Hmm. Goals? Fair enough - we can jettison that teleological baggage along with our winged friends, cutting the cord with old William’s tool. But suggesting that rules (as in ‘similarities and consistencies in behaviour’ rather than ‘regulations’) are just as unnecessary I find difficult: they are the very way the pattern-recognition modules in the brain work in some respects, ie. a ‘rule of the universe’ is an entity that is necessary to cognitive science. Again, I guess it is a personal judgement: One could, I suppose, find someone who held onto fairies while shaving away entities essential to cognitive science, although perhaps round-nosed plastic scissors might be more suitable for him than a razor.
I mean, is a tested causative mechanism not an answer to “how does it work?” Is it really so inaccurate to call it a scientific answer - an answer that has passed rigorous tests of how it might be wrong?
Regarding rules, I’m not saying that they are unnecessary — just that they don’t explain how anymore than angels do. Rules are analytic devices. As you yourself have said, gravity would work just the same with or without Newton and Einstein. Regarding a causative mechanism, that is only the discovery of yet another what. You must then use reason (or some other knowledge system) to determine a how.
Haven’t read but the start of this thread … but I agree. Either something exists, and is therefore natural, or it does not exist.
“Supernatural” is ignorant-people’s code for things that cannot yet be explained. Where a rational person can acknowledge and cope with things-not-completely-understood, a religious person faced with the same inevitably caves in to their catch-all explanation for anything that might require free thought: Almighty Gawd.
This is a perfect example of: “Never argue with an idiot. They’ll bring you down to their level, and beat you with experience.” The idea that the word “supernatural” has some real meaning outside of fantasy is giving in to their psychosis. You are on their terms from then on … and good luck with a logical argument in the bizarro-land of the religious mind. It will all come back to “My imaginary friend told me so!” or better yet … “Someone told me their imaginary friend told them so!”
Ah yes, here’s the discrepancy. I, and I believe SentientMeat as well, consider that reasoning system to be part of science.
Example: I am studying to be a physicist. At some point, I will calculate a theoretical ‘what,’ i.e. a mathematical model that can be used to predict the result of some process. You’ll note that said mathematical model doesn’t actually explain the process itself. Then what I will do is draw on a body of commonly accepted physical explanations that go along with the proven mathematical models, and logically extrapolate what I will think is the correct explanation to go with the mathematical model I have created. What will go in my paper is the model and the explanation. That is where the confusion about what constitutes science is arising.
Yes, I’d suggest that the word “science” is a little broader than just the testing procedure itself. When we speak of cognitive science, environmental science or materials science, we don’t just mean the methodology but that body of working conclusions acheived by logical analysis of those results - a scientific paper is words and numbers. That is why I do not consider “scientific explanations” or “science’s answers” to be contradictions.
Logic preexisted science by many centuries. It is not a part of or a subset of science. It may be used in conjunction with science (or any other epistemological system). But it is not the case that science is everything conceivable plus everything that isn’t.
Well, natural philosophy and logic emerged in tandem (I assume you mean logic as a set of principles rather than as in the processing modules in the brain which could be said to act as biological logic gates) - I’m not sure you can divorce it from science any more than you could language.
Quite (although, again, it can be said that science has something to say about conceivable and inconceivable things.)
I’m not divorcing it. Even married couples are still individuals. I think I’ve made my point plainly. Science is an empirical system; therefore, it is useful for what can be sensed. Logic is an analytic system; therefore, it is useful for what can be derived. They can be used together, but they are not the same, and they do not do the same jobs. You can use both a hammer and a saw to build something, but you should restrict the hammer to hammering and the saw to sawing. You can sense “what”, but you can’t sense “how” or “why”. Therefore; science is the wrong tool for that job.
Yes, we’ve both made our point plainly - I think we only disagree by degree, really. I’d suggest that science is not just the saw, it is also what you’ve built with it: the body of working conclusions which you accrued using that methodology and logic, from which you can supply answers to “how” questions.
In short, there is such a thing as a scientific explanation (even if its relevance is only ‘statistical’).
Why isn’t the hammer, rather than the saw, what you’ve built with it? Neither the hammer nor the saw is what is built. Logic and science are siblings, right along with theology. All are philosophical disciplines.