of thoughts all strung together, the string theory is just lots of his thinking capabilities.
To come to a false preaching prophecy in mathematical fake God terms.....that the spoken word invented/created creation....as the self warning.
When you live as an equal human male to female and own consciously the relationship as natural consciousness. Then today a male/group science his story has displaced self mind to equal partnership and owns a machine in that place quoting fake "Mother" themes.
maths....Mother he falsely stated....referencing false female quotes as space is a womb, empty, gave birth to the spirits of the gases. Then quote God was the Father Earth O planet that spurted its spirits from volcanic reaction likened to his penis into the spatial body. Then quotes, now I will think O Earth is a Mother who then gave birth to her owned historic spirits.
Why space never gave birth, space just held and allowed cooling to evolve the holding of mass cooled.
So male self human with life partner falsely now has sex with robotic machines.
Stephen Hawking, consciously aware in a sacrificed slowly sacrificed life conscious review, much like the Jesus theme...quoted males in science are trying to remove life by machine as if machines would take place of the human life.
Consciousness making its own human correct review.
Male science theme...I am the Creator of the new born baby. Jesus theme...yet Jesus theme also involved science/temple/Pyramid. Yet thesis was first thought, just by natural male adult.
Says, I want the machine to give me electricity. So you should see that PRETEND then quotes, the female human Mother body, owner of electricity is the same and equal condition to my life pressing a button on my machine life partner to invent electricity. By pretending and falsifying natural worded information.
Religious quoted reviews....law imposed. Never give the O one God Earth stone a name again in science, so never change the fusion....fused state. Which is radiation (heated) therefore Satanic themes.
Stated alchemy was banned when they realised water cooling with a mineral was displaced to build own a melted body/machine. Realised that history.
Knew that defining Mother terms was fake....males in the organization never supported the female Mother in science terms. Only the One God male theme about Earth with the spatial body conditions, cold converting the gases into a statement mystery and the evolution of the Immaculate non burning gas status.
Science knowledge "alight and burning".
When you are first a natural life partner whose consciousness is about the sexual being.....then it is what consciousness naturally exists as. When you displace use of natural words into inferences, then you began to lie in the sciences.
As a female, a Healer, a spiritual researcher, an attacked sacrificed life, brain irradiated to learn what the theme crown of thorns meant, as brain prickling.....I came to realise that science is a liar, as their history.
They might own what they claim is a wisdom to convert and destroy what natural cosmological history owned forming, but it does not own the status "intelligence", instead as quoted it is artificial intelligence by design.
In human reality.
Father in spirit speaking voiced messages, which I never knew existed or even thought a reality told me that a chemical reaction is not electricity. It is an energetic release. If you tried putting the worded reference to the knowledge of what electricity actually is by scientific worded definitions we would be super fried.
Father said, when a word is used and given originally one term of its holy meaning, when you detail in male life that a Sophist is a human in a group who by worded use is a contrivance, then you already knew it was true.
When you quote and think in pretend land, thinking about space, you vision space as space with the word term space. Never did you vision it as a living organic bio human female Mother womb.
Now to use a term "womb", the female had to be living as a human for you to make that comparison. For male and female terms are only found in bio chemical life forms, in animals and humans.
How the teaching about we own the history O of the God stone and what the entity planet Earth O one God had historically formed itself in its owned body was how the relative scientific advice was previously taught. And it was also stated that no human being came from any beast body. Seeing an animal was first quoted in human life to be the beast, and when it has babies it has animal beast babies.
Claiming as a natural and highest life form human owned life that you know something that no one else did...first of all is lying. Secondly you then have to coerce other human selves to agree in a cult group mentality of only a human agreement.
It was never any God or higher form of spirit agreement to claim self in a status or category, I am higher than, more intelligent than or greater than any other human in my thinking capabilities...for you would be proven wrong.
Terrywoodenpic
Oldest Heretic
That was a lot of words.
You would need a lot more to explain what any of it is supposed to mean.
gnostic
The Lost One
Seriously, firedragon?!
You and @TagliatelliMonster have talking about hypothesis and Methodological Naturalism later.
Naturalism, no matter if it methodological or metaphysical naturalism, deal with studies of nature and the natural processes, the law of nature.
There are 5 major branches in Natural Sciences:
- Physics
- Chemistry
- Earth Science
- Astronomy
- Life Science
In Natural Sciences and Physical Sciences (Physical Sciences include all of the above except “life science”), they relied on any explanatory model (eg scientific theory) to pass 3 essential steps in being “science”:
- Falsifiability
- Scientific Theory (this requires (A) formulation of the hypothesis and (B) Testing, eg observations, evidence, data.)
- Peer Review
“Social research” don’t fall under the Natural Sciences, because it isn’t natural...it is man-made construct, hence it (social research) is outside the scopes of Natural Sciences, THEREFORE outside the scopes of Methodological Naturalism.
Methodological Naturalism not only exclude supernatural, everything about human behaviour, human social activities and human cultures are all outside the scopes of Natural Sciences and Methodological Naturalism.
Social research may fall under Social Sciences. There are many branches (and respective fields) in Social Sciences, such as psychology, sociology, anthropology, archaeology, political science, economics, and many more other fields. All these are considered soft science and are outside the domain of natural sciences.
Unlike Natural Sciences, Social Sciences don’t have anything like Falsifiability, Scientific Method and Peer Review that govern what is or isn’t science.
So social research wouldn’t be dealt with in Natural Sciences, so Methodological Naturalism wouldn’t apply to your example.
So if you are going to continue to talk about Methodological Naturalism, then “social research” don’t fall under natural phenomena or natural processes.
gnostic
The Lost One
@firedragon
I would also like to add that Methodological Naturalism isn’t a hypothesis...no, it is a philosophy about science.
There are two different approaches to NATURE with the philosophy Naturalism:
So Methodological Naturalism is the lynchpin approach to Natural Sciences.
The other differences between metaphysical vs methodological, is that Metaphysical Naturalism approach nature through absolute statements about reality. Methodological Naturalism don’t, because there are no certainty in any hypotheses UNTIL they have been TESTED, rigorously and repeatedly...
...hence the requirements of Natural Sciences requiring objective and empirical observations/evidence.
In science, hypothesis is never absolute, never true by default.
Scientific theory are also never absolute or true by default. Scientific theory can be challenged, corrected, modified/updated, and even replaced.
I would also like to add that Methodological Naturalism isn’t a hypothesis...no, it is a philosophy about science.
There are two different approaches to NATURE with the philosophy Naturalism:
Metaphysical Naturalism is all about the EXISTENCE of any natural phenomena, which exclude everything that are supernatural.
Methodological Naturalism approaches nature by (A) attempting TO UNDERSTAND and EXPLAIN the natural phenomena and the natural processes (eg formulating the hypothesis), and then (B) by TESTING if the model (hypothesis) is true or not, or to be more precisely, if the model is probable or improbable. It is metho of acquiring knowledge about nature.
Methodological Naturalism approaches nature by (A) attempting TO UNDERSTAND and EXPLAIN the natural phenomena and the natural processes (eg formulating the hypothesis), and then (B) by TESTING if the model (hypothesis) is true or not, or to be more precisely, if the model is probable or improbable. It is metho of acquiring knowledge about nature.
So Methodological Naturalism is the lynchpin approach to Natural Sciences.
The other differences between metaphysical vs methodological, is that Metaphysical Naturalism approach nature through absolute statements about reality. Methodological Naturalism don’t, because there are no certainty in any hypotheses UNTIL they have been TESTED, rigorously and repeatedly...
...hence the requirements of Natural Sciences requiring objective and empirical observations/evidence.
In science, hypothesis is never absolute, never true by default.
Scientific theory are also never absolute or true by default. Scientific theory can be challenged, corrected, modified/updated, and even replaced.
firedragon
Veteran Member
Absolutely irrelevant.
Do you think methodological naturalism of theistic scientists is a hypothesis or a quantified take? If you cannot understand an example that I took to explain what a hypothesis and how its derived, please just make your contention.
Do you think methodological naturalism of theistic scientists is a hypothesis or a quantified take?
gnostic
The Lost One
No, firedragon.
Methodological Naturalism and Natural Sciences only concern itself with method of understanding nature and acquiring knowledge about nature.
Human social activities have nothing to with nature, because it is outside the scopes of Natural Sciences and Methodological Naturalism.
If you want to do a hypothesis on “social research”, then try sociology or cultural studies, which would fall under the Social Science umbrella, not under Natural Science.
Social sciences don’t need to apply Scientific Method, but Natural Sciences do.
I wouldn’t even call social research as “hypothesis”...perhaps a better term would be “case study”.
You are misunderstanding what methodological naturalism means, therefore you apply incorrect usage.
firedragon
Veteran Member
You are not attempting to understand anything Ive said. I never said that Methodological Naturalism has anything similar to Social Sciences. I was trying to explain to someone what a hypothesis is. But since you insist, its your prerogative to argue something you yourself have made up to yourself. And I never said Social Sciences is a "hypothesis". That sentence itself is utterly stupid. A hypothesis in social sciences or market research is derived from a qualitative research. Then based on a quantitative methodology like snow balling or strata or whatever you find is appropriate the researcher comes up with a quantitative study to generalise and test the hypothesis. So prior to making this kind of statements and assumptions about what the other person is talking about and arguing against a platform you yourself has built, clarify what the other person is saying.
Mate. Do you know that even in theological seminary, methodological naturalism is implemented as a hypothesis? This is a new term that is defined as a hypothesis that a theist would impose upon himself when approaching critical thinking. It is considered a "working hypothesis" for scientists what ever his background is. Thats exactly how Steven Schafersman explains it. So if that person said "no. its not a hypothesis" and now you are arguing for him. Its absurd.
If you want to read up on Methodological Naturalism in scriptural study and higher criticism you can read C.S Evans. You wish to understand Methodological Naturalism please read Schafersman, or any other book on it. There are plenty of them. If you wish to read the flip side to the hypothesis of historical application in retrospect you can read someone like Robert Stewart. Any tom, dick, or harry using a simple criticism like redaction criticism is "supposed" to apply Methodological Naturalism as his hypothesis. Do you understand that statement? Its applied as a "HYPOTHESIS". What we apply in our approach not only to science but also many other critical thinking factors is Methodological Naturalism. Its applied as our hypothesis, and the thought that in retrospect all theistic scientists applying this itself is a hypothesis.
I dont know what kind of argument you are looking for but dont look for one on a plain you have built yourself.
Peace.
gnostic
The Lost One
I am referring to the last line in post 81:
You and @TagliatelliMonster were talking about Methodological Naturalism.
Even earlier, you wrote this in post 25:
TagliatelliMonster had responded with this in post 52:
Later still, TagliatelleMonster clarified with post 67:
...and some more with post 74:
TagliatelleMonster is correct in telling that Methodological Naturalism itself isn’t a “hypothesis”.
I think you have misunderstood what methodological naturalism mean, by thinking it is a hypothesis in the first place.
Methodological Naturalism is an approach of scientists should focus on investigating nature with explanations on the natural processes, and not going off-tangent, by including anything supernatural, like god, angels or demons.
Methodological Naturalism is telling people to approach nature by giving explanations to nature that are testable and can be tested as natural processes, not supernatural ones.
Last edited:
firedragon
Veteran Member
Ive already explained it mate.
And your understanding of this so called "Methodological Naturalism" is absolutely invalid.
Here you go. A cut and paste for your information.
"Steven Schafersman states that methodological naturalism is "the adoption or assumption of philosophical naturalism within the scientific method with or without fully accepting or believing it ... science is not metaphysical and does not depend on the ultimate truth of any metaphysics for its success, but methodological naturalism must be adopted as a strategy or working hypothesis for science to succeed. We may therefore be agnostic about the ultimate truth of naturalism, but must nevertheless adopt it and investigate nature as if nature is all that there is"
So you, and your Tailgate are both wrong.
firedragon
Veteran Member
Gnostic. This is the most absurd comment I have seen in some time. Please dont make comments like this. Its embarrassing.
No one said Social Research=Hypothesis. And you replied by saying "its a case study"? My God.
I was trying to explain what a hypothesis is. So maybe you could learn something as well. I have already explained in another post right here. SO please read that and figure out what a hypothesis is, how you come about one, and what is hypothesis testing. Within Social Research or any kind of research for that matter you will get hypothesis and hypothesis testing. These are basic stuff anyone would learn in school. So there is no point making it a big deal after so many years. I just expected people to be decent and honourable enough to either know it or be candid and say "I dont know it".
I tried to explain what a hypothesis is but if you guys are not willing to understand its your prerogative.
Bottomline is, as I have repeatedly said again and again, Methodological Naturalism is not a science.Now I think you have done your research and you have understood what it is but you still intend to argue for no reason so you are hung up on the "hypothesis". factor. Maybe you too dont understand what a hypothesis is. A hypothesis is something we adopt in an approach to research in order to test it. Even in Biblical or Hadith criticism this method is adopted. More so methodically in Biblical and Hadith criticism. Its a basic, well known thing. This is a hypothesis that you adopt for yourself to approach research without bias of rendering. You want to use the word "strategy"? Well, that's fine. But saying "no its not a hypothesis" is the first time Ive heard so called educated people make this statement as an attempt to argue no matter what.
Alright. So tell me. I have given a name or two of theistic scientists of the past. How do you know they adopted "methodological naturalism" in their approach. Let me give an example again. How about Al Khawarizmi? Can you prove via your research methodology that he had practiced "methodological naturalism"?
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
I think, I understand you now. Methodological Naturalism is a cognitive approach to understanding something. In a sense that is itself not knowledge or science, but one way to approach knowledge or science, correct?