What presuppositions?

[TheInstant]

absolutely although there is a subtle difference, evolutionary philosophy demands that natural causes must be found because it has no Christian foundation

No, it demands that natural causes must be found because it is science.

 

[Silent Bob]

I agree with all of it except for the part about how you say it is an assumption that it is neccessary for science. Without it, FSM is just as viable as evolution.

I think it is the way I worded it and not what I meant that you disagree with. Methodological naturalism is necessary IF you want to be in the realm of science. In a way if you want to be part of something then you need to play with it's rules. A rule of science is methodological naturalism, it is an assumption that you must agree with in order to be within science.

 

[Mocca]

I think it is the way I worded it and not what I meant that you disagree with. Methodological naturalism is necessary IF you want to be in the realm of science. In a way if you want to be part of something then you need to play with it's rules. A rule of science is methodological naturalism, it is an assumption that you must agree with in order to be within science.

Rotfl. I agree completely.

 

[birdan]

It's important to realize that methodological naturalism is not only an assumption within science, but also delineates the boundaries where science can be exercised (effectively anyway). Science (all science and not just evolution) seeks natural explanations for natural phenomena. Natural explanations pertains to the methodology of science, and natural phenomena pertains to the boundaries of science.

The concept of uniformitarianism (existing forces having operated uniformly from the origin of the universe to the present time) is a weaker case of scientific 'assumption', since variations in fundamental forces, energies, particles, etc. can be measured very precisely, with no indication of mutability. But beyond that, yes, it is an assumption of all science (again not just evolution), and without it arguments such as Dad's split/merge diatribe become just as valid as science. Along with 'Last Thursdayism' and the Matrix movies. Without uniformitarianism, science loses its predictive capabilities, and since science has shown itself to be highly predictive in nature, uniformitarianism appears to be a valid assumption.

Science also indirectly accepts all the assumptions (axioms) of number theory. Again, since these work in all cases without exception, they seem to be very good assumptions.

 

[Mocca]

It's important to realize that methodological naturalism is not only an assumption within science, but also delineates the boundaries where science can be exercised (effectively anyway). Science (all science and not just evolution) seeks natural explanations for natural phenomena. Natural explanations pertains to the methodology of science, and natural phenomena pertains to the boundaries of science.

The concept of uniformitarianism (existing forces having operated uniformly from the origin of the universe to the present time) is a weaker case of scientific 'assumption', since variations in fundamental forces, energies, particles, etc. can be measured very precisely, with no indication of mutability. But beyond that, yes, it is an assumption of all science (again not just evolution), and without it arguments such as Dad's split/merge diatribe become just as valid as science. Along with 'Last Thursdayism' and the Matrix movies. Without uniformitarianism, science loses its predictive capabilities, and since science has shown itself to be highly predictive in nature, uniformitarianism appears to be a valid assumption.

Science also indirectly accepts all the assumptions (axioms) of number theory. Again, since these work in all cases without exception, they seem to be very good assumptions.

Number theory? Number theory is the branch of mathematics concerning integers and their properties. Do you mean pure mathematics in general?

 

[nvxplorer]

Is my mechanic presupposing that he can diagnose my car problems with tools and instruments? Would he do better to summon the motor gods?

 

[Silent Bob]

Would he do better to summon the motor gods?

If some ritual dance could fix your car I think it would be a much cheaper alternative to replacing parts.

 

[Mocca]

Is my mechanic presupposing that he can diagnose my car problems with tools and instruments? Would he do better to summon the motor gods?

Well, he knows how cars work and he's fixed cars before so it isn't a presupposition that he can diagnose your car problems.

That is, if he can.

 

[birdan]

Number theory? Number theory is the branch of mathematics concerning integers and their properties. Do you mean pure mathematics in general?

I specifically meant number theory, since there are 'assumptions' involved there upon which mathematics is based. Pure mathematics wouldn't get too far without the basis of number theory, and number theory wouldn't get too far without its basic axioms.

 

[nvxplorer]

Well, he knows how cars work and he's fixed cars before so it isn't a presupposition that he can diagnose your car problems.

That is, if he can.

Yes, that is my point. Whether a scientist or a mechanic use presuppositions is irrelevant. The fact is, methodological naturalism works. The word “presupposition” is bandied about by creationists as if it’s a bad thing, an error in judgement. Humans cannot function without the myriad presuppositions required in daily life. We learn by experience. The mechanic learns that a missing motor may be caused by a bad spark plug, and he acts accordingly. The scientist has learned that the scientific method can produce knowledge. It’s that simple. If we must classify these methods as presuppositions, I must ask, “So what?”

 

[nvxplorer]

If some ritual dance could fix your car I think it would be a much cheaper alternative to replacing parts.

And if creationism could produce useful knowledge, I’d support it vigorously.

 

[Donkeytron]

absolutely although there is a subtle difference, evolutionary philosophy demands that natural causes must be found because it has no Christian foundation

Rreplace the word "christian" in that sentence with "islamic" or "zoroastrian" or "raelian" to get an idea of how meaningless your argument is. Can you recommend any books on evolutionary philosophy? Cause Ive certainly never heard of it.

 

[Vainglorious]

Is my mechanic presupposing that he can diagnose my car problems with tools and instruments? Would he do better to summon the motor gods?

Mazda, Taurus and Saturn

 

[Mocca]

Methodological naturalism doesn't justify automatically assuming the veracity of the Bible.

 

[MarkT]

I'd like to ask the Creationists... or rather, anyone, what are the presuppositions of evolutionists?

That all forms of life are related. The classification system creates the illusion. Apparently that's what science is trying to prove but there's really no other reason to presuppose it.

 

[TheInstant]

That all forms of life are related. The classification system creates the illusion. Apparently that's what science is trying to prove but there's really no other reason to presuppose it.

But it's not a presupposition, it's based on evidence. Would you say that the theory of gravity is based on the presupposition that things fall down?

 

[Mocca]

But it's not a presupposition, it's based on evidence. Would you say that the theory of gravity is based on the presupposition that things fall down?

All you PoG (presupposition of gravity) believers! Can't you see that the PoG is unsupported?! The only reason you stay on the ground is 'cause you're so leaden from your sins... but one day, I'll be able to flyyyyyyyyyyyy! WEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!

 

[TeddyKGB]

That all forms of life are related. The classification system creates the illusion. Apparently that's what science is trying to prove but there's really no other reason to presuppose it.

You probably should learn what a presupposition is before participating in a thread about presuppositions.

 

[MarkT]

But it's not a presupposition, it's based on evidence. Would you say that the theory of gravity is based on the presupposition that things fall down?

No I can see things fall down but I can't see relatedness. The classification system not only categorizes, it relates. It would be fine if it only categorized but relatedness is a presupposition.

 

[Nightson]

No I can see things fall down

But can you see gravity?