I thought you all might be interested in a book we just released this week – Naturalism and Its Alternatives in Scientific Methodologies. It has been heading up the Amazon charts, and hit the #1 Hot New Release spot today on three lists – Scientific Research, Epistemology, and Psychology.
This book is based on the Alternatives to Methodological Naturalism conference earlier this year. Anyway, I hope some of you check it out and see what you think!
What is the Blyth Institute? Is it more than just you? How long has it been around?
Checking out the book would seem to cost me $7.95 at least. Not enough perceived value for that. Sorry.
I already asked Bartlett about that very thing, and of course he refused to answer.
amazon.com
Last Sale: unknown
Current Rank: 90,367
January Sales: 0
amazon.co.uk
Last Sale: unknown
Current Rank: 159,382
January Sales: 0
December Sales: N/A
…slow clap
I do like the fact you have a presentation partly titled:
At least some people are honest.
If you all must know (I’m not sure how it affects anything at all), The Blyth Institute has been around since 2010. I am the director, Eric Holloway is a fellow, and Salvador Cordova is a board member and a somewhat unofficial fellow. Are you happy now? I can’t possibly imagine what difference it makes. If you love, hate, or are indifferent toward us, do it for the output, not for the type of organization we have. That’s ridiculous.
We focus on both research (mostly theoretical biology and theory of mind) and education. We have a mobile microscopy lab that we can take to students, and we focus on homeschool co-ops. We also lease microscopes inexpensively. Occasionally we provide small amounts of funding to other independent researchers (i.e., help them get to a conference, purchase a small piece of equipment, etc.).
Happy now? I don’t see how it matters if it was just me in a meth lab vs. a homeless guy in a library vs. an established researcher in a multimillion dollar building. I don’t see how any of it matters. Those are all beside the point.
dazz – where are you getting absolute sales figures? As far as I know, Amazon doesn’t provide them – I would be interested is seeing if they did. However, I know it is not zero, because I know people who have purchased it, and Amazon doesn’t provide sales ranks that high for books that have no purchases.
I do? Where? The only place I remember ever talking about that term is here.
https://www.novelrank.com/asin/1944918078
Note that the (zero) figure is for January sales, and the ranking matches the one in the book’s Amazon page
I just hope that you aren’t conflating methodological naturalism with metaphysical naturalism. Only metaphysical naturalism won’t allow ID in the door. Methodological naturalism just wants your claims to be physically testable and the design of ID meets that criteria
By that logic no one should ever buy any books written by evolutionists as there isn’t any value in said books
LOL. that book is pinin for the fjords.
dazz – You missed the big message on the page that says ” Historical data is not available from Amazon. NovelRank will begin collecting new data over the next few hours”. In other words, they have no information on January sales. What it looks like they are doing is estimating the sales volume from the sales rank. So they poll the sales rank periodically to estimate the sales volume. Since they have no historical data, they start at zero. That also means that future estimations are done using right now as a zero starting point.
My bad
We just recently launched a thread asking for alternative to science, which pretty much asked for alternatives to naturalism.
The criterion in that thread was effectiveness.
Are there any alternatives to science/naturalism that produce anything useful or which lead to new knowledge.
Examples of new knowledge would be appreciated.
It’s false that science is committed to MN.
IDiots keep whining about it but nothing stops them from proposing testable hypothesis with enough explanatory power based on non-natural entities or phenomena.
The problem is that they want to strip science from it’s tenets. They want theology and fallacious reasoning to pass for “science”.
They know theology lost the epistemological war and now they want to fool people into believing that science supports their fairy tales.
Frankie – the book actually has very little of Intelligent Design in it, at least based on what most people view as Intelligent Design. Chapters 5, 6, and 8 deal with it, and chapter 9 largely composed of criticisms of ID. I would myself consider much more of the book to be ID, but for most people’s definitions it would be just those four chapters.
I think that your description of methodological naturalism does not actually encompass what methodological naturalism is as it is practiced in the sciences. “Measurability” has nothing to do with whether something is naturalistic or not. I do think there is a distinction (at least there could be a distinction) between methodological naturalism and philosophical naturalism, but, as a general rule for science, I think both are counterproductive, and I give my arguments for them in Chapter 2. In Chapter 7 I lay out a general framework of how you could potentially use mathematics in modeling non-naturalistic types of causation.
Several chapters in the book deal with methodological dualism, specifically in psychology, economics, and computer science (though I don’t think the computer science chapter actually uses the term). This is where non-naturalistic entities get first-class status in causative power.
Johnnyb,
I think it’s important that your organization appears to be a stealth YEC group. Or would you reject that characterization?
Great – we are in agreement.
Either I’m misreading you or you contradicted yourself in the space of three sentences.
Harshman –
I would reject that characterization. It is true that the members/fellows are presently all young-earth creationists. It is also true that, as an organization, well allow for a member/fellow to be a young-earth creationist and publish accordingly. However, it has actually been my hope from the beginning to include more perspectives in the organization, including old earth and evolutionary perspectives. However, as you can imagine, there aren’t people lining up at the door to join the Institute. However, as might be evident from our body of work, we have never excluded these perspectives. In “Engineering and the Ultimate,” one of the authors was highly critical of Intelligent Design and all forms of creationism. My co-editors were an old-earth creationist and I believe the other one was a theistic evolutionist, though we never really talked about it.
ID “proponents” refuse to add any kind of detail or explanatory power to their claims, which makes it completely uninformative and untestable. All they have is question begging appeals to emotion and intuition: Pressupositionalist crap with fancy sciency jargon and lots of useless acronyms.
It’s an anti-science stance from head to toes
I for one am completely convinced that an organization currently comprised entirely of YEC advocates is not necessarily committed to YEC.
Look at Sal. He’s completely open minded.
Petrushka:
I would largely agree that effectiveness is a good goal, but I would argue that it shouldn’t be a criterion, though I don’t mind if you judge us on that standard (it is my goal to be effective, so if I don’t accomplish it, I would view that as a failing). Just as a quick argument against effectiveness as a criterion, Hardy’s investigation into prime numbers he did with a goal of producing ineffective mathematical work. It has later proven to be effective, but if you used that as a criterion while Hardy was producing his output you would have been mistaken.
In any case, effectiveness (and moving people in that direction) has been my goal since Engineering and the Ultimate. My goal is to show the effectiveness of non-naturalistic views of science. An example – I show that the Halting problem divides between the things which can be produced by machines and the things which cannot. The things which cannot must be the result of creativity (i.e., a non-mechanically-produced effect related to a cause). I also show that open-ended loops require creativity in this way. Then, I show that we can use this as a measurement tool for software complexity management, to show how much creativity is required/used in building different parts of a program, and then also to use this as a means of valuing the software assets of a software company.
In Naturalism and Its Alternatives, Eric Holloway presents an idea called “Imagination Sampling”. As a new idea, it has not been fully tested, but the idea is that we can harness human creativity in an abstract way in machine learning that is beyond what is possible algorithmically (which would be naturalistically).
My part-time monetary compensation (very little, btw) for Blyth work does not come from Blyth but from private non-profits that provide me small part-time opportunities for activities like collecting information and reporting on developments at the National Institutes of Heath (NIH) and other organizations that the ID and creationist community deem favorable against evolutionary theory. After all, Dan Graur famously said, “If ENCODE is right, evolution is wrong.” That really defined the battle lines and where the ID community could focus some of its interest (rather than more papers on Specified Complexity).
The reporting is not in public documents but circulated privately through conferences both in person and electronically. The data isn’t at all secret, and neither is what I’m trying to report. But the identity of the most interested consumers of the data however is secret because many are scientists in secular institutions.
I know first hand what happens to academics who come out of the closet like my friend Caroline Crocker at my undergrad alma mater George Mason University. It is a matter of public record at AtBC that a professor at my university was being goaded to have me expelled from my MS Engineering program in Applied Physics at the Whiting School of Engineering, Johns Hopkins University. I’m personally indebted to him he didn’t cave in to their demands. Robert Marks was briefly “expelled” until a guy from my former church in McLean Virginia, Ken Starr came to his rescue down there in Waco Texas. Yay!
Those experiences put a bitter taste in my mouth and instilled resolve for a little payback against Darwinian institutions that try to ruin people’s lives merely because they don’t accept Darwinism.
Despite the pronouncements of the Discovery Institute, the issue of junk DNA is far far from settled. Hence, there is a need for more informed reporting appropriate for secular academics with ID sympathies, but who actually are practicing scientists in the life sciences. Some of the sound-bite releases from the Discovery Institute or Answers in Genesis simply will not be of sufficient depth to satisfy the level of discussion that they desire.
Even though a lot of what I write is freely available, my benefactors are willing to pay for my reporting because they want such investigations and interviews done and want to know what the real deal is.
A good example of data circulated in the community is one I reported on here. You all get it free of charge however, plus lots of polemics and insults to boot.
After I get responses from you all, I summarize what ideas I think are good, remove the polemics and put it in more collegial language and pass on what I find, then a small check gets sent my way for my labor of love.
In my not-so-humble opinion, my reporting on the work of the 588 million dollar NIH ENCODE and RoadmapEpigenomics projects is probably more comprehensive than anyone else in the ID community.
My participation at The Skeptical Zone has been a means of getting free-of-charge editorial review for some of what eventually gets passed on to these communities. The intent was originally to write stuff for the home-school community (which may still happen), but the money has been (what little there is of it), so far has been in my reporting of developments at the NIH and biotech and pharmaceutical communities.
Regarding this discussion here at TSZ:
This data is tentatively scheduled for presentation at AM-NAT Biology, 2017.
Beyond that, at AM NAT 2016 honoraria was sent to distinguished participants to speak. We were honored to have Sam Rakeover from the Ludwig von Mises institute at AM NAT 2016.
Other Blyth activities include education like procuring microscopes for students.
Personally, I am trying to put together educational videos on the functions of junkDNA which are totally under-reported by the ID community. It will be on a level appropriate for college science students and faculty. A mid-level exec at a news agency is now helping me with the project on a volunteer basis. I hope to release some of the stuff in coordination with Blyth.
Proving a negative, particularly in the arena of engineering, has a rather dim history.
Quick correction to Sal – Rakover is from the University of Haifa, Philipp Bagus is from the Mises Institute. Both talked about the need for Methodological Dualism in their respective fields.
Typical “skeptical zone” responses. Not disagreement with what anyone has read in the book, just blind chemically induced beliefs that the book is not worth reading.
Yay Skeptical Zone!
You all make Lizzie proud, I’m sure.
To answer petrushka, “the effectiveness of science” is too vague to be meaningful, and effectiveness is a value judgement. Just further evidence for how confused the naturalism mindset is.
You’re missing two points. First, YECs have a history of not understanding science (else they wouldn’t be YECs) so there’s no reason to expect the book to be of value. Second, giving money to YECs is immoral because they might use it to push their political agenda.
I’d like to thank the admins, moderators and participants who helped me substantially re-write my submission to JohnnyB and Eric Holloway’s book.
The review at TSZ, here:
was invaluable to my revisions before publication.
In the process of review I found Thorp’s almost forgotten paper published in the proceedings of the National Academy of Science under the sponsorship of Claude Shannon.
I will note, I was astonished that really a fairly bland, non-descript paper with 99% material that should not at all be objectionable resulted in inspiring guanoed responses from my detractors calling me an immoral sociopath!
Patrick,
Evolutionists have a proven track record of not understanding science and all they have is a political agenda.
Naturalism is dogma and doesn’t govern science
Pretty sure effectiveness in this context refers to the capability of producing explanations with plenty detail and testable content that produce knowledge, not about how much of a practical use those might have
Still waiting for Mung or FrankenJoe or any IDiot to explain how to do science and not rely 100% on materialism. Tell us how to account for a supernatural Loki God unpredictably changing results on a whim.
John B- Please read metaphysical naturalism and methodological naturalism
So you aren’t here to learn. You’re here to make your Creationist bullshit sound more sciency and more convincing to ignorant laymen.
Thatks for admitting what we already knew.
You’re missing two points.
First, I read the first book they put out and didn’t find it to be at all “tainted” as you suggest. So I am better informed than you and your “skeptical” colleagues. Now doesn’t that just suck.
Second, your view of morality is your own subjective opinion formed from your obvious biases and God only knows what else and I have no reason to think anyone else should adopt it or be guided by it. It’s not like the site rules, which we all agree to abide by. So you’ve left the reservation on that one. You’re on your own.
Your history here doesn’t inspire one to take your claims at face value. Perhaps you should review the book in an OP for further discussion.
Unlike your purely objective (albeit unsupported) sanctioning of intellectual and emotional child abuse?
I’d like the evidence for that.
I suspect it has to do with making up very powerful “causes.” Not that I truly believe in the distinction “naturalistic” (empiricism is the issue, not “nature”) but I have yet to see a characterization of a “non-naturalistic cause” that isn’t basically a fiction.
Glen Davidson
LoL! Glen just step up and support the claims for your position. As of now your position is basically a fiction
That’s because you’re a YEC. You just don’t know it yet
You’re a YEC too dazz, you just don’t know it yet!
johnnyb,
Is there anyway mention of Philip Bagus, Sam Rakeover, Paul Nelson or some of the other professional academics can be highlighted in the amazon web advertisement.
classic Frankie “I know you are but what am I” response
Yep, you sound just like YEC Frankie
stcordova,
I can add mention of Rakover, but Bagus and Nelson wound up not having time to submit papers. We mention their presentations in the book (specifically chapter 14, but they are not actually authors. I might just add a table of contents with author names.
Mung,
I agree that there’s considerable ignorance in this thread of what the third-wave IDdish have been saying. It’s much crazier than they know (obviously crazy to me, because it has much more to do with computer science and psychology than with biology). The ID movement is scraping sludge from the bottom of the barrel in order to fill the pipe. I enjoy the thought of Bob Marks having to deal with Eric Holloway. It serves him right. And I enjoy the thought of a YEC so intent on sticking it to Baylor that he’ll spend a quarter-million dollars to put Holloway through a doctoral program… in engineering. ID and YEC need another engineer as much as they need another lawyer.
The Bartlett/Holloway approach is to claim (stupidly) that naturalism entails an algorithmic universe, and to demonstrate that human minds can do non-algorithmic calculations.
Tom English,
And how does Tom English think the earth and living organisms came to be the way they are? Do you have something that is testable and not batshit crazy? If you have something testable please say what it is. Your position needs you
When the men of straw are arrayed against us, whatever shall we do?
Glen Davidson