• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

How can science accommodate the supernatural?

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

Nap, interrupted.
Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Joined
Aug 3, 2001
Messages
19,141
Meadmaker said:
Behe, in his speeches, and I am fairly certain at trial, has indeed said he wants to "break the rules", but what he meant is not that he wanted to change the rules of science, but rather change the rules of the scientific establishment that arbitrarily rejects divine intervention as not scientific.
Click to expand...
Instead of arguing with you directly, let me ask you to define divine intervention and then specify how it can be tackled by science. Now we need some sort of scientific epistemology as our basis for discussion, so let me offer Stimpy's version:
Definition 1: The term "real" is defined to refer to everything which has any kind of effect on something else which is real. This self-referential definition is completed with the definition that I am real.

Axiom 1: Everything real can be described according to some set of consistent logical rules (Naturalism).

Axiom 2: The natural laws describing real events can be determined through observation of the effects those events have.

Definition 2: The term "physical" is defined to refer to anything which is, in principle, observable. If axioms 1 and 2 are true, then everything which can meaningfully be said to exist is physical.
Click to expand...
You may certainly argue with this epistemological framework, too.

I'd like to point out that I have asked at least half a dozen people to have this precise discussion with me. Never has anyone taken me up on it. But I persevere.

I want to know (a) how divine intervention is different from normal naturalistic activity; and (b) how science can study it.

~~ Paul
 
Last edited:
Does anyone have a link to the new definition of Kansan science? I'll bet a lobster dinner it doesn't specify how the new science is to be done.

~~ Paul
 
Paul C. Anagnostopoulos said:
Does anyone have a link to the new definition of Kansan science? I'll bet a lobster dinner it doesn't specify how the new science is to be done.

~~ Paul
Click to expand...
NATURE OF SCIENCE

Science is a systematic method of continuing investigation that uses observations, hypothesis testing, measurement, experimentation, logical argument and theory building to lead to more adequate explanations of natural phenomena. Science does so while maintaining strict empirical standards and healthy skepticism. Scientific explanations are built on observations, hypotheses, and theories.

A hypothesis is a testable statement about the natural world that can be used to build more complex inferences and explanations.

A theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate observations, inferences, and tested hypotheses.Scientific explanations must meet certain criteria. Scientific explanations are consistent with experimental and/or observational data and testable by scientists through additional experimentation and/or observation. Scientific explanation must meet criteria that govern the repeatability of observations and experiments.

The effect of these criteria is to insure that scientific explanations about the world are open to criticism and that they will be modified or abandoned in favor of new explanations if empirical evidence so warrants. Because all scientific explanations depend on observational and experimental confirmation, all scientific knowledge is, in principle, subject to change as new evidence becomes available. The core theories of science have been subjected to a wide variety of confirmations and have a high degree of reliability within the limits to which they have been tested.

In areas where data or understanding is incomplete, new data may lead to changes in current theories or resolve current conflicts.

In situations where information is still fragmentary, it is normal for scientific ideas to be incomplete, but this is also where the opportunity for making advances may be greatest.

Science has flourished in different regions during different time periods, and in history, diverse cultures have contributed scientific knowledge and technological inventions. Changes in scientific knowledge usually occur as gradual modifications, but the scientific enterprise also experiences periods of rapid advancement. The daily work of science and technology results in incremental advances in understanding the world.from here http://www.ksde.org/outcomes/sciencestd.doc (page ix)


ETA- sorry I'm at work ATM and our systems dont like formating in Vbullitin. No idea why. I did include pargraph breaks, honest.Is a kindly mod willing to fix this? Thanks.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
brodski said:
from here http://www.ksde.org/outcomes/sciencestd.doc
Click to expand...
From that document (page ii):
Rationale of the State Board for Adopting these Science Curriculum Standards
We believe it is in the best interest of educating Kansas students that all students have a good working knowledge of science: particularly what defines good science, how science moves forward, what holds science back, and how to critically analyze the conclusions that scientists make.

Regarding the scientific theory of biological evolution, the curriculum standards call for students to learn about the best evidence for modern evolutionary theory, but also to learn about areas where scientists are raising scientific criticisms of the theory. These curriculum standards reflect the Board’s objective of: 1) to help students understand the full range of scientific views that exist on this topic, 2) to enhance critical thinking and the understanding of the scientific method by encouraging students to study different and opposing scientific evidence, and 3) to ensure that science education in our state is “secular, neutral, and non-ideological.”

From the testimony and submissions we have received, we are aware that the study and discussion of the origin and development of life may raise deep personal and philosophical questions for many people on all sides of the debate. But as interesting as these personal questions may be, the personal questions are not covered by these curriculum standards nor are they the basis for the Board’s actions in this area.

Evolution is accepted by many scientists but questioned by some. The Board has heard credible scientific testimony that indeed there are significant debates about the evidence for key aspects of chemical and biological evolutionary theory. All scientific theories should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered. We therefore think it is important and appropriate for students to know about these scientific debates and for the Science Curriculum Standards to include information about them. In choosing this approach to the science curriculum standards, we are encouraged by the similar approach taken by other states, whose new science standards incorporate scientific criticisms into the science curriculum that describes the scientific case for the theory of evolution.

We also emphasize that the Science Curriculum Standards do not include Intelligent Design, the scientific disagreement with the claim of many evolutionary biologists that the apparent design of living systems is an illusion. While the testimony presented at the science hearings included many advocates of Intelligent Design, these standards neither mandate nor prohibit teaching about this scientific disagreement.

Finally, we would like to thank the Science Standards Committee for their commitment and dedication in their work toward the standards.
Click to expand...

The document is actually pretty good in describing what is and what isn't science. But notice the slant. The only field of science that is singled out for "significant debates about the evidence for key aspects" is biological evolution. Apparently there are no disagreements in other fields of science.
 
Paul C. Anagnostopoulos said:
I want to know (a) how divine intervention is different from normal naturalistic activity; and (b) how science can study it.

~~ Paul
Click to expand...


Back to the OT, I like the definition presented. If God changes water into wine, he has to do it via some mechanism, which should, in theory, be understandable via science. And from that point, the mystery, the spirituality of it all disappears. This spiritual world would have its own physics, perhaps radically different, but it would be there nevertheless. And even further, what is God made of? How does his mind work? Etc.
 
Beth said:
My recollection is that scientific explanations were no longer required to be natural. IOW, a supernatural explanation could be considered in the science class.
Click to expand...
But the section that Brodski quoted certainly refers to the natural world.

~~ Paul
 
Beth said:
My recollection is that scientific explanations were no longer required to be natural. IOW, a supernatural explanation could be considered in the science class.
Click to expand...
That was it. See here, for example:
The previous definition reads in part, "Science is the human activity of seeking natural explanations for what we observe in the world around us." The new definition describes science as "a systematic method of continuing investigation that uses observation, hypothesis testing, measurement, experimentation, logical argument and theory building to lead to more adequate explanations of natural phenomena." The crucial change, Overbye explained, is in the deletion of the phrase "natural explanations."

Adrian Melott, professor of physics at the University of Kansas, argued, "The only reason to take out 'natural explanations' is if you want to open the door to supernatural explanations," and historian of science Gerald Holton concurred, saying that the effect of the deletion is to imply that "anything goes."
Click to expand...
 
Beerina said:
Back to the OT, I like the definition presented. If God changes water into wine, he has to do it via some mechanism, which should, in theory, be understandable via science. And from that point, the mystery, the spirituality of it all disappears. This spiritual world would have its own physics, perhaps radically different, but it would be there nevertheless. And even further, what is God made of? How does his mind work? Etc.
Click to expand...
The physics of the spiritual world would need enough similarity to the natural world so that god could actually affect the natural world. An interface or nexus between the two is required.

But we're getting ahead of ourselves. We need Meadmaker to define divine intervention.

~~ Paul
 
Ah, so it still refers to "natural world," but doesn't require "natural explanations." Ooh, I can't wait until they have to describe the neo-scientific epistemology they are going to assume while doing their neo-science. Someone care to rewrite Stimpy's epistemology to accommodate this?

~~ Paul
 
Paul C. Anagnostopoulos said:
Someone care to rewrite Stimpy's epistemology to accommodate this?
Click to expand...

Easy enough. Eliminate Axiom 1 -- which is philosophically questionable for a number of other reasons.

Just as an example -- humans are not known to be consistent. In fact, at a macro level, they are known to be inconsistent (handwave at Gigerenzer, Tversky, and Kahnemann). The working assumption among most cognitive psychologists is that humans are consistent at a micro-level, but the micro-level consistency produces inconsistent and irrational results. Which is fine, but still an assumption -- and one of the side effects of modern cognitive neuroscience (that the theists object to) is that is essentially eliminates, by assumption, the traditional notions of "soul," "spirit," "free will," and so forth. If my actions are predetermined as a logical consequence of my neurology, there's no idea of "free will" -- conversely, if my actions are truly "free," then they cannot be restrained by logical rules.

We thus have a clear distinction between the "natural," which is necessarily logically describable, and the "supernatural," which is not so. God, of course, would be part of the supernatural (because He has the ability to break "natural" laws at will; these are called "miracles"). So might the Devil. Using a traditional definition of "magic" (altering the world in accord with one's "will"), in conjunction with the traditional assumption of free will, makes "magic" supernatural as well.

ETA: a "natural" explanation is therefore an explanation that makes no reference to supernatural entities or capacities (as defined above); a "supernatural" explanation requires supernatural entities/capacities.

Demonstration that, for example, no rule-based process could have produced a given "real" artifact would thus constitute "scientific" proof of the supernatural. Such a demonstration may or may not be possible.... we've certainly got other proofs of things that no rule-based process can achieve (handwave Turing), but it's hard to tie such mathematical proofs into the empirical ("real" ) world.
 
Last edited:
drkitten said:
Just as an example -- humans are not known to be consistent. In fact, at a macro level, they are known to be inconsistent (handwave at Gigerenzer, Tversky, and Kahnemann). The working assumption among most cognitive psychologists is that humans are consistent at a micro-level, but the micro-level consistency produces inconsistent and irrational results. Which is fine, but still an assumption --
Click to expand...
No, it's not fine. An inconsistent system cannot emulate any other system, consistent or otherwise.
 
Paul C. Anagnostopoulos said:
But the section that Brodski quoted certainly refers to the natural world.

~~ Paul
Click to expand...

Yes, it refers to the natural world, but does not require that explanations of the natural world be purely natural.

Edit: Nevermind. I should have read your next post before responding. Sorry
 
More generally, science is, at its heart, a discipline for attempting inferences to the best explanations. If the supernatural exists and is a frequent cause of phenomena, what we should see is that

  1. the simplest explanation of the facts is something supernatural (i.e. God, a god, a demon, magic, etc.), and
  2. this explanation continues to be the simplest explanation of the facts as more evidence is obtained.

What we've seen in practice is that initially, point 1 seems to hold true, but point 2 does not. If point 2 kept on holding, that would indicate that our supernatural explanations were working.
 
Drkitten said:
Just as an example -- humans are not known to be consistent. In fact, at a macro level, they are known to be inconsistent (handwave at Gigerenzer, Tversky, and Kahnemann).
Click to expand...
But clearly axiom 1 does not refer to the macro behavior of complex organisms as measured by some arbitrary consistency criteria of other organisms.

We thus have a clear distinction between the "natural," which is necessarily logically describable, and the "supernatural," which is not so. God, of course, would be part of the supernatural (because He has the ability to break "natural" laws at will; these are called "miracles"). So might the Devil. Using a traditional definition of "magic" (altering the world in accord with one's "will"), in conjunction with the traditional assumption of free will, makes "magic" supernatural as well.
Click to expand...
How does this supernatural world operate, if not by logical laws?

ETA: a "natural" explanation is therefore an explanation that makes no reference to supernatural entities or capacities (as defined above); a "supernatural" explanation requires supernatural entities/capacities.
Click to expand...
If the supernatural world can somehow have an affect on the natural world, then there is no explanation that would not involve the supernatural, unless some portion of the natural world is completely partitioned from the rest. All explanations would be supernatural, thus illogical, thus there would be no natural world at all.

~~ Paul
 
drkitten said:
Um, wrong. Again.
Click to expand...
No, not wrong. An inconsistent system cannot emulate a consistent one, nor can it emulate another inconsistent system, because doing so would require consistent behavior.

To the extent that a human being is inconsistent, it cannot create a useful and meaningful model of the world. To the extent that a system is inconsistent, it cannot create a useful and meaningful model of anything. I could build a calculating device that expressed inconsistent statements about mathematics, but it couldn't emulate any systems - and I could do so only to the degree that my construction is consistent, and that is possible only to the degree that the underlying physics is consistent.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom