The Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism: Is Naturalism Self-Refuting?

[snex]

Shall I insert the obligatory "prove it"?

that is trivially easy. if we have two societies, one that uses tai-chi as its means of reasoning, and one that uses science as its means of reasoning, we can examine their reproductive fitness with population genetics. lets say that currently, both societies are doing equally well. and then suddenly, the environment changes (environments are known to do this and this is in fact a driving force of evolution.) now, which society is MORE LIKELY to do better in the new environment? the society that uses tai-chi might get lucky and tai-chi might apply to the new environment, but this is unlikely. on the other hand, the society that uses science will be able to adapt to the new environment easily- because science is universally applicable and tai-chi isnt.

Your point is meaningless anyways because there is no requirement for a system to be applied universally

there is no requirement for organisms to have eyes either, but that doesnt mean that organisms with eyes wont out-compete organisms without eyes. dont be foolish. be a man and own up to the fact that the use of scientific reasoning is an adaptive advantage, and that your hero alvin plantinga is a clown who doesnt know what hes talking about.

 

[yossarian22]

that is trivially easy. if we have two societies, one that uses tai-chi as its means of reasoning, and one that uses science as its means of reasoning,

There is nothing dictating that we use system X exclusively, simply that system X works wherever we use it. You have not provided an argument that shows that a system must be universal.

there is no requirement for organisms to have eyes either, but that doesnt mean that organisms with eyes wont out-compete organisms without eyes. dont be foolish. be a man and own up to the fact that the use of scientific reasoning is an adaptive advantage,

I'll take this as an inability to argue the point. Either give a reason why, or stop basing your argument off of this premise. Hell, I'll be fine with agreeing to disagree on this. It is readily apparent that this is going nowhere.

that your hero alvin plantinga is a clown who doesnt know what hes talking about.

Plantiga is, quite frankly, an ***. (His prose is almost as insufferable as Nietzsche's or Wittgenstein's at their worst). That does not, however, mean he is wrong. It is amusing how, merely because I argue for him, you assume Plantiga is my "hero".

 

[snex]

There is nothing dictating that we use system X exclusively, simply that system X works wherever we use it. You have not provided an argument that shows that a system must be universal.

yes, i did. you just dishonestly snipped it away in your reply. if we use a universal system, then we can always adapt to environmental changes, which is EXACTLY what natural selection is about.

I'll take this as an inability to argue the point. Either give a reason why, or stop basing your argument off of this premise. Hell, I'll be fine with agreeing to disagree on this. It is readily apparent that this is going nowhere.

how you take it is irrelevant as to what it was, which was a demonstration using a real world example why your argument is wrong.

Plantiga is, quite frankly, an ***. (His prose is almost as insufferable as Nietzsche's or Wittgenstein's at their worst). That does not, however, mean he is wrong. It is amusing how, merely because I argue for him, you assume Plantiga is my "hero".

you argue for him despite the fact that several non-professionals in a video game forum have destroyed his arguments. id say that's fanboyism.

 

[Steck]

Is reasoning genetic? The ability may be but the actual content of thought is not passed down. We can't say a idea or argument is genetic. So if a tiger looks hungry and you say thats a sign it wants flowers so you should get it some than it may be affective but its wrong. And this wrong will be obvious to people who reason correctly. They will say there are flaws in the argument for the look of hunger=flowers.

Also if we had misinformed intuitions about nature that we genetically can't change wouldn't that really affect the way we interact with and live in the world? For all purposes it would become truth. A truth in the human world. Arguments could be based around them. And they would be correct because that would be the world we lived in and it would be nonsense to talk about any other world because that would not be the human one.

 

[snex]

the ability to reason is certainly genetic (although not in the simplistic way you learn about in high school. theres no "reason gene.") and while the actual results of that reasoning are not *genetic* they ARE *heritable.* i think it may be in one of richard dawkins' books (the extended phenotype maybe?) where he discusses how you can tell what polynesian tribe and even family a boat belongs to based on its shape. the boat is in essence a part of that family since they pass down boat-making methods to their children.

 

[manhunter098]

Well Im not quite sure its been said before. But on the Science versus Tai Chi thing...

Tai-Chi has been proven to be not universally applicable, while science has yet to have been proven not universally applicable. So for all we know science may not be universally applicable and its in our best interest to prove that it isnt so that we can use that information to try and create a superior system of reasoning.

Thats about as far as I have bothered to get with this idea so far.

 

[snex]

Well Im not quite sure its been said before. But on the Science versus Tai Chi thing...

Tai-Chi has been proven to be not universally applicable, while science has yet to have been proven not universally applicable. So for all we know science may not be universally applicable and its in our best interest to prove that it isnt so that we can use that information to try and create a superior system of reasoning.

Thats about as far as I have bothered to get with this idea so far.

good luck with that. until you have this superior system, ill stick to what works.

 

[manhunter098]

good luck with that. until you have this superior system, ill stick to what works.

Well thats the point. We cant really discover a superior system until we find fault with the one we have now, and to obtain the superior system all we have to do is correct that fault.

 

[Jack Kieser]

Well thats the point. We cant really discover a superior system until we find fault with the one we have now, and to obtain the superior system all we have to do is correct that fault.

So basically, the Devil's Advocate argument. Try to poke holes in the system we have in hopes of finding something better, just in case.

 

[RDK]

But even though it has problems, it's miles away from everything else that's been proposed. Like Snex said--you stick with the one that works. Science works.

 

[yossarian22]

yes, i did. you just dishonestly snipped it away in your reply. if we use a universal system, then we can always adapt to environmental changes, which is EXACTLY what natural selection is about.

Do you not think about your arguments for more than 10 seconds? That argument is not a solution; it ****s your position.

A: The basis for reasoning changes based off our environment.
B: Reasoning can therefore be wrong when placed in a different environment.
C:We have not witnessed all environments.

The above are trivially true statements.

1: We have not adapted to all possible environments. (C)
2: Reasoning has not adapted to all environments. (1,A)
3: Science is the product of our reasoning.
4: Science is may not be a universal process for all environments (2,3)

That renders your argument moot to begin with. The burden is on you to show that science is a universal system of reasoning. The problem of perception effectively kills that route. By essentially admitting that reason is subject to the whims of the environment, you killed any chance your argument had.

Your line of reasoning is also shallow. Yes, if we somehow stumble on the universal process, it would be favored, but how or why would we develop it in the first place? To assume that we did is idiotic. If an environment changes from A to B, any system that explains B would be chosen. Explaining C is superfluous and unnecessary up until the point that we changed to C. And then anything that explained C would be chosen for. Explaining A and B isn't useful.

The best case scenario we can get from your assertions is that science is the most correct, not universally correct. That fails to address the argument.
So, either show science as a universal system of reasoning, or move on to another argument.

how you take it is irrelevant as to what it was, which was a demonstration using a real world example why your argument is wrong.

If your going to continue this useless little charade, I'm just going to point to the jellyfish. No eyes, no real brain to speak of. Yet there are tons of the little *******s. Why hasn't a Jellyfish with an eye driven out vanilla jellies? Eyed jellyfish do exist (box jellyfish), but for some reason they haven't exterminated normal jellyfish.

you argue for him despite the fact that several non-professionals in a video game forum have destroyed his arguments. id say that's fanboyism.

Considering your argument is essentially worthless, I'd hardly say you destroyed anything. If you could show a decent argument, I'll readily admit Plantiga is wrong for a couple epistemic frameworks, but his assertion still kills metaphysical naturalism and weakens methodological naturalism.

You can't go for more than 4 lines without saying something idiotic. Bob present sargument. Argument is allegedly refuted. Therefore Bob is a fanboy for the creator of said argument. Non professional is right. Take a phil 103 course or its equivalent.

Jack Kieser has it dead on. Its a Devil's Advocate argument ( at least as I present it). It's pathetic that anybody thinks that this argument advocates not using science. it works, so we'll use it. Just don't be an idiot and think that it is the one correct method.

 

[snex]

Do you not think about your arguments for more than 10 seconds? That argument is not a solution; it ****s your position.

A: The basis for reasoning changes based off our environment.
B: Reasoning can therefore be wrong when placed in a different environment.
C:We have not witnessed all environments.

The above are trivially true statements.

1: We have not adapted to all possible environments. (C)
2: Reasoning has not adapted to all environments. (1,A)
3: Science is the product of our reasoning.
4: Science is may not be a universal process for all environments (2,3)

That renders your argument moot to begin with. The burden is on you to show that science is a universal system of reasoning. The problem of perception effectively kills that route. By essentially admitting that reason is subject to the whims of the environment, you killed any chance your argument had.

Your line of reasoning is also shallow. Yes, if we somehow stumble on the universal process, it would be favored, but how or why would we develop it in the first place? To assume that we did is idiotic. If an environment changes from A to B, any system that explains B would be chosen. Explaining C is superfluous and unnecessary up until the point that we changed to C. And then anything that explained C would be chosen for. Explaining A and B isn't useful.

The best case scenario we can get from your assertions is that science is the most correct, not universally correct. That fails to address the argument.
So, either show science as a universal system of reasoning, or move on to another argument.

science by its very nature is universal. you observe. you hypothesize. you test. no specifics about the environment are required in the process. thats exactly what makes it universal. the only environment that science would not work in is a completely random environment - and thats irrelevant as humans cant exist in such an environment.

if you dont see how science is a universal reasoning system, then you do not understand how science works.

If your going to continue this useless little charade, I'm just going to point to the jellyfish. No eyes, no real brain to speak of. Yet there are tons of the little *******s. Why hasn't a Jellyfish with an eye driven out vanilla jellies? Eyed jellyfish do exist (box jellyfish), but for some reason they haven't exterminated normal jellyfish.

your question demonstrates that you do not understand evolution. plantinga's understanding of evolution is just as elementary. perhaps you both should take a biology course.

Considering your argument is essentially worthless, I'd hardly say you destroyed anything. If you could show a decent argument, I'll readily admit Plantiga is wrong for a couple epistemic frameworks, but his assertion still kills metaphysical naturalism and weakens methodological naturalism.

You can't go for more than 4 lines without saying something idiotic. Bob present sargument. Argument is allegedly refuted. Therefore Bob is a fanboy for the creator of said argument. Non professional is right. Take a phil 103 course or its equivalent.

Jack Kieser has it dead on. Its a Devil's Advocate argument ( at least as I present it). It's pathetic that anybody thinks that this argument advocates not using science. it works, so we'll use it. Just don't be an idiot and think that it is the one correct method.

lol. youre projecting. youve taken one philo course and you think youre some kind of expert. i graduated college while you were still learning your multiplication tables boy, with more philo classes than you can imagine, so take your bull**** ad hominems back to the playground and deal with the fact that plantinga's argument is trash.

science as a reasoning system is better than any other proposed system, and it demonstrably works in every environment we apply it to. therefore, evolution will select it.

give it up and admit you lost.