Explain the Meta-scientific Method

[knowledgeIsPower]

Ok, then. What are the properties of something that's intelligently designed versus the properties of something that occurs in nature?

LOL the threshold man the threshold!

 

[Greg1234]

Ok, then. What are the properties of something that's intelligently designed versus the properties of something that occurs in nature?

This varies and is not objective. There is the property of magnetic fields and there are the effects. It might spin the needle in a compass, or it might cause a magnet to stick to a metal. But wind can also spin the needle in a compass. A metal piece can be attracted to a magnet via glue. What then are the objective properties of an effect of magnets. How one arrives at such a conclusion is through assessing the property of magnetic fields and other forces acting in relation to that effect, then drawing a conclusion.

I might say for example, that there is no wind blowing, I'm not shaking the compass sufficiently to cause that, and through assessing the property of magnetic fields, I draw the conclusion that the movement of the needle is caused by the magnetic field. Show me another property capable of moving the needle. I have ruled out wind and shaking. Additionally, depending on my direction it moves in relation to it. This matches magnetic fields too closely and is far too improbable to have occurred just through anything else, therefore, this effect is caused by magnetic fields. If you have evidence to the contrary, then present it.

Notice that the conclusion was not drawn through any objective effect but through assessing the conditions present, ruling out other causes, and assessing the properties of proposed cause. While such an answer is perfectly applicable in the real world, special answers are required for materialists when dealing with man and intelligent design.

 

[Delphiki]

This varies and is not objective. There is the property of magnetic fields and there are the effects. It might spin the needle in a compass, or it might cause a magnet to stick to a metal. But wind can also spin the needle in a compass. A metal piece can be attracted to a magnet via glue. What then are the objective properties of an effect of magnets. How one arrives at such a conclusion is through assessing the property of magnetic fields and other forces acting in relation to that effect, then drawing a conclusion.

I might say for example, that there is no wind blowing, I'm not shaking the compass sufficiently to cause that, and through assessing the property of magnetic fields, I draw the conclusion that the movement of the needle is caused by the magnetic field. Show me another property capable of moving the needle. I have ruled out wind and shaking. Additionally, depending on my direction it moves in relation to it. This matches magnetic fields too closely and is far too improbable to have occurred just through anything else, therefore, this effect is caused by magnetic fields. If you have evidence to the contrary, then present it.

Notice that the conclusion was not drawn through any objective effect but through assessing the conditions present, ruling out other causes, and assessing the properties of proposed cause. While such an answer is perfectly applicable in the real world, special answers are required for materialists when dealing with man and intelligent design.

Ok. You just gave an example of how to determine something using physical means (magnetic properties and effects are both very real and physical and observable). What about the meta-physical?

For example: How do I discover, test, or find the validity in something like feng shui or find the color of someone's aura or an intelligence behind the creation of the universe?

 

[Nostromo]

Notice that the conclusion was not drawn through any objective effect but through assessing the conditions present, ruling out other causes, and assessing the properties of proposed cause. While such an answer is perfectly applicable in the real world, special answers are required for materialists when dealing with man and intelligent design.

The rest of the post was superfluous, the bold part is the only relevant bit. You've just avoided answering the question. What are the properties of intelligently designed things so that we can assess them?

 

[Greg1234]

Ok. You just gave an example of how to determine something using physical means (magnetic properties and effects are both very real and physical and observable). What about the meta-physical?

For example: How do I discover, test, or find the validity in something like feng shui or find the color of someone's aura or an intelligence behind the creation of the universe?

We are talking about the existence of God. This as much of a rigid scientific endeavor as it is to eat food from a plate.

There is light and then there is the study of the nature of light.

There is your computer and there is the study of computers

There is the design of the Great Pyramid and then there is the study of the Great Pyramid builders and culture

The former in all three are blatantly obvious and do not require the rigorous application of scientific protocol. What is happening here is that through physical science, you are not only taught the scientific method but you are wrongfully taught that determining the existence of God requires the rigorous application of scientific protocol.

Yet acknowledging the existence of God requires the same application as you would for the existence of light, your computer in front of you, and Pyramid builders. That's not the mystery. The real mystery begins afterward.

Romans 1:20:

For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.
​

For the bold part above, you can see the meaning of "obvious" which most closely matches. Metaphysics is "the study of light" or "the study of Pyramid builders". Not whether or not light exists. If you want to claim that man can be assembled through chance then do so. We are actually doing this. If you want to make a scientific claim about it then the opposition will take a scientific stance. But don't expect me to chase you around for it.

In short, in the study of the topic on ancient man, there is the obvious, like the existence of Pyramid builders. And then there is the application of rigorous scientific protocol in excavation, dating, etc.

 

[Delphiki]

Actually, those things have all been studied using scientific method. I bet you even apply the scientific method every day countless times a day without even realizing it. We don't just look at light and say "yup, I know how it works now". Nobody looks at something in nature at work then immediately knows everything about it or how it works.

And no, we're not necessarily talking about God. It's my topic, so please stay on it. I'm talking about how you distinguish whether or not something metaphysical is real. So far your answers equate to "you just know" and "the bible says so". Unfortunately, I don't "just know". This is why I would like to know the method or technique or actions needed to be taken to know.

I'm going to guess that you believe in intelligent design, but you don't believe in astrology. Now, besides basic Christian doctrine being against astrology, and besides whether or not it says so in the bible, how do you "just know" that intelligent design is metaphysically real, but astrology isn't?

Keep in mind, I'm coming from the stance that there is no such thing as "metaphysical". Something is either real or it isn't. Not knowing which is irrelevant to something actually being real. I'm just conceding that the metaphysical is real for the sake of trying to understand your thought process behind analyzing this "metaphysical".

I was genuinely hoping to not get the answers I was expecting. Thus far nobody has been able to successfully deliver.

 

[Michael]

The rest of the post was superfluous, the bold part is the only relevant bit. You've just avoided answering the question. What are the properties of intelligently designed things so that we can assess them?

How about we turn that around for a second? What are properties of non intelligently designed things so that we can assess them? Dirt doesn't seem all that "intelligently designed" at first glance, but it actually give rise to many forms of life.

FYI, suppose we start by suggesting that one such "property" might be that that an intelligently designed thing is itself "intelligent"?

 

[Delphiki]

How about we turn that around for a second? What are properties of non intelligently designed things so that we can assess them? Dirt doesn't seem all that "intelligently designed" at first glance, but it actually give rise to many forms of life.

FYI, suppose we start by suggesting that one such "property" might be that that an intelligently designed thing is itself "intelligent"?

This might help:
YouTube - The Design Delusion

 

[Greg1234]

Actually, those things have all been studied using scientific method. I bet you even apply the scientific method every day countless times a day without even realizing it. We don't just look at light and say "yup, I know how it works now". Nobody looks at something in nature at work then immediately knows everything about it or how it works.

There are different aspects which require different levels of inquiry.

And no, we're not necessarily talking about God. It's my topic, so please stay on it. I'm talking about how you distinguish whether or not something metaphysical is real. So far your answers equate to "you just know" and "the bible says so". Unfortunately, I don't "just know". This is why I would like to know the method or technique or actions needed to be taken to know.

We are in fact talking about God. That's what metaphysics primarily deals with. Regarding intelligent design and the bible quote, I already said that an effect is not determined to be from a cause through an objective protocol but through analysis of individual factors. The magnetic field is determined to be the cause of the needle spinning not because of an objective protocol on what defines whether or not something is caused by a magnetic field.

There are first the properties and capabilities of magnetic fields. There is the ruling out of the another force like wind. Not saying that there is objectively no wind acting on a needle anywhere in the universe, but on this structure in this situation, magnetic fields can be deduced. And if you have a refutation then give it.

Depending on the ease of ruling out other factors, and how highly inclined an effect is to a given cause, some things are obvious. The Great Pyramid is one of them. A 747. Man. In the study of light, there is the obvious existence of light and then there is the deeper study of the nature of light. In the study of God, there is the obvious aspect as well (which was shown through the bible verse), one of which is given through the intelligent design of man. I have already asked you for a purely naturalistic unintelligent process which creates a unit with the integrated complexity found in a 747. Man is even more complex than a 747. Naturalistic unintelligent processes can be omitted with relative ease, and the encoding of information along with an integrated array of complex systems are inclined toward design.

I'm going to guess that you believe in intelligent design, but you don't believe in astrology. Now, besides basic Christian doctrine being against astrology, and besides whether or not it says so in the bible, how do you "just know" that intelligent design is metaphysically real, but astrology isn't?

Keep in mind, I'm coming from the stance that there is no such thing as "metaphysical". Something is either real or it isn't. Not knowing which is irrelevant to something actually being real. I'm just conceding that the metaphysical is real for the sake of trying to understand your thought process behind analyzing this "metaphysical".

I was genuinely hoping to not get the answers I was expecting. Thus far nobody has been able to successfully deliver.

I already told you in several places that I'm not getting into that and the reasons why.

 

[Supreme]

From Wikipedia:

Metaphysics is a branch of philosophy concerned with explaining the fundamental nature of being and the world,[1] although the term is not easily defined.[2] Traditionally, metaphysics attempts to answer two basic questions in the broadest possible terms:
"What is there?"
"What is it like?"[3]
A person who studies metaphysics would be called either a metaphysicist[4] or a metaphysician.[5] The metaphysician attempts to clarify the fundamental notions by which people understand the world, including existence, the definition of object, property, space, time, causality, and possibility.
A central branch of metaphysics is ontology, the investigation into the basic categories of being and how they relate to each other.
Prior to the modern history of science, scientific questions were addressed as a part of metaphysics known as natural philosophy. The term science itself meant "knowledge" of originating from epistemology. The scientific method, however, transformed natural philosophy into an empirical activity deriving from experiment unlike the rest of philosophy. By the end of the 18th century, it had begun to be called "science" to distinguish it from philosophy. Thereafter, metaphysics denoted philosophical enquiry of a non-empirical character into the nature of existence.[6]

Metaphysics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I do not think metaphysics has anything to do with the scientific method.

 

[Maxwell511]

1 - You couldn't be more wrong.

He just quoted Feynman and added a bit but he is completely correct. You are very wrong on this.

It’s useful to repeat the definition (Richard Feynman's definition anyway) of the scientific method:

In general, we look for a new law by the following process. First, we guess it. Then we compute the consequences of the guess to see what would be implied if this law that we guessed is right. Then we compare the result of the computation to nature, with experiment or experience; compare it directly with observation to see if it works. If it disagrees with experiment it is wrong. It‘s that simple statement that is the key to science. It does not make any difference how beautiful your guess is. It does not make any difference how smart you are, who made the guess, or what his name is—if it disagrees with experiment (observation) it is wrong.
​

This includes how pious the person was and the bible authors Agonaces. If ideas within the bible disagrees with reality then they are false. Reality is the judge of scientific guesses as well as biblical passages.

The majority of commonly accepted so-called "scientific" beliefs and theories do not meet this criteria.

Damn straight that the majority of accepted scientific beliefs and theories do not meet this criteria. Since Feynman was talking about the criteria under which an idea should be rejected, that is that it is falsified by experiment or observation, I would hope that the accepted majority of scientific beliefs would not have been falsified.

Or is your point that we should accept ideas that are clearly untrue? Do you think Feynman was saying that we should only believe stuff when it is shown to be false?

 

[Nostromo]

How about we turn that around for a second? What are properties of non intelligently designed things so that we can assess them?

Quite, I probably couldn't give a concrete answer except in comparison to things which we know are designed by humans. That's why it puzzles me that creationists can say with such confidence that certain things in nature are obviously designed. The human body or the bacterial flagellum are examples commonly given, but since creationists believe everything was designed, surely even a rock, a stream or a molecule of nitrogen exhibit qualities of design.

Ultimately, Creationism argues that the fact somethings exists at all is evidence it is designed. I'm not sure that you can test for that without having a direct test for the designer.

Dirt doesn't seem all that "intelligently designed" at first glance, but it actually give rise to many forms of life.

I don't see how that follows at all. Why would it be necessary for something to be intelligently designed in order for it to give rise to life?

FYI, suppose we start by suggesting that one such "property" might be that that an intelligently designed thing is itself "intelligent"?

I don't think that an infinite regression of intelligently designed intelligences is the most rational first step.

 

[Michael]

Quite, I probably couldn't give a concrete answer except in comparison to things which we know are designed by humans. That's why it puzzles me that creationists can say with such confidence that certain things in nature are obviously designed. The human body or the bacterial flagellum are examples commonly given, but since creationists believe everything was designed, surely even a rock, a stream or a molecule of nitrogen exhibit qualities of design.

Well, not all molecules are "alive". Life forms seem to the thing that most folks associate with "intelligent design" in my experience.

Ultimately, Creationism argues that the fact somethings exists at all is evidence it is designed.

I don't know. An inanimate rock from the moon doesn't look all that "designed" per se.

I'm not sure that you can test for that without having a direct test for the designer.

I'm working on that in another thread.

I don't see how that follows at all. Why would it be necessary for something to be intelligently designed in order for it to give rise to life?

But can anyone actually demonstrate that life is an "accident" of some sort?

I don't think that an infinite regression of intelligently designed intelligences is the most rational first step.

What infinite regression? I'm just talking about planetary life forms.

In some hope of bringing this dialog back to the topic.....

Since we cannot demonstrate life forms were "designed", nor can we demonstrate that the first life formed on "accident", where does that leave us in terms of science and in term of pure empirical physics?

 

[Nostromo]

Well, not all molecules are "alive". Life forms seem to the thing that most folks associate with "intelligent design" in my experience.

Of course, probably because it's so hard to understand how they might have come about through natural means.

I don't know. An inanimate rock from the moon doesn't look all that "designed" per se.

True, but that doesn't stop people from asserting that "the appearance of design" or "complexity" mean that something was designed, while ignoring the vast amount of the universe that doesn't exhibit those traits.

I'm working on that in another thread.

I think you might have to do more than chat about it on this forum.

But can anyone actually demonstrate that life is an "accident" of some sort?

That depends what you mean by 'demonstrate'; are you talking about what actually happened all those years ago, or what could have happened?

Out of interest, why use the word 'accident'?

What infinite regression? I'm just talking about planetary life forms.

You'd rather I just ignored the inconsistencies and special pleading?

In some hope of bringing this dialog back to the topic.....

I'm late for work already so I'll have to come back to that bit.