Philosophy of Biology

Estrid said:

Quel, as they say in France, surprise

Click to expand...

I mean, who knew that Philosophy of Biology would become so popular among so many so quickly?

2PhiloVoid said:

I mean, who knew that Philosophy of Biology would become so popular among so many so quickly?

Click to expand...

Who indeed.
Esp when there's no there there

J_B_ said:

I thought I was pretty clear that I'm not going to propose a way for science to account for the supernatural. I was referring to a different issue.

Click to expand...

OK - I thought you were making a point when you talked about a deliberate effort to remove religion from science, and that the supernatural could be made better-defined ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

J_B_ said:

In brief I was saying there was a deliberate effort to remove religion, but I don't want to focus on definitions of the supernatural. IMO that is not the scientific issue in play.

There is a lot of peripheral stuff swirling about that complicates the matter. To pretend it's not having an effect is naïve.

However, the root issue I was driving at was the monism of the Intrinsic Methodological Naturalism (ICM) mentioned in the referenced paper.

Click to expand...

OK, well I've responded to that, so we can move on.

J_B_ said:

You did make some comments about the paper. As I understood it, you see it as merely a semantic issue.

Click to expand...

I said it was a practical and semantic issue, and explained why.

After saying I can believe whatever I want as long as I define it properly, you then proceeded to state if I define it properly, it reduces to a natural cause.

Click to expand...

That's not what I said. In the same post linked above (#65), as part my explanation of the semantic issue, I said, "As soon as the 'supernatural' becomes well-defined, has some specificity, and makes testable predictions, it will become part of scientific endeavour; no longer supernatural but natural."

In the next post (#77), in response to your declaration of belief, I said, "You're welcome to believe whatever you like, but you haven't addressed the question of how science is supposed to account for the supernatural, let alone what it is."

If you can't get my posts straight, communication becomes difficult...

So, if you'll indulge me, could you please provide a definition of "nature" as it is used in scientific terms such as:
* methodological naturalism
* natural selection
* natural cause
* etc.

Click to expand...

Methodological naturalism is a philosophical term rather than a scientific one, and definitions vary, but "seeking natural explanations without assuming the existence or non-existence of the supernatural", where 'natural' means 'not involving human influence', will do.

Natural selection is 'natural' in contrast to 'intentional', i.e. without goals or objectives; coinage dating to Darwin's time. In recent times, the description of non-human emergent goal-seeking behaviours has muddied the waters.

'Natural cause' is a legal term. But in general, 'natural' is used to mean 'not involving human influence'.

But, hey, I'm not an expert in the semantics of 'nature' and 'natural', so expect to see other opinions.

J_B_ said:

Clarity is important for communication. One way to express/confirm understanding is to repeat back what someone has said in your own words. I condensed the above passage. If I remove the word "cause" from my earlier attempt, explain how the following condensation fails to capture your meaning: As soon as the 'supernatural' becomes well-defined, it is no longer supernatural but natural.

Click to expand...

But that's leaving out a necessary part of the requirement, i.e. it's quote mining. To be a scientific hypothesis, a proposed explanation needs to make testable predictions of specific observables.

I'll just focus on natural selection.

Is it important to separate selection with and without goals?

Click to expand...

Yes.

J_B_ said:

We're in a science forum, so testable predictions of specified observables is a given. I trimmed the phrase to emphasize the part I want to focus on. Given a statement on my part that all of the above is understood between you and me, is the phrase a fair restatement of your position?

As soon as the 'supernatural' becomes well-defined, it is no longer supernatural but natural.

Click to expand...

No, it isn't, which is why I objected. You can make any concept that you propose to have influence on the world well-defined - and you can call it what you want, magic, the supernatural, N-rays, phlogiston, etc., but unless it makes testable predictions, it's just speculation.

If your hypothesis makes fruitful predictions that no competing hypothesis can satisfy, then it may be provisionally accepted. If the tests confirm beyond reasonable doubt that powerful invisible beneficent winged entities exist that you called 'angels', they would become part of an extended natural ontology - a form of previously unknown alien life, possibly wielding novel forces, their beneficent duties to perform. A similar story might apply to 'ghosts', 'fairies', 'spirits', 'karma', etc.

But it hasn't happened because supernatural claims rarely involve testable hypotheses, and where they do - intercessory prayer, for example, the results generally match what you'd expect from tests of empty claims with strong beliefs associated - and the better controlled the test, the fewer the significant results. This happens with paranormal claims and also with exotic natural claims such as UFOs being alien spacecraft.

Or do you want me to just quote the whole thing verbatim and underline the part I'm focusing on?

As soon as the 'supernatural' becomes well-defined, has some specificity, and makes testable predictions, it [is] will become part of scientific endeavour; no longer supernatural but natural.

Why?

Click to expand...

See above. If its predictions are fruitful, it will be treated as a real and novel natural phenomenon.

Note that this is my personal view of how science works in the long term. The bar is high and there is considerable inertia to overcome, but eventually, the data will prevail.

J_B_ said:

Your use of "natural" is confusing. There is natural selection, which is without goals. Then there is selection with "non-human emergent goal-seeking behaviours" that, if successful, will be accepted as natural.

Click to expand...

I thought I already mentioned that the word 'natural' is used differently in different contexts - if I didn't mention it, my bad. The issue with non-human goal-seeking behaviours is a problem of the 'no goals' meaning becoming ambiguous.

If other creatures show intentional goal-seeking behaviour and we still want to consider them part of the 'natural world', then we cannot justifiably distinguish human activities from the natural world. But considering human activities separately can be a useful viewpoint, particularly in environmental, ecological, and behavioural sciences. So there's a problem - the semantics of the traditional human/nature division have broken down.

I think the problem is twofold - firstly, science has outgrown the classical concept of 'nature'; secondly, there's a mixing of the language and concepts of different levels of emergence (conceptual & semantic emergence), which is always problematic. But I don't think it really matters - it's just semantics.

Common definitions of 'supernatural' typically define it as 'beyond the reach of science', or 'inexplicable to science', so if the phenomena do fall within the reach of science and con become explicable, it seems reasonable to suppose the 'supernatural' cap no longer fits - so I suggest that, at that point, they become 'non-supernatural', i.e. 'natural'. But, frankly, who cares what they're labeled?

You keep making this connection that success in science means something is "natural".

Click to expand...

No, I don't. Success in science is supporting or falsifying a hypothesis or theory.

It feels as if there is a subtext of meaning you're tying to "natural" that you're not expressing. Why is successful science "natural"? Why isn't it just successful science?

Click to expand...

Yeah, you're just reading things into my posts that I haven't said. Again.

Or another question: Does this mean psychology, since it is focused on people, can never be natural, and therefore can never be successful science? Because natural also apparently means "not people".

Click to expand...

Please read what I said above about differing meanings and contexts. When someone starts talking about natural and unnatural psychology, that will be the time to ask what they mean.