There are certain regularities that only become evident through infrequent idiosyncratic experiences which not everyone has or pays attention to. In that case, it is entirely reasonable that people could find themselves possessed of valid reasons for believing that the universe is an egg from almost anything... anything within the pale of possibility, shall we say. — fdrake

You are being glib. Popper points out that it doesn't matter where hypotheses come from. You can't require that a hypothesis be evidentially based, you end up in an infinite regress: what is the evidence for the evidence when you don't already know the law. Why didn't anyone figure out the theory of gravity before Newton? Some people perceive things that others do not.

The fallible and incomplete nature of knowledge is not evidence for any hypothesis of creation. — fdrake

That isn't what I said. I explained my positive hypothesis.

I personally am quite "creator-friendly". As indicated, I just don't see this imposing any other constraints.

What % probability do you assign to the unknown boolean question 'is there a creator' (before hearing the evidence). Is it:
— Devans99

If pushed, almost 0%, it would be very surprising for me. It necessitates a lot of hypothesis with vaguely specified mechanisms relying upon incredible contingencies with no reason to believe them over natural explanations. — fdrake

Here I'd have to disagree. There is barely a consensus as to what knowledge is. However one thing that science has established quite satisfactorily is that there is more that is unknown than known. Moreover science has likewise established its own approximate and ever-evolving nature. Look at historical paradigm shifts.

I suggest that there are types of regularities that perhaps are not evident to trivial observation, that perhaps do become evident through sometimes infrequent idiosyncratic experiences which not everyone has or pays attention to. In that case, it is entirely reasonable that people could find themselves possessed of valid "reasons for believing" in almost anything...anything within "the pale of possibility" shall we say.

So I believe God was the creator of the universe only rather than the theist view that he is actively involved in the universe. So science is in no way invalidated by the existence of God. I believe that God must be a logical/reasonable entity that has to abide by the laws of logic. He was responsible for the creation of the universe and nothing more. God is playing a giant game of Conway's game of life with the universe I think. So the living surfaces for life are the rocky planets. The energy source for life is the stars. And evolution is God's mechanism for developing intelligent life. — Devans99

I get that. Science points us down roads of further discovery of unknowns. If we allow your Deist assertion, where does that go? What do we discuss next? Does it impose a direction on our subsequent thoughts and inquiries?

I am impressed by your balanced (if dogged) pursuit of your creationist agenda. I think, however, your intuitions about "fine tuning" are a red herring. They presuppose what you are trying to prove (petitio principii) as others have pointed out.

Assuming that your main goal is to justify your intuitive belief, and not merely the "fine tuning" version, which you yourself cite as evidence, my question is this: If we allow that the universe was created, what then? Let's say God did create the universe so that it evolves according to emergent-evolutionary principles. What's next? Do we stop trying to comprehend and study natural processes? What's next?

I think one needs to be cognizant of the relationship between norms and laws here. And the fact that due to some new features of telecommunication the notion of political correctness has resulted in a lot of new anti-norms receiving legislative status. Norms are norms because, by and large, they represent the behaviour of the vast majority of people.

I'm totally tolerant. More than that, I'm supportive of individual differences. But they are just that...differences. My experience with the gay community is that most gay people are quite happy to identify with their birth genders. The actual percentage of people for whom the transgender issue is life-altering is small compared to the number for whom it is not.

I am totally against prejudice and discrimination of every kind. I think the notion that transgender identity has the right to co-opt and alter mainstream gender norms is itself prejudice of the worst sort, and reverse discrimination.

If you wanted to beg the question of God why assume the universe had to be "fine-tuned" from the beginning? God could just as easily have ordained the spontaneous emergence of ordered complexity....

Calling them "emergent" and not fundamental is the mistake. — Noah Te Stroete

Quibbling. If you don't disagree that the property is a holistic feature and more than the sum of component elements.

Emergent properties as explanation is nothing more than invoking magic. — Noah Te Stroete

Emergent properties are not explanations, they are facts. Trying to explain them away reductively is the mistake.

No one asked me, but I'm personally leaning towards Scientific Realism lately, all of the substance of science with none of the clutter of materialism...

Those properties do not evolve; they are effectively set in stone by the initial rules and conditions of the universe — Devans99

I'm pretty sure that is an open question, and not an established fact as you are suggesting. In any case, the property could still emerge by the process I describe, up to the point at which (as you suggest) it is set in stone. There were definitely no chemical processes going on in the early universe, the conditions simply wouldn't allow it.

Right, which is all consistent with those entities emerging as a result of systemic evolution, as documented and tested through systems theory.

I think if you were to write a computer program that generated universes at random, with random forces, random standard model, random initial conditions, you'd fine that the vast, vast majority of universes generated were not life supporting. The vast majority of universes generated would simply not support complex matter (like the atom). — Devans99

I think if you coded it using non-linear equations tuned to the proper set of fractal attractors iit probably would work...

Systems theory eliminates all the teleological confusion by simply establishing that it is a normal feature of some systems (complex adaptive systems) to generate adaptive-complexity along with emergent properties. Systems theory is extremely well-founded empirically, is amenable to mathematical representation (via non-linear equations) and has proven applicable in every known domain that I have read about. So fine-tuning may be just an inherent tendency of the universe to resolve itself into states of adaptive-equilibria.

Late to the party, but I have always maintained that what is going on is probably no more (or less) nefarious than a "conspiracy of greed."

"Quantum Field Theory Demystified" by David McMahon
"The Open Universe" by Karl Popper

If that materialistic worldview gives you a feeling of contentment, join the club. It's the default worldview of most simple-minded humans since time began — Gnomon

Actually John Searle has claimed that the average man on the street is a Cartesian, and I tend to agree with him. Most people have a strong intuition that there is 'more than meets the eye' and so tend to fall back (consciously or unconsciously) to a substantial dualist position.

The ‘for the want of a horseshoe nail’ highlight colourfully the important point about the way events in the world are dominated by ‘triggers’, that is, small events that cause other events bigger events, thus unleashing in the process amount of energy of many levels of magnitude greater than that of the trigger, Consider for example the flapping butterfly wing in the Amazon or the pressing of the nuclear button — Jacob-B

"Trigger" is exactly the terminology used in a systems philosophy book I just read to describe the influence of a key-subsystem within a system to cause an event at the level of the system. As you say, unleashing order-of-magnitude energies. This is exactly one of my pet areas of study.

I'll quibble with your quibble, since the original derivation of physics - phusis or nature - arguably generalizes to all of the natural sciences, not only physics. Moreover, to the extent that Psychology, Sociology, etc. are scientific - that is, follow the scientific method of experimentation - they are indeed true sciences. Citing Popper, who I'm now reading, any thesis capable of being falsified (through experiment and evidence) is scientific. Metaphysics specifically does not attempt to make testable predictions. If it did, then it would be science. No doubt the boundaries are always shifting though, and worth monitoring closely.... :)

Newtonian Science is the basis of Classical Physics. But Quantum Physics cannot be fully reconciled with Classical Materialism. Instead, by introducing concepts such as immaterial Fields, and Virtual Particles, physics is now encroaching on the old philosophical specialty of Metaphysics. — Gnomon

By definition Metaphysics and science are different things and play different roles. Any attempt to fuse them confuses the fundamental nature of each. That being said, of course both metaphysics and science can evolve. I also find the link between informational entropy and thermodynamics compelling.

:up:

The problem is that mental processes don't seem to be fundamental. They exist when brains develop, which only happened after animal life evolved. — Marchesk

As far as we know, maybe. On the other hand there is evidence of "distributed cognition" and "collective cognition" that suggests consciousness may involve more than meets the eye (just like the electromagnetic spectrum). All men are mortal. Socrates is a man. Therefore Socrates is mortal. However there are other mortal things besides men. You can recast the syllogism using consciousness as the major premise. You are making a material-reductionist assumption.

Espousing the fundamental reality of mental processes doesn't contradict quantum field theory.

Are you suggesting that science grounds metaphysics? Metaphysics isn't the same as science.

Fundamental to what? Not everyday experience.

Because science tells us of many things we don't experience that result in the world we do experience. Radio waves and atoms are good examples. — Marchesk

That doesn't discount the reality of the things which we do experience.

The world isn't material. It's something else. The material stuff of everyday experience emerges from that — Marchesk

Ok. But "everyday experience" is the world. So why not assume "that" is fundamental?

I believe that is called the principle of the identity of indiscernibles. Maybe look into that?

Capping off the year with Time Regained. Took me most of the year to get through all of A la recherche... (though I read other things in between).

Thinking of tackling Ulysses at last. — SophistiCat

Ulysses I found a bit of a mountain to climb. Proust has been on my to do list forever, but I fear it will be even steeper than Ulysses...

Reading a just-defended dissertation entitled "Into the Heart of Systems Change" by Anneloes Smitsman. It's over six-hundred pages but is very readable. Available as a PDF if anyone is curious.

R.G. Collingwood - The Idea of History
A compilation of his later essays on the subject

today, closer scientific observations, from a Darwinian perspective, have revealed that animals (e. g. chimps & porpoises) are capable of reasoning that is much closer to human capacities
— Gnomon

This is nonsense — Wayfarer

One should always be cautious how one words one's objections. Our closest relatives may posses a theory of mind.

Interesting question. Popper's view on metaphysical realism is that we cannot derive a universal law from observations, however we can infer that there are universal laws. He further allows that, while many of the scientific theories we hold are undoubtedly going to be subject to future revision, he believes that there is some core set of theories which are accurate. However, it is not possible to know which ones those are.

Kind of like saying, "my definition of 'dogma'" is correct.
— Pantagruel

Not really. I’m simply saying the other person is misusing the term to suit his purpose — I like sushi

Isn't that exactly the same thing as I said, disputing the definition.? Anyway, it's been pointed out so I won't harp on it if it doesn't resonate at all.

My point remains the same. Dogma is against critical thought because it doesn’t care about evidence. You’ve presented why you disagree with if you actually take the word for what it means. I doubt you do disagree. It seems you were just looking to ‘jab’ at me for no good reason.

Dogma simply isn’t the same as holding bias or psychological fixedness. When people only see the world as being explained via science that isn’t even ‘dogma’. That is ‘scientism’ - a term philosophers enjoy to use when they face scientific facts they don’t understand. — I like sushi

It seems to me that you guys are arguing about dogma, but strictly speaking you don't hold exactly equivalent definitions of what is dogma. Kind of like saying, "my definition of 'dogma'" is correct. As if it is debating ownership of the concept. When both positions have merit.

"All our hypotheses are conjectures, and anybody is free to offer
conjectures—even conjectures that may appear quite silly to the
majority of us. Only thus can we make way for bold, unconventional, new ideas"

Seems to illustrate the tension between the accepted dogma and the radically new insight.

These days shifty academes - from what I understand - will fudge their research for a price. The pressure to publish has pushed a ton of bullshit into the scientific canon. — ZzzoneiroCosm

This is an ugly phenomenon indeed.

Expansive means "can be expanded". So it can be shrinked. Because whatever is expansive, is elastic.

So Popper's expansive theories can be reduced and disregarded, if one shrinks them, instead of expands them. — god must be atheist

I have to say, I get a lot of 'word-games' feeling coming from your general direction. This comment really has no substantive merit other than polemic. Expansive primarily means extensive in scope, at least, that's my experience with the word.

And the word you are looking for is "shrunk".

Please also be careful you read the passages in the book that are about critical thinking, not about merely critical rationalism. I wish you to avoid building an argument on a strawman. — god must be atheist

Indeed, I am paying more attention to the focus applied to the critical component since joining the thread. Certainly overall it is the use of critical thinking in validating scientific knowledge in general which is the heart of the matter. However he does comment, compare, contrast various types of criticality.

Honestly, per my comment on metacognition, I think it is trivially evident that one can critically evaluate one's own critical thought processes. Why would you not be able to? It is simply a tool, like any other?

I know next to nothing about quantum physics but I can tell you that there are mathematical equations in that field and equations are, in my opinion, causal relations. — TheMadFool

Yes, causality is just the simplest form of linear connection. Same thing with Complex Adaptive Systems and chaotic attractors. That's why it's called 'non-linear dynamics'. The relationships exist, they just aren't straightforward.