From the standpoint of what is called "trope nominalism." my organs, cells, etc. are tropes (which, in this case, refer to attributes) of a particular (me), not particulars in themselves.

Quote:

If you claim that there is a causal chain from A to D,you must also observe every step in causal chain.

No, you only need to demonstrate how the process works and find evidence for it. No scientists, not even those who support ID, have criticized evolutionary theory for not being able to track every trajectory of a chain. The criticisms made by most ID proponents are much more nuanced

Quote:

If there is not such thing as reality,then why you try to prove evolution so much? If there is not reality,why you create messages on this forum? Evolution try to say something about reality,but you say that there is no such thing as reality.

The only way I can respond to that question is by recommending you read up on some nominalist philosophies of science. Nominalists do not reject particulars. We reject universals as more than names.

Quote:

Using your nominalist logic,I could say that YOU do not exist,since you are just abstraction made up of tissues and organs.

But I am not an abstraction. I am a thinking, conscious being. Nominalists do not reject particular realities, only universal realities.

Quote:

So,basically Biology is a linguistic course?

Again, I would suggest you read up on some of the nominalist philosophies of science. However, to respond to your question: No, I do not believe that biology is a linguistic course.

Most people in this room claim to reject religion - and that everyone else is following one. Calling others "religious" has just become a way of marginalizing people. It is a kind of triumphalism.

Someone wrote:
Dialectical materialism is off course not communism as such.It has communism as its integral part.

Actually, it does not. Historical materialism includes communism as central. Dialectical materialism has nothing to do with it.

Quote:

I meant 'totalitarian' in philosophical,not political sense. As attempt to encompass entire totality of reality.

Yes, I know how you are using it. I am a social theorist. However, not all metaphysical systems attempt to encompass the totality of reality. Some deal only with very nuanced subject matter.

Quote:
Laws of thermodynamics can be empirically tested,but you cannot test metaphysical research program.

If you are saying that evolution cannot be tested, I would suggest that you are incorrect. Biologists have replicated evolution in the laboratory many times.

Quote:

Nope. Darwinism goes beyond classification,and try to determine origins of life forms,and causes of their current state.

You said that Darwinism does not classify forms. I disagreed with you. Does Darwinism do more than classify forms? Yes.

nominalist wrote:

Again, not true. All systems of metaphysics, by definition, assume that universals, or abstract concepts, are real. Nominalism is antimetaphysical because it rejects that assumption.

Quote:

Metaphysics is the branch of philosophy that investigates principles of reality transcending those of any particular science, traditionally, cosmology and ontology. It is also concerned with explaining the ultimate nature of being and the world.

"Reality" is a universal or abstraction. As a nominalist, I would say that there is no such thing as reality. That is why I do not subscribe to a metaphysical system.

Quote:

The American Heritage Dictionary, Fourth Edition, defines nominalism as "the doctrine holding that abstract concepts, general terms, or universals have no independent existence but exist only as names." Nominalism has also been defined as a philosophical position that various objects labeled by the same term have nothing in common but their name.

Therefore Nominalism say something about nature of being and world by saying that there are no abstract concepts.

I would suggest you read what you copied more closely. If universals, like reality, are merely names, they do not exist. It is not, therefore, possible to study "reality." How can one study something which does not exist?

Quote:

How come that you "Nominalist" believe in Evolution,since by definition of Nominalism you cannot even believe in existence of species?

Like most nominalists, I accept species, genus, etc. as useful classification schemes - nothing more. I would deny that they have any permanence or essence.

Quote:

Since species are general terms and universals.

I know some of the folks in the biology department where I work. (I am in the sociology department.) Most of them are nominalists. They treat species as useful linguistic conventions.

Quote:

And if Nominalism deny existence of general terms,how can you believe in theory of origins of these universals (species)?

Nominalists look at relationships between particulars. Once notions of reality and essence are discarded, one can focus on the origins of various biological lines without being concerned over realist issues like permanence and form.

Quote:

And then you speak about 'modern synthesis' and 'modern paradigm' - all universal and abstract terms???

Most scientists are nominalists. There are some realists around - they mostly call themselves "common-sense realists" - but they are in the minority. The modern synthesis is a theoretical category, not an essence. As more data is available, it can be modified.

Quote:

Also you mentioned 'laws of thermodynamics',but you as Nominalist shouldn't even believe in them,since 'laws in physics' are generalizations and abstractions from empirical experience,and as generalizations are not real.

Just the opposite. Laws are seen as relationships between particulars, not as fixed essences. That is why, when one reputable researcher claimed to find evidence to challenge the law of gravity, most scientists were willing to look at the data. They were not attached to gravity as ontology.

Someone wrote:

Modern Synthesis is just unification of various evolutionary disciplines. Central to natural sciences is logic and knowledge theory.

Logic is important. However, I would not say it is "central" to the scientific method. Empiricism is central.

By "knowledge theory" do you mean epistemology? If so, yes. However, I think it would be proper to specify methodology, which is a particular branch of epistemology.

Quote:

'Dialectical Materialism' was 'Synthesis' of previous forms of communism.

I don't follow you. What previous forms of communism? Dialectical materialism is not a form of communism. It is Karl Marx's system of metaphysics.

Quote:

In same manner Hegel's philosophy was synthesis of all previous philosophical systems.

All of them? Do you have evidence for that?

Quote:

Its logical that all Metaphysical systems want to create all-encompassed picture of the world,since metaphysics is totalitarian in its basis.

I am not a fan of metaphysics either. However, I think you are reifying the concept. Not all forms of metaphysics are totalitarian or rest on totalitarian assumptions.

Quote:

Every Metaphysics wants to 'swallow' reality and to interpret entire reality according to its postulates.

All of them? That is clearly not the case.

Quote:

Again,somebody can be biologist,without knowledge of any 'modern synthesis'.

I strongly disagree. The modern synthesis is the central paradigm of modern biology. Can a person disagree with it? I don't know. However, I don't see how a person can be a biologist and be entirely ignorant of the modern synthesis. That would be like being a physicist and being ignorant of the laws of thermodynamics.

Quote:

Darwinism has nothing to do with classification or research of contemporary life forms,and research of contemporary life forms can do just fine without any evolutionary theory.

Not so. Darwinism was precisely that - an attempt to classify life forms.

Quote:

Biology can do just fine without Evolution (or Creationism).

Do you know of any biologists who would agree with that?

Quote:

Nominalism is also metaphysical attitude,which claims that abstract concepts do not have real existence.

Again, not true. All systems of metaphysics, by definition, assume that universals, or abstract concepts, are real. Nominalism is antimetaphysical because it rejects that assumption.

Someone wrote:

You are confusing evolution with natural sciences.

I am not confusing the two. I am saying that the Modern Synthesis (contemporary evolutionary theory) is central to the natural sciences.

Quote:

A biologist may research organisms,and classify them without any need of knowing 'origins' of them (Phylogeny).

True.

Quote:

Biologist may be Creationist,Evolutionist,Agnostic,Cosmotheist or other. All these concepts are simply metaphysical frameworks,and not empirical science.

Well, first, I would suggest that there is no such thing as an "evolutionist." That term is a creationist aberration. It is an attempt to place evolution and creationism (or intelligent design) on a level playing field.

Second, as a nominalist, and someone who, by definition, tries to avoid metaphysical speculation as much as possible, I do not see much metaphysical speculation in the Modern, or New, Synthesis. Genetics and, especially, the human genome project, put to rest any reputable claim that evolution was speculative. Even many proponents of ID have admitted that evolution has strong inductive support. They differ with evolutionary biology largely on minor points. IMO, those points are not scientifically legitimate.

Quote:

To claim that 'Dinosauria' are ancestors of birds (for example) simply because some of them shared similar traits with birds is making of causal fallacy.

That might be true if formal similarities were the only basis for making the connections. They are not.

I wrote:

Modern evolutionary biology, paleontology, and physical anthropology are no longer dependent upon speculative philosophy.

You replied:
Thats true.This is why they are making same mistake as old speculative metaphysics. Philosophy,on other hand had acknowledged these mistakes in 18 century,since the time of David Hume and Immanuel Kant.

You lost me there. You agreed with my point in one sentence. You then disagreed with the same point in the next. While some individual natural scientists may, individually, make speculations, I do not see how you can claim that evolutionary biology is built upon them.

Quote:

Some scientists,due to specialization have cut their connection with critical philosophy,and therefore started to make same mistakes,that philosophy had before.

The sciences began to separate themselves from philosophy during the Enlightenment. That was a long time ago.

Quote:

Thats why we have today claims about 'Big Bang' origins of universe,or return to old metaphysical 'first cause'...or 'primum mobile'.

The big bang has nothing to do with evolution. You are now talking about astrophysics.

Globally, most self-defined Christians accept evolution. Creationism is an aberration and is mostly found in North America and Australia.

My view of human rights would include the rights of Iraqis not to be invaded based on erroneous evidence of weapons of mass destruction.

How would Americans feel if another country, upset with President Bush, decided to invade the U.S. (if that were possible), overthrow its government, and replace it with one more to that other country's liking? The U.S., like other imperial powers throughout history, rules by the "might equals right" principle.

The approach indicated in this Google video falls under what is generally called astrotheology.

The problem I have with this approach is its metaphysics (or speculations). It assumes, without evidence, that similarities in narrative are identical with similarities in message. In other words, because a similar allegory was used at various times in the past, can we then conclude that that the thoughts behind the narrative were similar?

Pointing to the Zodiac was a common way of illustrating a variety of experiences in the ancient world. However, because various stories used common symbolisms, does that tell us that the experiences behind the symbols were also common? I don't think we can make that assumption.

IMO, one of the problems with fundamentalism is a tendency to treat the Bible as a unified document. For instance, in the Paltalk room I help operate, people frequently tell each other, "What's the matter with you? Haven't you read the Bible?" They then use proof-texting (throwing out verses) like projectile weapons.;-)

Of course, there is no such thing as "the Bible." The Bible is a name for for several different compilations (canons) of texts (Protestant, Roman Catholic, Coptic, etc.). Leaving aside the Jewish canons, there are numerous canons accepted by the various Christianities:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Development_of_the_New_Testament_canon

The amateurish "cross-referencing" approach, which treats "the Bible" as a single document (called "reification"), would not be accepted by academic religious scholars. Neither would "word studies" (using a concordance or lexicon), which take texts out of context, be seen as acceptable approaches to this body of literature.

Once people adopt reification, a method which disrespects individual textual differences, there will inevitably be differences in interpretation (depending on which verses people will choose to emphasize).

Therefore, there is no such thing as "the Bible." There are only diverse compilations of texts to which have been given that name.

Personally, I have no problem with public nudity. IMO, it is neither good nor bad to be naked in front of others.

I do have a problem with the philosophy of nudism. Arguing that it is "good" or "healthy" to be nude in public borders on idolatry.

I don't know whether nudism is wrong. From my standpoint, all moralities are socially constructed. However, it does conform to my definition of idolatry, as do racism, ethnicism, sexism, nationalism, ageism, ableism (including neurelitism and audism), adultism, and colorism.

Personally, I have no problem with public nudity. IMO, it is neither good nor bad to be naked in front of others.

I do have a problem with the philosophy of nudism. Arguing that it is "good" or "healthy" to be nude in public borders on idolatry.

Well, cognitive-behavioral modalities are not the same as behavior modification. However, both categories of treatment are becoming popular because they work.

Traditional psychodynamic methods, which are reflected in the first few editions of the DSM, are increasingly being viewed as more philosophy than science. However, given the recent rapprochement between psychiatry and neurology, and even the possibility of a merger between the fields, the more effective (as in empirically tested) modalities are the ones which are becoming more dominant.

I use social theory because I am a social scientist. Theories are at the bases of all sciences. One begins by deducing hypotheses from a theory. One ends by inductively testing those hypotheses to see if they support the theory. The circle begins with theory and ends with theory.

What is a distraction to one person can be a passion to the next. I would suggest that ...'s approach is also a theory (of sorts), albeit a highly ideational one.

I do like theory. (I am a social theorist.) However, I am also a neopragmatist. That is to say, I regard truth as that which works in particular contexts. For that reason, I like a constructivist modality called coherence therapy:

http://www.psychresources.net/

My concern is with separating truth claims from particular individual and social contexts.

Quote:

I think this terrifies us to even consider taking it from relativity and speculation into an unknown realm of practice.

Well, for a few years, I attended quarterly seminars in Parker Palmer's Formation:

http://www.league.org/league/projects/formation/about.htm

I had some disagreements with it (like the time we were asked to listen to a rock, twig, etc.), but overall I felt as though it was beneficial.

Quote:

This is why in the finding solutions, truth must be sought via work. Plain and simple - from the drawing board out there to the multi-layered psyche that resides within. Metaphysics no longer applies to the new paradigm of Truth. Theory is now replaced with reality in all of its guises. Acceptance takes forefront placement leaving conflict behind.

To me, that implies that reality exists. I do not personally agree with that idea. IMO, reality or truth is simply a name for socially constructed knowledge.

I was not always a nominalist, and I realize that my views are now in the minority (almost everywhere). However, nominalism and poststructuralism are how I understand my experiences. I appreciate, and respect, that your perspective is different, but I can't accept a paradigm for what I believe is merely an abstraction (truth).

The issues surrounding chiropractic are complex. Studies have shown that many people, especially those with neck and back pain, have benefited from adjustments. On the other hand, there was a recent study from Johns Hopkins University which found some association between chiropractic neck adjustments and incidence of stroke.

However, the main problem with chiropractic is, um, chiropractic. Once you take away the various confused, and confusing, notions of subluxations from chiropractic, the field really becomes massage therapy or, in some cases, physical therapy. In fact, there is not just one, by many varied, and even contradictory, theories of subluxations. They range from the anatomical to the auric.

There are some anti-subluxation chiropractors, but their numbers are tiny.

For most people, religion is primarily a social activity. People become reinforced in their beliefs, as extraordinary as they may seem to outsiders (like a literal resurrection), through frequent contact with fellow believers.

Since people with autism spectrum disorders do not generally pick up on social cues, the reinforcement is lacking. Hence, they may tend to approach supernatural belief systems with skepticism.

As a nominalist, I don't expect people to agree on textual interpretations. IMO, meaning emerges as people encounter texts. It is not inherent. In other words, we do not approach texts as blank slates. We each bring something to the table.

All religious Muslims believe that the Qur'án is the infallible word of God (in some sense). However, not all interpret infallibility (Arabic, 'ismat) in the same fashion. Some would simply say that God's will is conveyed through the Qur'án, not that the Qur'án is factually correct in every detail. Not all Muslims interpret it literally. Many Muslims, like many Christians and Jews, are liberals.

>>Muslims think Christians worship 3 Gods and call us "polytheists"<<

That is because there was an unusual Christian sect in 7th-century Arabia which taught the existence of three gods: the Faither, the Son, and Virgin Mary. Presumably, Muhammad was referring to them.

The various illuminati conspiracies, and there are several of them (most quite different), usually include the Masons. However, the membership of the Freemasons largely consists of men in their late middle age and elderly years. It is a social club. The supposedly secret rituals (which are all published on the Internet) give people a sense of belonging to something special.

People who buy into the illuminati conspiracies generally speak in vague allusions. They take bits and pieces of information and mold them to conform to their preconceptions.

Whenever I have tried to pin the illuminati conspiracists down, they generally change the subject or respond with still more conjectures.

Why is the "Skull and Crossbones society" so secret and exclusive? Because, like most fraternities and sororities, they have secret rituals and membership criteria.

NWO is a common abbreviation for the new world order. It is used mostly by individuals who subscribe to one of the many and varied versions of the illuminati conspiracy.

Therefore, whether something is, or is not, hard to believe does not matter. It may have been, at one time, difficult to believe that the rising of the sun was merely an illusion resulting from the rotation of the earth. Nonetheless, there is no evidence for a literal rising and massive amounts of evidence for the earth's rotation.

Empirically, it is the evidence which counts, not what you or I may find difficult to believe.

MLMs are a kind of populist capitalism. They don't work especially well, but, then again, corporate capitalism has been pretty destructive, too.

Someone wrote:
In other words, a person who admits supernatural causes is by definition unable to separate divine causation from natural processes. As a divine being can do literally anything, there is no way for a believer to sort unexplained events into the categories 'divinely caused" vs "naturally caused"

Not necessarily. Most people are realists. They assume a direct relationship between objects (including text) and knowledge. As a nominalist, I make no such assumption. What many people believe to be universals are merely words. Only particulars exist.

IMO, empirical research and supernatural belief systems need to be kept at arm's length. My own approach is to turn to the naturalist sciences, without invoking the supernatural, when discussing biological origins. On the other hand, questions of purpose (why are we here?) are issues which can be properly addressed by various religions.

http://www.submission.org/jesus/holy_spirit.html

Oh, that site is connected with the ideas of the late Rashad Khalifa. I actually chatted with him over the phone once or twice. He is an interesting fellow.

However, his attempt to support the validity of the Qur'an with his 19-based mathematical formula is, IMO, as ludicrous as are similar attempts to do the same with the biblical texts. They are self-fulfilling prophecies.

IMO, the most cogent approach is simply to recognize that "supernatural intervention" has no place in scientific research. If one cannot separate one's views of divine causation from natural processes, one cannot effectively "do science."

Speaking as a sociologist of religion, I think it is problematic to reify religious categories (whether Christianity, Buddhism, Judaism, Hinduism, or any other). Reification (reifying) is simply a fancy term for treating a category as a real thing.

There is no such thing as "Christianity." There are many Christianities. Indeed, members of these diverse Christianities frequently attack each other as not being "true Christians." For instance: conservative evangelicals, Roman Catholics, Jehovah's Witnesses, liberal Christians, and Mormons. Consider, in the U.S., how many evangelicals have said that they would not vote for Mitt Romney because he is a Mormon.

Religious categories are just that: categories. To understand these categories one needs to study the various, and generally very different, religious communities which fall under each of them.

As an example, I am a religious liberal. As such, I generally feel more comfortable with religious liberals in other religious categories than I do with fundamentalists and conservatives in my own category.

As a sociologist of religion, I might argue that religion, for most people, is an intensely social experience. The majority of people develop their religious convictions in the context of a religious community.

Since people on the spectrum generally have, to varying degrees, difficulties in picking up on the nonverbal cues of others, they may not be as likely to derive the same sorts of benefits from religious community as do many NTs. Hence, they may be more prone to become atheists, agnostics, etc.

Someone wrote:
uh...discrediting isn't something that's "deserved". "deserved" indicates a personal agenda and like stephen jay gould points out....sometimes scientists see what they want to see instead of the facts.

Well, as a poststructuralist/Foucaultian, I think that metanarratives (totalizing schemes), like the illuminati conspiracy, should be discredited or deconstructed. However, I try to do so politely and nonpersonally.

By definition, discrediting is only personal if the focus is on a person. I try to keep the focus on issues. As to personal agendas, I think we all have them - whether acknowledged or not.

Quote:
me...i'm a skeptic. there's lots of things surrounding 9-11 that just don't quite add up for me and i haven't been able to find satisfactory answers for them.

Perhaps, but, as the saying goes, an absence of evidence is not an evidence of absence.

Alex Jones, IMO, has poor critical thinking skills. He takes bits and pieces of information and strings them together in a rather weak fashion to support his own version of the illuminati conspiracy.

A lot of people are attracted to the idea of having "inside information" (knowing things which most people do not know or reject), so he has acquired a bit of a following. However, no serious journalists or academics take the whole illuminati conspiracy seriously.

Further, saying that true believers in a narrative, like the illuminati conspiracy, are discredited does not indicate that the discrediting is undeserved.

Copyright © 2002- Mark A. Foster, Ph.D. All rights reserved.