25 Nov 14
Originally posted by lemon limeYou are accusing Natural Science of doing something it doesn't do. All scientific investigation is in the context of already existing theories, at least in Physics, I'm not really qualified to speak about the others. If a phenomenon is observed that cannot be explained by the existing theory then it indicates that something is wrong with the theory. A new theory would be required to have explanatory and predictive power. Supernatural explanations have explanatory power, the problem with them is that they don't have predictive power.
[b]I think the distinction you are making is between (Natural) Science and Metaphysics.
No, I was making a distinction between (Natural) Science and Science. The definition of science includes all of natural science. The distinction here is that by simply saying "Science", we do not automatically exclude evidence not pointing to natural causation. ...[text shortened]... a Claus' revelation. I've never believed in Santa Claus, but I did believe in the Science Fairy.[/b]
25 Nov 14
1 edit
Originally posted by DeepThoughtYou are accusing Natural Science of doing something it doesn't do.
You are accusing Natural Science of doing something it doesn't do. All scientific investigation is in the context of already existing theories, at least in Physics, I'm not really qualified to speak about the others. If a phenomenon is observed that cannot be explained by the existing theory then it indicates that something is wrong with the theory. A ...[text shortened]... anations have explanatory power, the problem with them is that they don't have predictive power.
So why isn't it simply called Science? If Science doesn't need a qualifying adjective (Natural) then why are you calling it "Natural" Science? What purpose does the word Natural serve other than as a limiting qualifier?
25 Nov 14
2 edits
Originally posted by lemon limethe vermont institute of natural science
[b]You are accusing Natural Science of doing something it doesn't do.
So why isn't it simply called Science? If Science doesn't need a qualifying adjective (Natural) then why are you calling it "Natural" Science? What purpose does the word Natural serve other than as a limiting qualifier?[/b]
the institute of natural sciences nihon university
institute for the history of natural sciences
the royal belgian institute of natural sciences
Why are they called institutes of "natural science" if the word "science" means the same thing? Could this be because it does not mean the same thing?
26 Nov 14
1 edit
Originally posted by lemon limeNatural science deals with studying nature - it isn't about how it is studied or a restriction on the explanations, but rather the subject being studied.
Why are they called institutes of "natural science" if the word "science" means the same thing? Could this be because it does not mean the same thing?
The science of stock markets, is not part of natural science, even if it too does not generally admit supernatural explanations.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science#Branches_and_fields
Scientific fields are commonly divided into two major groups: natural sciences, which study natural phenomena (including biological life), and social sciences, which study human behavior and societies. These groupings are empirical sciences, which means the knowledge must be based on observable phenomena and capable of being tested for its validity by other researchers working under the same conditions.
Note how observe-ability and test-ability applies to the social sciences too.
26 Nov 14
Originally posted by twhiteheadAny general definition of science will necessarily include natural science (the study of nature).
Natural science deals with studying nature - it isn't about how it is studied or a restriction on the explanations, but rather the subject being studied.
The science of stock markets, is not part of natural science, even if it too does not generally admit supernatural explanations.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science#Branches_and_fields
Sci ...[text shortened]... itions.
Note how observe-ability and test-ability applies to the social sciences too.
"Theistic or "guided" evolution has to be excluded as a possibility because Darwinists identify science with a philosophical doctrine known as naturalism. Naturalism assumes the entire realm of nature to be a closed system of material causes and effects, which cannot be influenced by anything from "outside." Naturalism does not explicitly deny the mere existence of God, but it does deny that a supernatural being could in any way influence natural events, such as evolution, or communicate with natural creatures like ourselves. Scientific naturalism makes the same point by starting with the assumption that science, which studies only the natural, is our only reliable path to knowledge."
~ Phillip Johnson
I isolated the following sentence from the above quote:
Naturalism assumes the entire realm of nature to be a closed system of material causes and effects, which cannot be influenced by anything from "outside."
26 Nov 14
Originally posted by twhiteheadMost of the theory of evolution is not observable and is not testable. It is simply a fairy tale of what might have happened long, long ago.
Natural science deals with studying nature - it isn't about how it is studied or a restriction on the explanations, but rather the subject being studied.
The science of stock markets, is not part of natural science, even if it too does not generally admit supernatural explanations.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science#Branches_and_fields
Sci ...[text shortened]... itions.
Note how observe-ability and test-ability applies to the social sciences too.
- Joined
- 31 Aug 06
- Moves
- 40565
26 Nov 14
2 edits
Originally posted by lemon limeIf it was unambiguously documented that events can sometimes precede causes, or be predicted/known before they took place with a one hundred percent success rate, then that's a natural phenomenon we don't yet understand. It would seem to be related to time (obviously), and time is part of the natural world. Therefore, whatever explanations you could think of, there would be at least one natural explanation (some property of time under certain circumstances, or some connection between time and certain minds, that we have yet to understand and describe properly). There's always at least one natural explanation for any natural phenomenon. Being able to run such an experiment we could investigate exactly what's going on, which means it's immediately thrown into the realm of the natural, observable universe as we can understand it, even if it is caused supernaturally.
You do realise that no natural evidence can "point" exclusively to a supernatural cause, right?
I believe I was clear about that. I wasn't suggesting natural evidence can point "exclusively" to a supernatural cause. I was saying natural evidence doesn't always point to natural causation.
Here's an example of what I mean. There was an experime ...[text shortened]... on is made?
This is the sort of questioning that seems to be missing from modern day science.
If there is a supernatural reality, we are effectively cut off from knowing it through scientific observation. To know it would require some other faculties that I know I lack, and have no reason to believe anyone else possesses, since religious predictions never pan out in any but the most general ways (there will be war, some people will die, etc.)
26 Nov 14
1 edit
Originally posted by lemon limeYes, that is exactly what the Wikipedia page I referenced says.
Any general definition of science will necessarily include natural science (the study of nature).
Naturalism assumes the entire realm of nature to be a closed system of material causes and effects, which cannot be influenced by anything from "outside."
But this naturalism has nothing whatsoever to do with the meaning of the term 'natural science'. You asked why certain institutions have the words 'natural science' in their names and the answer is simple: they study the natural sciences (studying nature) as opposed to other sciences.
So:
The Vermont Institute of Natural Science, from Wikipedia:
Its mission is to motivate individuals and communities to care for the environment through education, research, and avian wildlife rehabilitation.
As you can see they are interested specifically in nature.
The Institute of Natural Sciences Nihon University
Have a look at their website and you will see that this is one of a number of institutes:
http://www.nihon-u.ac.jp/intldiv/en/research/institution.html
eg Political Science and Economics Institute
So Natural Science is used in the name to distinguish between the study of nature as opposed to the study of, for example, politics.
Institute for the History of Natural Sciences
There are a number of institutions with this name, so I don't know which you are referring to, but I can guarantee that the title has nothing to do with naturalism, and has to do with the study of nature.
The Royal Belgian Institute of Natural Sciences
https://www.naturalsciences.be/
This is a 'Museum of Natural History' a phrase which refers to museums that catalog, study and display life forms both past and present. Again, the 'natural' in the title refers specifically to the study of nature, and not the philosophy of naturalism.
27 Nov 14
Originally posted by twhiteheadIf all nature falls within a closed system then it must also fall under the effects of the second law of thermodynamics. So any GRADUAL evolution change to upward higher complexity is against that law that pushes for GRADUAL change downward toward simplification and decay. What do you say is the outside source of controlled energy for this claimed evolution toward upward complexity in nature?
Yes, that is exactly what the Wikipedia page I referenced says.
[b]Naturalism assumes the entire realm of nature to be a closed system of material causes and effects, which cannot be influenced by anything from "outside."
But this naturalism has nothing whatsoever to do with the meaning of the term 'natural science'. You asked why certain institut ...[text shortened]... ' in the title refers specifically to the study of nature, and not the philosophy of naturalism.[/b]
27 Nov 14
Originally posted by RJHindsI already explained that even within a closed system, there is no requirement under the law that all parts of the system experience an increase in entropy.
If all nature falls within a closed system then it must also fall under the effects of the second law of thermodynamics. So any GRADUAL evolution change to upward higher complexity is against that law that pushes for GRADUAL change downward toward simplification and decay. What do you say is the outside source of controlled energy for this claimed evolution toward upward complexity in nature?
Furthermore the second law of thermodynamics says nothing about 'GRADUAL change downward toward simplification and decay.' That is a misunderstanding of the law. If you were even remotely close to being right, it would make all life impossible at all times. And if that were the case, we wouldn't call it a law because it would be being violated at all times.
Every time a cell divides, there is an increase in complexity (by your understanding of the term) as there are now two cells instead of one.
So you need to either claim that cell division does not happen, or you are wrong about the implications of the Second Law.
27 Nov 14
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadYou did not explain it and your assertion does not make it true except for maybe the GRADUAL part for it could be FAST. 😏
I already explained that even within a closed system, there is no requirement under the law that all parts of the system experience an increase in entropy.
Furthermore the second law of thermodynamics says nothing about 'GRADUAL change downward toward simplification and decay.' That is a misunderstanding of the law. If you were even remotely close to bei ...[text shortened]... m that cell division does not happen, or you are wrong about the implications of the Second Law.
- Joined
- 31 Aug 06
- Moves
- 40565
27 Nov 14
1 edit
Originally posted by RJHindsAs usual you duck the point with an irrelevant quack. The joke's on you.
You did not explain it and your assertion does not make it true except for maybe the GRADUAL part for it could be FAST. 😏
Consider what he wrote at the end there. If life constantly deteriorated, reproduction would be impossible. You're essentially arguing that your existence is impossible.
27 Nov 14
Originally posted by RJHindsI explained it in the thread on the Second Law. The Second Law of Thermodynamics is concerned only with total entropy in a system. It says nothing whatsoever about what goes on in subsets of that system and says nothing whatsoever about 'change downward toward simplification and decay' whether GRADUAL or FAST.
You did not explain it and your assertion does not make it true except for maybe the GRADUAL part for it could be FAST. 😏