I like definitions. What does natural mean? Another abused word.

[Mountainmike]

Theres 2 basis senses of natural that I know.

1. Natural: not man made

2. Natural: everything material and not therefore supernatural.

The two definitions contradict. Supernatural (whatever you mean by that) is not man made. So passes definition 1. fails 2.

Consciousness is not "material" it is not matter. An electric field is not matter. Are you saying consciousness or an electric field is supernatural or unnatural?

That is the problem. Lack of precision in definition.

The only sensible defintion of natural is "that which occurs or exists in the universe"
But then "observation of the universe" is one step removed from the natural.

It may be there, but unobserved and also "what you observe" is not "what it is" , it is "what it seen to do" / " how it interacts" with your senses.

The scientific model is two steps removed. It is a model of patterns in the things that are observed to repeat. Things that do not repeat or cannot be repeated cannot find theirway into the model. That does not make them any less natural. Just less able to be modelled.

Extrapolations of the model are three steps removed. And that is what the presumption of abiogenesis is. Extrapolation of the model of chemistry. Many steps of observation and assumption from what is actually "natural".

Supernatural is a relatively meaningless word "attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature." If an observation does not line up with the model "attribution" of it, or (even regarding as "force") is speculation.

There are things that square with the present (and everchanging) scientific model. Which is not nature itself but a model of it. And things that do not square with the model.

Take a simple example. With the old definition of length and time, observations of c - speed of light - used to vary. Not by much but enough to be statistically significant. Nobody could explain what was causing it.

With the new definition c is a constant, so observations of length must vary.C is now fixed. Were the old measurements of variation in c supernatural? Unnatural. Or just not natural? Or natural but NOT in keeping with the model. So in that case the model is unnatural. That is The reality of it all. Observations disagreed with the model.

Supernatural is a term largely used to deride things that scientific realists do not understand. Do not like. Or prefer not to contemplate. If there is a God in nature (what many of us believe) He is quite natural as part of the universe.

 

[Mountainmike]

There is evidence for natural selection. The study of origins point to principles of evolution by natural selection to pre-biotic scenarios/hypotheses. Until ID/IC can be demonstrated it remains a god-of-the-gaps hypotheses.

God of the Gaps is a falasy arising from a misunderstanding of what science is.

 

[durangodawood]

The two definitions contradict. Supernatural (whatever you mean by that) is not man made. So passes definition 1. fails 2.

Thats typical of words. Same word can mean somewhat different things. Context is usually required to tell which sense is intended. Even then it can be tricky, and people can abuse the distinction for disingenuous argumentative purposes (equivocation).

Consciousness is not "material" it is not matter. An electric field is not matter. Are you saying consciousness or an electric field is supernatural or unnatural?

I think consciousness is an activity of certain material things. Just as is running or tasting. I consider the actions of material things to be part of the material word.

Energy is part of the material world too, I think.

The only sensible defintion of natural is "that which occurs or exists in the universe"
But then "observation of the universe" is one step removed from the natural.

I think natural as in "not man made" is a very useful and sensible as well, so long as its not conflated with the other meaning I mentioned.

The scientific model is two steps removed. It is a model of patterns in the things that are observed to repeat. Things that do not repeat or cannot be repeated cannot find theirway into the model. That does not make them any less natural. Just less able to be modelled.

I think thats right. Except really most everything out there is repeatable in some sense. Hardly any type of thing happens just once ever. Me riding a horse last Saturday will only happen once in the whole history of the universe. But me riding a horse could happen many times. People riding horses, even more.

I do think its useful to have disciplines like history, biography, poetry, to explore the particulars of unique events and experiences.

Extrapolations of the model are three steps removed. And that is what the presumption of abiogenesis is. Extrapolation of the model of chemistry. Many steps of observation and assumption from what is actually "natural".

Yes, but also useful. Looking for naturalistic explanations of events has been so fruitful that hypothesizing additional naturalistic explanations is a terrific default starting point.

Take a simple example. With the old definition of length and time, observations of c - speed of light - used to vary. Not by much but enough to be statistically significant. Nobody could explain what was causing it.

With the new definition c is a constant, so observations of length must vary.C is now fixed. Were the old measurements of variation in c supernatural? Unnatural. Or just not natural? Or natural but NOT in keeping with the model. So in that case the model is unnatural. That is The reality of it all. Observations disagreed with the model.

I dont find this sort of discrepancy problematic in hindsight. We made models based on human scale understandings of the world. But we learned new things when our observations reached to the very macro and micro.

Supernatural is a term largely used to deride things that scientific realists do not understand. Do not like. Or prefer not to contemplate. If there is a God in nature (what many of us believe) He is quite natural as part of the universe.

Some people add a sense of derision to the term supernatural. But I dont think that invalidates the word. Would you, by the same token, invalidate the word "miracle"?

 

[Frank Robert]

God of the Gaps is a falasy arising from a misunderstanding of what science is.

Science is the pursuit and application of knowledge and understanding of the natural and social world following a systematic methodology based on evidence.

What is your definition of science?

 

[Mountainmike]

Science is the pursuit and application of knowledge and understanding of the natural and social world following a systematic methodology based on evidence.

What is your definition of science?

It is not what science was to the early philosophers, but let that pass.

Like most mushy definitions yours will do as a mushy definition. Definitions of science like nature are heteregoneous.

The problems come when you try to define what you CAN know about the universe from observation.

Only The universe itself is the natural world. Everything that is in it. Observable or not.

Our observations are only a subset of that, all of them indirect, and very much limited by our senses and our interpretation of what is observed - which is the interactions of the universe with observation, it is not the universe itself.

Ony the parts of evidence in which observations repeat or can be repeated can be used to discover patterns of what the universe normally does, that are put in the model of science, which is an entirely human creation. Extrapolations of that model, are yet more step further away.

And so on. The scientific model is NOT the universe.
It is a logical falasy that "because it is not in the model, it is not in the universe"
It is an equal falasy to say that "because it is in the model, it is also in the universe".

Something in the universe a "noumena" to use kants words underlies the "phenomena" but quite what underlies the phenomena is unknowable. You cannot even say for certain that what the universe normally does , it will always do, or that it has always done it, or that it does it everywhere the same as it does right here.

The God of the gaps died right there. God may not be in the model, the model is man made. However sophisticated the scientific model becomes, That does not limit His existence in the universe at all.

Science is a tool kit. It has some very useful tools.
Like microsoft flightsim, some of the models are very close to what repeatable bits of the universe are observde to do They are not the universe. In that case It is just 1000000 lines of software!

The tools are not the universe, and it is a strange faith that worships science as the answer to existence. It is worshipping a spanner!

 

[Frank Robert]

It is not what science was to the early philosophers, but let that pass.

No I won't. Both philosophies and sciences have evolved. We are not discussing early philosophers or early science.
Your claim was:

God of the Gaps is a falasy arising from a misunderstanding of what science is.

Now, when asked for a definition of science you are claiming:

The God of the gaps died right there. God may not be in the model, the model is man made. However sophisticated the scientific model becomes, That does not limit His existence in the universe at all.

Yes, the scientific method is man made. And as an agnostic, if there is a God science does not limit his existence in the universe, but gaps in scientific knowledge should not be attributed to a deity.

 

[jayem]

Theres 2 basis senses of natural that I know.

1. Natural: not man made

2. Natural: everything material and not therefore supernatural.

I'm getting in a bit late here. As my avatar notes, I consider myself a naturalist. It's a philosophy. Which I define as the belief that the universe and everything that happens therein are purely functions of matter/energy and the fundamental forces of nature. It's pretty much the same as your #2. And it also covers #1. Anything made, or conceived by man must also be a function of matter/energy and the fundamental forces.