Sunday, April 03, 2011

Lydia McGrew on the Naturalistic induction

Lydia formulates the "naturalistic induction" as follows. 

Most problems which were unexplained by science in purely naturalistic terms have now been explained by science in purely naturalistic terms. So, by direct induction, any alleged evidence against naturalism has a scientific explanation in purely naturalistic terms.

Science has made and continues to make such great progress throughout history, gradually whittling away at the set of things that were previously not scientifically understood, that whatever it is that you are presently bringing forth as evidence against naturalism, I am sure that science will eventually get to that in time and explain it, as well, as entirely the product of natural causes.

 And then she argues that this induction is not going to work. And this refers to the Balfour quote she references.

47 comments:

Roffle said...

I don't think naturalists act as Lydia describes. This piece is in response to naturalists who dismiss all argument to the contrary without consideration. Any examples of that?

What I suspect happens more frequently is akin to saying something is irreducibly complex. An ID advocate will say X is irreducibly complex without doing the necessary homework, so their claims are ignored. They must actually show that it could not have evolved.

Similarly, you must show that a process is not natural. Merely not understanding the process, not knowing the details, or asserting as fact that X can't be done naturally does not warrant accepting the proposed claims and they will be ignored until such a time when they can validate their claims.

Anonymous said...

An ID advocate will say X is irreducibly complex without doing the necessary homework, so their claims are ignored. They must actually show that it could not have evolved.

ID doesn't make the claim that IC structures cannot evolve point blank. They argue that it is extremely unlikely that they evolved by Darwinian means. Some may advocate that IC structures evolved by non-Darwinian means.

Note "extremely unlikely" is not "impossible".

Similarly, you must show that a process is not natural.

Or maybe you have to show it's natural.

Tony Hoffman said...

Roffle: “An ID advocate will say X is irreducibly complex without doing the necessary homework, so their claims are ignored. They must actually show that it could not have evolved.”

Just to clarify, as I understand the term “irreducible complexity” it means a system where removing any one part would destroy the function of the system. I think a mousetrap is the classic example.

But it seems obvious to me that removing a part of an evolved system, which might destroy its function (removing the optical nerve from the eye, for instance), is not equivalent to saying the eye is not evolved. In a strict sense, observing that an evolved system is IC almost seems like a non-sequitur.

Anon: “ID doesn't make the claim that IC structures cannot evolve point blank. They argue that it is extremely unlikely that they evolved by Darwinian means.”

Which would be meaningful if this observation was not a servant to an argument from ignorance, or if there was any sense of probability we could apply to the likelihood that evolved biological structures are designed.

Anon: “
Or maybe you have to show it's natural.”

Well, no, I think this makes the argument from ignorance mistake. Failure to explain a phenomenon through Darwinian mechanisms, for instance, does not raise the probability of design. Without a positive test for design (what some ID proponents have tried to put forward, but seemingly none with any success yet), there doesn’t seem like a good reason to limit ourselves to a binary world where anything not currently explained through Darwinian processes must therefore be designed.

Anonymous said...

Which would be meaningful if this observation was not a servant to an argument from ignorance, or if there was any sense of probability we could apply to the likelihood that evolved biological structures are designed.

ID proponents advance arguments for why we should regard this or that as designed, even with the understanding that this may be upset in the future. I am not defending ID here - I'm setting their position straight. Roffle had it wrong.

Failure to explain a phenomenon through Darwinian mechanisms, for instance, does not raise the probability of design.

Failure to provide a natural explanation for this or that does not damage the claim that this or that is natural? Huh.

Blue Devil Knight said...

Failure to provide a natural explanation for this or that does not damage the claim that this or that is natural?

No, not without a lot more work.

Can't explain why trilobytes went extinct.

The reversal of Earth's magnetic fields cannot be explained.

How do you demarcate a) phenomena that can't presently be explained that are evidence for design from b) those that cannot presently be explained that are not evidence for design?

The problem for the ID folks is the existence of catastrophic historical precedents coupled with zero success stories after over 200 years trying. I guess there is something noble about holding onto the idea despite its failure, holding out for that great success story of the design theorists.

:)

Blue Devil Knight said...

In some sense their success story is Darwin. He explained the appearance of design nicely. Without Paley, perhaps, we would never have had Darwin. So, for that, thanks Paley!

Blue Devil Knight said...

In general specifics are better than general methodological arguments. I focus on consciousness mostly as the specific instance of an interesting front in the types of battles Lydia is writing about.

Anonymous said...

No, not without a lot more work.

So anything that has no naturalistic explanation can be assumed to be natural anyway? Nice fantasy world you live in.

The problem for the ID folks is the existence of catastrophic historical precedents coupled with zero success stories after over 200 years trying. I guess there is something noble about holding onto the idea despite its failure, holding out for that great success story of the design theorists.

Except evolution is not at odds with ID, and the successes of intelligent design have been gaining tremendously over the centuries. Genetic modification, synthetic biology, computer programming and simulation... we're seeing what minds are capable of, and every advance that shows what minds are capable of gives us reason to doubt in the existence of this "undesigned" nature everyone loves to assert without evidence.

Evolution is being rapidly absorbed into the design paradigm (see: Simon Conway Morris, the Design Matrix, etc), and was never really divorced from teleology to begin with. Much to the chagrin of Jerry Coyne, Dawkins and others, who stamp their feet and insist that religious people have to reject evolution.

Sorry kids. Evolution is teleological, and is going into our column more and more with every passing day. The world, from physics to biology to cosmology, looks more and more designed, and the capability of designers is ever on the ascent.

Though we do have the contributions of naturalistically-inclined scientists to thank for much of this. They never really knew what they were getting into. ;)

Blue Devil Knight said...

Anon, you didn't even try:

Chorus:
How do you demarcate a) phenomena that can't presently be explained that are evidence for design from b) those that cannot presently be explained that are not evidence for design?

Magnetic field reversal. I guess we should explore the ID solution because we can't presently explain it. Be my guest.

As I said, a present lack of naturalistic explanation is not evidence for design. Lots more work to to even suggest design.

If you don't believe that, spend a couple of months in a lab. Strange, inexplicable things come up nearly every day in lab. Every experiment ever done is driven by the fact that we don't understand how something works. Why is the rat's brain activated before it actually contacts the stimulus? We can't explain that. Maybe it's a miracle!

Why did that solution turn blue when we mixed these two chemicals? Not sure, and since we can't presently explain it, we better put ID on the table as a serious contender.

So again, anonymous, can you formulate a response to the chorus? Or do you truly think every unexplained phenomenon is just as likely to have a magician lurking behind it?

Blue Devil Knight said...

Makes me appreciate the Thomists that's for sure. God as a sustaining cause rather than a puppetmaster. It really is childish. I think I'm becoming an atheist Thomist. Who besides Feser should I start visiting that preaches the Thomist perspective? Anyone with a style more like Victor?

BenYachov start a blog!

Anonymous said...

As I said, a present lack of naturalistic explanation is not evidence for design. Lots more work to to even suggest design.

So BDK: Where exactly did I say that "a present lack of a naturalistic explanation is evidence for design"? Funny, I said that assuming something was natural when at the same time having no naturalistic explanation for it was silly. But by all means, strawman that to your heart's content.

Anonymous said...

And ID is not wedded to the supernatural, in the words of its own major proponents. They admit that it's entirely possible for the designers in question to ultimately be naturalistic.

Or is all actual design, anywhere, always supernatural? C'mon, chorus boy. Sing for me. ;)

Blue Devil Knight said...

anonymous now you are just backpeddling. Folks can read through the comments and see this. I don't blame you: the chorus is hard to answer.

Anonymous said...

anonymous now you are just backpeddling. Folks can read through the comments and see this. I don't blame you: the chorus is hard to answer.

They can? Then BDK, how about you quote where I said that the lack of a naturalistic explanation in and of itself indicated design? Funny: I thought I said: Failure to provide a natural explanation for this or that does not damage the claim that this or that is natural? Huh. No mention of design, or ID in that context. At all.

Quote where I said that the lack of a natural explanation for something in and of itself was evidence said something was designed. It's a short thread: Should be easy.

Unless, of course, it's not there and you're arguing against a strawman.

So again: C'mon, chorus boy. Sing for me. Or is the fat lady singing on your chorus? ;)

Raffle said...

How do you demarcate a) phenomena that can't presently be accommodated by YEC that are evidence against YEC from b) those that cannot presently be accommodated by YEC that are not evidence against YEC?

Blue Devil Knight said...

The claim that it is not natural is not supported by our inability to presently find a natural explanation. Whether your nonnatural is ID, or something else. Think to the genus then rather than the species I focused on the same point holds

Blue Devil Knight said...

So you think magnetic reversal is not natural? The extinction of trilobytes? How about the barrage of unexplained things that come into labs every day, that motivate the day-to-day experiments and science? That the solution in the beaker turned red and we can't explain it. That we observe firing in neurons that we can't explain.

You are trying to weasel out by focusing on my use of ID rather than 'nonnatural.'

Blue Devil Knight said...

Raffle, there isn't a justified presumption of YEC underlying all of science for the past 150 years. More on that here in my discussion with Anthony.

Tony Hoffman said...

Anon: "So anything that has no naturalistic explanation can be assumed to be natural anyway? Nice fantasy world you live in."

I always think its funny how a lack of irony or self-awarenss seems to pervade comments like the one above. A fantasy world is one that does not exist in the natural world. So, a worldview that tracks the natural world should be, by definition, the opposite of a fantasy world.

Sooo, taking the position (however reasonable, and I happen to think it is reasonable but that really doesn't matter) that an unexplained phenomon will eventually be explained through natural forces is not a fantasy world position; on the contrary, it is the opposing view that would seem to be a fantasy world position.

Anonymous said...

The claim that it is not natural is not supported by our inability to presently find a natural explanation. Whether your nonnatural is ID, or something else. Think to the genus then rather than the species I focused on the same point holds

Okay, that's some marginal improvement since you're backing off your ID claim. But still, your reading comprehension is abysmal.

Where did I claim that the lack of a natural explanation, in and of itself, supports the claim that something is not natural?

I noted that, in the absence of any natural explanation, regarding something as "natural" is silly.

You are trying to weasel out by focusing on my use of ID rather than 'nonnatural.'

Weasel? That's weird: You accused me of saying the lack of a natural explanation in and of itself is evidence that something is ID. I called that out as strawman BS asked you to quote me. What a shock: No quote.

Now you're changing your tune and saying that I said the lack of a natural explanation in and of itself is evidence that something is non-natural. But again: Where did I say that? I simply said... one more time...

Failure to provide a natural explanation for this or that does not damage the claim that this or that is natural? Huh.

No statement about it being evidence for ID. No statement about it being evidence for the non-natural. Merely some skepticism regarding the idea that having no natural explanation for this or that fails to damage the claim that this or that is natural.

You know, the mature thing to do would be to acknowledge that you jumped the gun and wrongly attributed to me a claim I didn't make. But by all means, keep on weaseling and trying to deflect. It's just so damn precious.

Anonymous said...

I always think its funny how a lack of irony or self-awarenss seems to pervade comments like the one above. A fantasy world is one that does not exist in the natural world. So, a worldview that tracks the natural world should be, by definition, the opposite of a fantasy world.

Great Tony. Next time you whip out a "by definition" bit of witticism, you may want to actually go find out what the definition really is. I suggest typing "define:fantasy" into google.

A fantasy is "imagination unrestricted by reality". "illusion: something many people believe that is false;". In other words, it's entirely possible for naturalism to be false, or even for a claim that this or that is natural to be false, and for the person making the claim to be engaged in fantasy. "The real world" may well not be "a naturalistic world".

Leave the attempts at wit to Hitchens and Dawkins. It's not your calling.

GREV said...

BDK said --

" I think I'm becoming an atheist Thomist. Who besides Feser should I start visiting that preaches the Thomist perspective?"

I was told by an interesting Franciscan monk who I conversed with at length one day a few years ago to read Josef Pieper.

Don't know if he has a blog.

GREV said...

He died about 14 years ago -- so no blog. Maybe a blog about him though.

Tony Hoffman said...

Anon: “Great Tony. Next time you whip out a "by definition" bit of witticism, you may want to actually go find out what the definition really is. I suggest typing "define:fantasy" into google.”

Actually, I did. I wanted to make sure that my definition of “fantasy” wasn’t idiosyncratic, or had a root that allowed for shaded meaning, etc. I don’t do that every time, so I thought it was funny that you’d presume otherwise (when you’d usually be right), and have the misfortune to be wrong. The odds were in your favor, even.

Anon: “A fantasy is "imagination unrestricted by reality". "illusion: something many people believe that is false;".”

That’s not exactly the definition I found, but it’s close enough.

Anon: “In other words, it's entirely possible for naturalism to be false...”

Possible? Sure.

Anon (continuing): “... or even for a claim that this or that is natural to be false...”

I agree that this is possible.

Anon (continuing): “... and for the person making the claim to be engaged in fantasy.”

Whaaaa? No. It’s not. I think maybe you are confusing solipsism with fantasy? If you want to retreat to solipsism as the basis for your argument, then knock yourself out, but I’ll ignore what you have to say in its defense because I find the position tenable (in a logical way) but irrelevant. If you want to make sense of what it is you’re trying to say, I’d reload and try again.

Anon: “"The real world" may well not be "a naturalistic world".

Oooooh. Spooky. Consider me fascinated with your argument. :)

Anon: “Leave the attempts at wit to Hitchens and Dawkins. It's not your calling.”

I agree that Hitchens is genuinely funny, and Dawkins is genuinely witty (and he writes beautifully). I’m glad that you can see the love of language and turns of phrase that make them both a pleasure to both hear and read.

Blue Devil Knight said...

Anon you never justified your negative reaction to my claim that present inability to explain X naturally is not evidence that X is not a natural process. In the face of considerable reasons to believe what I said, you are just tap dancing around the issues. Boredom threshold reacyed: bye.

BenYachov said...

>BenYachov start a blog!

Others have made that request of me before but I'm more of an Art Critic than an artist. Or as one foe who became a friend once quite "You are a comm box groupie!" Which I am.

An Atheist Thomist? Hmmmm?

Well Brian Davies who was a great influence on Feser had something to say about that.

Aquinas proves atheists are closer to God than they think

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article1292332.ece

Martin said...

When you say " thomist blog" two come to mind, the first, just thomism, has links to deeper ponds than I swim in.

http://thomism.wordpress.com/

http://veniaminov.blogspot.com/

Blue Devil Knight said...

Thanks a lot Martin I will take a look at those.

Ben you are totally a Feser groupie. Have you moved to california yet to take his classes and follow him to church? :)

Blue Devil Knight said...

Great blogroll Martin on that first one, right on!

Blue Devil Knight said...

Is there a group blog run by thomists? Preferably not an asylum like triablogue...

Blue Devil Knight said...

That second one...ugh. First one #WINNING

Do any Jesuits blog?

Blue Devil Knight said...

...in English?

Tony Hoffman said...

In my experience (present company excepted, Ben, if indeed BDK can make the Thomist label stick on you), Thomists either attract an unusually belligerent and supercillious group, or exposure to the philosophy makes them so.

They're almost as bad as Notre Dame alumni. :)

Blue Devil Knight said...

Found this site that has lots of Thomist references <a href="http://thomistica.net/>thomistica.net</a>.

Incidentally that thomism blog has a post (March 28) addressing some things I said about cosmology. I frankly don't remember saying them, but it is interesting.

Blue Devil Knight said...

thomistica.net

BenYachov said...

>Ben you are totally a Feser groupie.

Feser is to philosophy what Iron Maiden is to Heavy Metal!

>Have you moved to california yet to take his classes and follow him to church? :)

I couldn't afford that in this economy. My wife wouldn't be into it & of course I would miss my Mistress. I have been having a long standing love affair with New York City & State & I would miss her if I went.

California is alright to visit but my true love is New York. The wife & I have an understanding about New York.

New York Rules! She is Babylon & Jerusalem on a Hotdog role.

BenYachov said...

>I frankly don't remember saying them, but it is interesting.

I saw that. I looked like something you might have said. Either that or some other Atheist said it & you happened to be in the area.

BenYachov said...

>Thomists either attract an unusually belligerent and supercillious group, or exposure to the philosophy makes them so.

Are you thinking of Thomists or Radtrads? Radtrads(Radical Traditionalist so called "Catholics") often think they are Thomists. They are anti-Catholic Fundamentalist Protestants with Rosary Beads.

Oh don't get me started.....bad memories....

Blue Devil Knight said...

That would explain Valicella's demeanor Tony :)

BenYachov said...

>Valicella's demeanor Tony :)

I don't know he is very hostile too Catholicism and it seems he hasn't actually read anything on the Trinity but critiques it none the less.

Anthony Fleming said...

Thanks for all the Thomist sources! I will be reading them all!

Anthony Fleming said...

BDK: "Makes me appreciate the Thomists that's for sure. God as a sustaining cause rather than a puppetmaster. It really is childish. I think I'm becoming an atheist Thomist. "

This is what I was saying. That you wanted me to become a Thomist so I could try it out for you.

I am very glad that you pointed the whole Thomist thing out to me though, makes a lot of sense of things I had already been thinking and wondering about. Thanks again.

BenYachov said...

Anthony Fleming,

There are Evangelical Protestant Thomists.

Dr. Norman Geisler might be a good place to start. Brian Davies and edward Feser are must reads.

Anthony Fleming said...

My brother just recently told me that Dr. Norman Geisler was a Thomist. I have been on Fessers blog one and off over the past few months. Didn't know about Brian Davies. Thanks a lot, I will be checking all those out!

Blue Devil Knight said...

Anthony you can thank BenYachov he turned me on to it.

Anthony Fleming said...

Well then...Thank you BenYachov and thanks again for the resources.

BenYachov said...

Cheers friends!:-)