I usually dont review pages I disagree with

Published November 12th, 2006 by Bobby Henderson

I usually don’t review pages I disagree with, but I’ve stumbled this page a few times now… If methodological naturalism is to be used unwaveringly in science (which has not always been the case), then it renders the discipline potentially impotent to answer fundamental questions that it might otherwise provide insight on. Acknowledging that there are certain situations in which data may be interpreted in ways that at least suggest alternatives to ontological naturalism seems like the kind of thing that might increase interest in science. Specific ID models (if they’re to be presented at all) must only be considered based on their merits with respect to the data and their explanatory power (thus excluding young-earth creationism and FSM).

-zxczxcv



163 Responses to “I usually dont review pages I disagree with”

  1. Stepcat says:

    Um, mate, we’re trying to have a laugh here, stop spoiling it! And stop showing off. We all know what “ontological” means, and we are not impressed by your use of the term. And we are well aware of all the points you make – apart from the nonsense one which you worded terribly to avoid people seeing the emperor’s new clothes – what “insights” could we gain by abandoning “methological naturalism”? By doing so science, by definition, would cease to be science. Now please go away, you’re one of those people with an IQ around the 120 mark that thinks they’re a genius. You’re not very clever at all.

  2. beajerry says:

    ‘I usually don’t review pages I disagree with, except for this one and every other page I don’t disagree with.’

  3. Penne says:

    beajerry, I love that! I think I’ll use it on my next telemarketer ‘ Yes, I am always interested in what your selling! Except not what your selling this time, or any other time.’ ;>

  4. JohnJohnJohnson says:

    When you point out that there are multiple ways of interpreting data, you imply first of all that supernatural explanations may exist that would better explain this data than natural explanations. The fear is that scientists in their close-minded approach towards explanations of data will ignore these superior explanations.

    But what makes an explanation supernatural? Simply that it is superfluous. When we say the ball dropped because masses attract each other and the Earth has lots of mass, we are not using a supernatural explanation for the ball’s descent. When we say that the gravity fairy pulled the ball down with invisible fingers, we are.

    By definition we will find better natural explanations, for natural phenomena, than supernatural explanations for natural phenomena.

  5. String Cheese Jesus says:

    Is this very unpleasant, unpastaful, incoherent person
    one of those “assclowns” I’ve heard so much about?

  6. Belerophon says:

    Wait, is he suggesting that the angle of the dangle is not directly proportional to the heat of the meat?

    Or did I read it wrong?

  7. Wench Nikkiee says:

    @JohnJohnJohnson
    “When we say that the gravity fairy pulled the ball down with invisible fingers, we are.”
    .
    No no….not invisible fingers pulling down! Noodley Appendages pushing sown.
    RAmen

  8. Wench Nikkiee says:

    edit
    ‘pushing down’

Leave a Reply