Kyle Taggart

Eh, I wouldn't say that so soon. I could just be pulling crap out of quick google searches you know I'm not, but it's a very real possibility haha I'm perfectly comfortable with your examples. Physics is my second love after biology, and it was a hard choice when time for uni came to choose between the two. Please continue, it's well in my domain of interest and past study. Glad to speak to someone knowledgeable like yourself friend. Certainly, it is

Yes, they address different questions. That is one of the things that makes them different disciplines. It is not the only thing: they also have vastly different methodologies. I never said logic is used ONLY by philosophy. That would amount, dare I say, to insanity. It absolutely upholds all three of those disciplines. But it is the essence of philosophy, whereas natural science is broader and more expansive in its methods: it is much more than armchair reasoning. I think the guidelines say something about not using logical fallacies; in that light, please don't address my occupation when discussing the validity of my points. I do understand what a point particle is, and just explained as much. We agree. Because you cannot measure the size of the particle does not make it non-empirical. We observe the electrical field that surrounds the particle: it is thus an empirical entity. Mass and dimensions are not the only thing empiricism deals with. I don't see how I am misunderstanding the definition of empirical...confused a bit there. Also, and i just picked up on this, are you suggesting that by that definition planets would be considered non-empirical? Just asking, I may have misunderstood you. I also wanted to add that it is fallacious to claim our inability to currently measure the dimensions of a physical entity we nonetheless have concrete evidence for does not mean it is non-empirical. This amounts to a chronological relativism in which protons and neutrons would have been non-empirical, atoms before that, and cells before that.

Hello! I posted this here a few days ago but it seems to have vanished before I received any replies...not sure why. Trying again! I could use some help in defending the methodology and nature of natural science as a broad discipline from some arguments made by an acquaintance at college. I hope you folks can help me: I’m a biology undergrad debating with a philosophy undergrad, and he’s making it a bit hard for me to defend the very basis of my field, a fact of which I admit I’m ashamed. He says: “the God of the Gaps argument does not asses that God cannot be inferred because it is not empirical as you say, but that the God explanation is a way to explain the unexplained via an explanation which will be eventually falsified. Lot's of the people who claim the God of the gap fallacy are not strict empiricists, they simply presuppose the future unveiling of materialistic explanations. Clearly it cannot be defended by saying that God is in the philosophic realm and not scientific, because, as a person would go forth in utilizing both for a specific conclusion, the objection would fall immediately, as it did with you I think. If you claim abductive reasoning you claim the validity of inference, and most of all, not empirical inference (a theory is not empirically verified in itself, given its abstract nature). If abstract inferences can be made as a consequence of scientific reasoning, it is also consistent to infer a personal agent as God as the cause of an explicandum”I think I’m okay with most of this, but I need help mainly on one part: the argument that theories are (in themselves) non empirical and abstract. For context, my argument is that science deals only in empirical data and can only reach empirical conclusions, and so no matter how strong some case for God from science might hypothetically be, science (by its nature) can’t infer such (since God is by definition immaterial and so non empirical). How can I defend the fact that theories are empirical and not abstract? Now this I really need help with: “I agree that empiricism is maintained by positing necessary requirements for science such as reproducibility and falsifiability. While their sufficiency can be granted for a scientific inqury, it is your job to show why such conditions ought to be necessary. I completely reject these terms as necessary and I think lots of scientists implicitly do. The whole historical science inquiry is not conducted via scientific method, rather, sound reasoning which reasembles more analytic philosophy. Clearly the truthworthiness of the standard big bang model is not assessed via reproducibility. The necessity of reproducibility is a great mistake as I show in my article https://confident-faith.com/2018/07/25/answering-arons-ra-epistemic-claims-regarding-his-criterion-for-modal-evaluation/If your definition of science does not show why such definition ought to be true, there ought to be a more fundamental principle whihc you will have to defend which will entail the necessity of the scientific method. So how do you justify the restrictedness of your definition of science?”So far I’ve argued successfully that what science IS (how it is practiced universally) is as an empirical discipline that thrives on falsifiability, reproducibility, and testability. But now I’m confronted with this: WHY? Why must science be this way? How do I respond to the Big Bang claim, and how do I respond about the claim against historical science? I’m studying to be an evolutionary biologist, and this is shaking my worldview a bit...how DO I justify my restricted view of science? I also find this difficult to rebut; the discussion is on dark matter, which he claimed was non-empirical, I showed it was, and then he said this: “I never claimed it what not physical, that would be very disingenuous... I claimed that it is assessed on non empirical grounds. How can you deny this? If you do you have to show that: 1) dark matter was believed because of it being tested and 2) that the testing comes from direct observation and not inference (otherwise empiricism is lost). It's existence is assessed because of its explanatory power.”Responding to my claim that everything science investigates is empirical, he says this: “I am sorry, this is just false. If you mean by empirical as potentially empirical I agree, but if so also God is potentially empirical. If by empirical you mean actually empirical the claim becomes absurd. To say that all scientific postulations are empirical entails that certain reductios which I will ask you do defend: show me there is empirical evidence of every single mutation that proceeded from the first single celled organism to now days. Clearly no person will believe this is possible, Evolutionism work also via inference and extrapolation, to limit it to direct observation (empricism) is a form of suicide”I could really use help, thank you!

Oh, you were saying it is he who is dismissing me? My apologies for misunderstanding you friend! I think I understand what you're saying here. However, I fail to see how it is treated in a "scientific manner". It's very interesting for analogical purposes, but science operates on experimentation (testing the hypothesis; this is why evolution, for example, reached an important point in its theoretical history when biologists developed actual laboratory experiments (such as Shaposhnikov's aphids or Rose's fruit flies) to verify it), and the interesting thought experiment you posed doesn't accomplish this. We can't perform an experiment to accept or reject the hypothesis "an intelligent, immaterial agent spontaneously generated organisms about 3.8 byo on Earth". We can test the hypothesis "the informational, compartment-forming, and metabolic subsystems of the prokaryotic cell came together in the 'primordial' soup to form a unified, living entity 3.8 byo". In fact, as the article I posted on the common origins of these precursors shows, we have synthesized all these components independently from inorganic material, repeating what we understand to have been the conditions at the time. The next step is reproducing their synthesis with each other.

Your point is a large part of my contention: Einstein's prediction WASN'T verified for a hundred years. But it was always hypothetically verifiable because it's an empirical hypothesis. The statement that God created life from non-life (or ex nihilo), however, is not scientifically verifiable because there is no experiment that can ever show it to be true: science restricts itself to the workings of the universe (or multiverse). God is, by definition, outside the universe, immaterial, immutable, etc. He can't be tested. Gravity can. So I maintain what I am saying: if a proposition is untestable, it is not science. If a proposition is testable but simply can't be tested with current technology, it may be science. Haha, thanks for sharing that! Now is a good time to admit that I am a double major in phil and bio, although bio is what I am studying for a career in (evolutionary bio specifically) and I'm just doing philosophy for enjoyment. But what I don't like is sophistry: arguing for the sake of arguing, employing rhetoric instead of logic. Although, I understand a point you made: it is a way of sharpening debate skills. So that's fair! Although I don't think debate has much of a purpose if it isn't logical, honest, and meaningful. I appreciate your input, friend! I certainly agree that science is not a belief system. However, while there may be instances in which scientists understand empirical data in a more complete or even different way, as in the modification of a theory to better fit the data, the theory (or whatever we're dealing with) remains a synthesis of solely empirical data (which is why such discussions as God and the soul are left to the equally valid, but methodologically foreign, discipline of philosophy). I still don't understand what is being understood as non-empirical. Yes, science makes predictions and tests them. I couldn't agree more. This is why God cannot be assessed by science: by definition, He cannot be tested. What's non-empirical here? I'm not sure I understand the relevance of your working hypothesis mention to the topic at hand. Would you mind elaborating? Thanks! Forgive my ignorance. Absolutely there are other valid approaches besides science: the deductive power of abstract logical reasoning (philosophy's domain) is an ideal example. That doesn't change the methodology of science: it is an empirical discipline. It seems to me that emphasizing different approaches to knowledge strengthens my contention (I could be totally off here): we admit non-empirical disciplines. What makes them so different from science? Science is empirical, they are not. Point-like particles like electrons and quarks are not non-empirical. They are not extended particles (like Protons), but just like dark matter are not immaterial: they just have different properties from extended particles and are not able to be viewed/sensibly apprehended in the normal way via current technology. They are surrounded by electric fields which have an effect on one another. They are empirical, despite having what is referred to as "zero-size": merely because they're too small for CURRENT tech to apprehend directly.

Dissing him? I'm not aware of having dissed him. If I did inadvertently, please quote me and point out how so I can avoid it in the future. This was not my intention. I respect him (he's quite bright, I just think he is wrong here), but respect for your interlocuter does not amount to respect for his position. On your last point, I agree completely: now let's see if I can get that across :). Interesting point of view about reproducing conditions! I'm going to ponder that...however as far as abiogenesis goes, this is very different from the Big Bang: we've come very close to reproducing abiogenesis under laboratory conditions, and there is a general confidence among biochemists that it can, in principle, be done (not that their confidence really means anything until we have results). This is the closest we have come so far: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25803468 Could you please explain exactly how science can deal with God? Thanks! Odd. I posted the same thing in the philosophy and biology forums. Could mods have removed it from philosophy? It really has more to do with phil than bio lol

I agree with you there. I will try to get this across to him. I have been trying to emphasize that I can never disprove the idea, through experiment, that God intervened in the primordial soup to make the first prokaryotic cell, but he's having none of that. I think knowledge is valuable and useful in itself, which is why I regard it as also being a useful methodology. However I agree it does not exhibit physical usefulness: it doesn't improve health, wealth, and standard of living like science does :). Friend, you should check out my thread in the philosophy section here - there I have provided a more detailed account of this person's arguments (sadly I haven't gotten any responses yet). He said exactly this: he claims that we can't reproduce the Big Bang, so the criterion of reproducibility does not hold. He even linked me to an article he wrote about it. The thing as, as someone said earlier, reproducibility operates IN PRINCIPLE - since the Big Bang is a physical event, it can hypothetically be reproduced. We could hypothetically, with very advanced technological capabilities, reproduce this even if at a smaller scale. But we cannot, IN PRINCIPLE, reproduce a divine act. No don't give up, I am interested in the discussion.

Hm...let me think about that. I could be wrong, but I think that's just playing with words. For one, that doesn't seem to be applicable because it isn't science as I understand it (I see it as an artistic question. Tell me if I am way off). But anyway, it seems that it IS a picture of a star. What you showed there. That's the case. The larger picture is not of a star, because it isn't the same picture in the first place

Why should I be? I suppose I am, in a sense. I am suggesting that, since the experiment you speak of is irreproducible in principle, we do not have a valid scientific knowledge of the breaking strength of the piece of wood A. Since we can't perform multiple experiments with identical conditions and variables to reproduce the data we have on the breaking strength of A, we don't know it in a scientific sense, but we do have a strong enough prudential knowledge of it for practical purposes, I suppose. I think I will ask him that question, yes. He insists it is falsifiable "via analogy", and I can't seem to convince him...THAT IS NOT SCIENCE

I gotcha, I think I can formulate it now, hopefully To be fair, I subscribe to the classical theist God due to such deductive proofs as the Leibnizian rationalist proof, Aquinas' Second and Third Ways, the Neo-Platonic Proof, and the Aristotelian Proof from motion. But I fully agree, of course (it's why I'm arguing with this guy) that empirical, measurable, quantifiable data does not lead to God. God is by definition immaterial - how can quantitative, empirical data detect him? It makes no sense, I'm with you. Yes, I agree that is what he is doing. By "correct" he means, why does every scientific statement/investigation/proposition have to meet these exact criteria? If they do not, then God is hypothetically viable. Keep this in mind - I should've made this clearer - my argument with this gentleman is NOT over whether or not scientific evidence ACTUALLY points to God. The argument is over science, methodologically, is COMPETENT to point to a deity. My contention is that no matter how overwhelming, hypothetically, quantifiable data for a deity may seem, science by its nature can't suppose an immaterial entity. It's about methodology, not actual evidence.

You've hit on a soft spot in our argument: I accused him of "god of the gaps" long ago regarding abiogenesis, but he is making a decent argument for why that is not the case (I say decent not because he is right - I think he is wrong - but because I admit he has rhetorically trapped me). He says it is not god of the gaps because it follows a valid abductive reasoning process: historical science seeks the best explanation for a phenomena. If the explanation that currently explains the data in the simplest (Occam's razor) and most effective way is God, we should accept that. My contention is that science is an empirical discipline and so can't infer God. Philosophy is the valid academic field that can deal with the immaterial such as God or the soul. Not science. Ah, I see. I will use this, thank you. In addressing the pillars of the scientific method I left out predictive power. Of course I've been arguing falsifiability the whole time but he won't crack on it: the problem is that he is asking me to defend my conception of science as a whole. He places the burden of proof on me: WHY must the criteria of falsifiability, predictability, reproducibility, and testability be met in science? And I frankly don't know how to prove this. Thanks for letting me know about the second pic friend. Unfortunately I still plee ignorance: how does this relate to falsifiability? As for this issue: I don't think we are talking about the same thing if this is what you mean. I am talking about the reproducibility of universal ideas in science to produce theories: eg reproducing an experiment to show the correlation between hormonal birth control and depressive symptoms. I'm not talking about the physical properties of a single object. But you've raised an interesting point. Anyone else have thoughts on this? @swansont? I must add, I would still hold the criterion of reproducibility for the wood example: since we can't reproduce the experiment, we don't really KNOW the breaking point. We just have a decent guess from the data we can get. We can't reproduce it and account for flaws, so we don't actually know. We have a prudential idea for building purposes I guess.

I agree with you 100% on the definition (by direct observation I didn't mean only directly apprehension with the senses). My problem remains: my interlocuter holds that since inference is acceptable in science, and this inference (according to him) is an abstract process, science can deal with the "non-empirical," including God.

No no. Reproducibility doesn't mean testing the exact same object twice. You obtain an object of the same dimensions, molecular composition, density, etc (shouldn't be too hard in a laboratory setting) and test that to reproduce your results. If you test two objects that are physically identical, you are meeting the criterion of reproducibility.

He is rejecting the scientific method, I agree. But my problem is this: he challenges me (I've posted his full comments in the philosophy section but haven't gotten a response yet) to defend the scientific method: why does it have to be this way? And I'm at a bit of a loss there. Philosophy deals nicely with those questions, and he and I agree on that, but he insists that science can address them as well, which I reject. I don't think he is trying to ignore the evidence. He doesn't reject dark matter: he accepts it as you and I do. His contention is more fundamental: if dark matter is inferred as the best way to explain the evidence, and this (according to him) is non-empirical because it is an abstract rational process and doesn't rely on strict experimental observation, science can also infer a deity or a spiritual soul. And this I disagree with, but I'm not sure how to effectively prove the point. Can you point me to sources which show that it is directly tested and based on direct observation? Thanks Drama matter? Forgive my ignorance I would say there is no point as well, but I guess I'm a bit of a jerk in that I don't like to walk away from a debate...we've been discussing for a while now, and remember I will see this guy regularly around campus lol I will try to point that out, but here is the problem: he asks me to prove that my conception of science (a raw empirical discipline that relies on falsifiability, testability, and reproducibility) is correct. And I am not sure how to do that. Hello. I was on my iPhone and there was no option to submit a reply (there had previously been). I didn't have access to my laptop (which I am currently using) and so I could only edit my previous comment and tag you so you'd be more likely to see it. So kindly redirect that ire. So it seems we're not quite on the same page on that definition. I don't deny that that is the original etymological sense of the word, and how it was understood in antiquity. But I stand by the previously stated definition as the one currently used in the universal practice of natural science. Feel free to offer a critique of that point, I'd like to continue this dialogue Yes, that is reproducible. Obtain a length of wood or steel bar identical in dimensions, composition, and density to the original. Then perform your tests again. There you go. Forgive my ignorance, I don't understand the star photo point. And I can only access one photo, are there two? That is not a scientific postulate, because it is not experimentally testable as far as I can tell. Keep in mind I regard scientism as self-defeating and regard deductive philosophical reasoning as an equally valid approach to truth as science. I hope I didn't give the impression that I subscribe to scientism ")

Okay. In that light, any suggestions on responding? As I understand it, his argument is that since we know of the existence of dark matter through abduction (inference to the best explanation), indirectly through observing other entities as you said, empiricism is shut down: science can deal with the non-empirical as it supposedly does here, and so it can, hypothetically, deal with God (that’s all this is: we’re not arguing over whether the arguments for God from science are valid or invalid. We’re arguing over whether they can even be made in the first place given the parameters of science). Let me rephrase his argument, and then respond if you like: Dark matter is inferred for its explanatory power. It is not directly observed. It explains the data, so it’s rationally posited using the scientific method. If this is the case, why can’t one, hypothetically, posit God if He is the best available explanation for physical observations using scientific abductive reasoning? It won’t be enough to just say he’s going too far, believe me As a Christian revert from atheism myself, I’m with you in abhorring the prevelance of confirmation bias among the devout. Just look at the evidence folks, as hard as I know from experience that is to do... Thanks a lot :). @studiot the definition of empirical as I understand it: Empirical evidence includes measurements or data collected through direct observation or experimentation. It relies essentially on experimental verification. If a scientific proposition cannot be verified experimentally (tested), is not falsifiable (can’t be shown to be wrong through experiment), or is not reproducible experimentally, it is not scientific, as I understand science (perhaps I’m wrong). I understand empirical to essentially mean physical, experimental.