0025 Hazony points to the obvious. Humans evolve in social circles where there are many relationships between a more powerful individual and a less powerful one, starting with mom, dad and their children. The organizational structure of this foundational institution is discussed in A Primer on the Family.
0026 The family starts in the Lebenswelt that we evolved in. So, there is more.
We must add the unconstrained social and labor specializations that characterize our current Lebenswelt.
Our current Lebenswelt is not the Lebenswelt that we evolved in.
0027 The organizational structures of civilizationB is a topic worthy of consideration. The institutionaC and sovereignbClevels of the society tierC contextualize the organization tierB. The organization tierB encompasses productionaB, exchangebB and assessmentcB. The organization tierB emerges from (and situates) the individual in communityA.
Too bad inquiry into the organization tierB is yet to be initiated.
Advancements are blocked by marxist theory, in its various guises. Marxist theory offers a “scientific” model that forecloses intellectual exploration of the organizations tierB.
0028 The model goes like this:
The diverse relations between more powerful and less powerful individuals in the organization tierB are equivalent to the relation between oppressors and oppressed.
The two are more than equivalent. They are contiguous.
Figure 8
0029 What does contiguity imply?
Peirce’s category of secondness consists of two contiguous real elements. The contiguity is not a real element, it is the substance that causally binds the two real elements. The marxist substance carries the character of equivalence, but that is not enough. Ask any marxist. The causality is systemic.
Anyone who disagrees speaks with what Jacques Lacan calls, the master’s discourse. Here is the oppressor.
Anyone who agrees speaks, to me3b, in discourses that Lacan labels, hysteric (for some) and scientific (for others). For the most part, I find it hard to tell the difference. I suppose the label depends on the slogan2a. Each slogan2a addresses the one who asks what does this mean to me3b.
“Me3b” is a placeholder, virtually situating the person’s reflection3b in the marxist mirror of the world3a.
0030 Oppressed? Or oppressor? Find a location within the abundance of asymmetric relations contained within the organization tierB.
Here is a diagram of the marxist interscope, as far as this discussion sees.
0031 From the masterwork, How To Define the Word “Religion“, one finds that there are three tiers to the presence underlying the word, “religion”.
They are the societyC, organizationB and the individual in communityA.
The society tierC puts the organization tierB into perspective. The organization tierB emerges from (and situates) the individual in communityA.
Each tier is diagrammed as a three-level interscope.
0032 So, let me talk business.
When an young individual in communityA enters the organization tierB, by going to work, “he” engages a number of asymmetric relations.
How does a young personA navigate these relationsB?
Obviously, the individual in communityA relies on what “he” has been taught.
0033 American classical liberals teach that the individual should have a dream2a.
French classical liberals instruct the individual with tropes about equality, freedom and human brotherhood2a. These expectations2a encourage asymmetric business relations to be “win-win”.
Marxist (il)liberals indoctrinate slogans raising awareness of how asymmetric relations between individuals somehow cause (are contiguous with) systemic oppression2a.
0034 Liberalism offers a dream. Marxism offers a nightmare. Choose your false consciousness.
0035 Hazony describes the pairing as a dance. In this dance, one party negates the other. Thus, the dance is more like the mating ritual between the male and the female praying mantis. The dance ends when liberalism gets devoured as food for the fertilized egg sacs of marxism. Afterwards, an all-consuming fecund marxism dies from her own contradictions, in the winter of her totalizing reign.
0036 Why do I say this?
Compare the perspective-level actualities2c for American enlightenment and postmodern marxism.
Figure 10
0037 When the American enlightenment is reflected in the mirror of the world3a, slogans2a call for individuation1b. The asymmetric relations characterizing the organization tier are depicted as opportunities and hazards for fashioning a dream2a based on one’s talents and dispositions1a. When confronted with oppressors, the individual should learn how to detect, avoid and escape. When confronted with mentors, the individual should figure ways to flourish.
0038 Indeed, in America, opportunities1b for success are manifold, ask any movie actress2b promoted by the notorious Harvey Winerock, who turns out to be a postmodern marxist2a,b,c.
In contrast, millions of less-promoted actresses now live in movies of their own, the comedies and tragedies of life in the family2aB, the traditional portal to the organization tierB. For every one actress who reaches an accommodation2b with Harvey, by playing through his disgusting game1b, millions of women discover that the asymmetric relations inherent in the family realize2b their dreams2a.
Who should be teaching whom?
Surely, a Hollywood actress stands in asymmetric relation to innumerable mothers, among others.
So, what does she preach?
Marxist slogans2a?
Why?
In order to attain her dream2b, she is required to become so oppressed2c that she cannot recognize herself as an oppressor2c. She lives out the scientific truth of marxism2c. She submits1b and receives both rewards and marxist illumination2b.
0039 Why are so many civic institutions of American liberalism now controlled by marxists?
The marxist perspective translates the asymmetric relations of the organization tierB into the languages of oppressor and oppressed. Mirroring this perspective2c, slogans2a emerge from a righteousness1a that demands submission of the oppressors1b. One party in all asymmetric relationsB is already guilty of oppression1a on the basis of participation in the system. That party cannot be the marxist, who represents the oppressed.
By definition, the oppressed2c, such as Harvey Winerock and the Hollywood actress, are exempt because each is a marxist occupying a powerful position in a once civic, now marxist, institution. Each, in his and her own way, is a victim in an asymmetric relation with a more powerful individual.
For the actress, that more powerful individual is Harvey.
For Harvey, that more powerful individual is the one who bought his soul.
0040 Harvey Winerock is the poster boy of the marxist endgame.
Here is a character at home with the cruelty of the organization tierB, where asymmetric relations among individuals is contiguous with systemic oppression. Harvey stands as a gatekeeper for the studios of Hollywood. He is a gargoyle. Actresses and actors must speak the proper slogans2a and submit to the proper humiliations1b in order to pass into the bewitched enclave where every asymmetric relation stinks of systemic exploitation. Welcome to an institution filled with marxists.
0041 Harvey lives the marxist dream.
Until, of course, he does not.
Why?
Others can play the game. The organization tierB changes, every so slightly. The identification of oppressor and oppressed2c shifts out of his favor. Harvey and the actress point fingers in a house of mirrors.
0042 Hazony writes of marxism as the end of democracy.
It is really the end of sanity.
Why do French liberals (aka, “old time democrats”) and American liberals (aka, “tea party republicans”) find common cause in 2020?
They both gaze into the house of mirrors that is postmodern modernism.
There is one encouraging feature about the current scene. American academics, hatching the mantis eggs of the Frankfurt school, succinctly articulate their ever-expanding agendas. Hazony comes close to appreciating the paradox, where any asymmetric relation within the organization tierB may be interpreted as systemic oppression2c. If this actuality2c is true and if the organization tierB is full of asymmetric relations (not just full, but bursting with them), then systemic oppression2c is everywhere, except for once-liberal institutions under the control of marxists2b.
0043 What a joke.
InstitutionscC contextualize organizationsB. InstitutionscC justify organizationsB on the basis of righteousness2a. Marxists act as if they are institutionscC without the trappings of an organizationB. Yet, organized they are. They demand sovereign power3b in order to achieve the organizational goals2b that actualize their slogans2a. Harvey Winerock and the movie actress both exemplify the exceptional character of marxists. They are exempt from the marxist critique2c because they self-identify as marxists.
Harvey is promoted by other marxists within the studio system, just as homosexual priests promote their confreres, actresses promote their marxist causes, and public school teachers protest for better wages, in order to get better working conditions. No, nobody here engages in asymmetric relations that characterize the organization tierB. Instead, the avatars of the “be little men” movement say that men must become aware how systemic oppression is built into their life, their liberty and their pursuit of happiness.
No, marxists cannot see their reflections in the mirror of the world3a, because their illumination2c is supposed to be reflected in the mirror of the world3a. They see their illuminance2c, not themselves, in their slogans2a.
0044 Academic postmodern marxist disciplines are inquiries into how this or that asymmetric relation in the organization tierB somehow causes (is contiguous with) a relation between oppressor and oppressed2c. Marxists destroy once-liberal civic institutions from within, simply by identifying and promoting others who are self-identified victims (and extollers2a) of particular types of systemic oppression2c. Indeed, their organizational objectives2b force others into submitting1b to slogans2a that assign guilt for participation in systemic oppression1a.
0045 Ultimately, sovereign power3b is required in order to promulgate their organizational objectives2b. And, this is the ultimatum that Hazony fears. What happens when marxists gain control of the levers of state power?
Yoram Hazony’s article is an intimation of what will be exposed when conservative, Christian and nationalist citizens challenge Big Government (il)Liberalism, the hidden and the complete perversion of the Enlightenment tradition.
0046 Five related works are available at www.smashwords.com.
A Primer on the Category Based Nested Form
A Primer on Sensible and Social Construction
How To Define the Word “Religion”
A Primer on the Family
A Primer on the Organization Tier (First and Second)
0001 In 2009, Robert Pennock wants to clear the fog of intellectual warfare, by publishing an article in Synthese (DOI 10.1007/s11229-009-9547-3). The full title is, “Can’t Philosophers Tell the Difference Between Science and Religion?: Demarcation Revisited”. Of course, a recitation of this title should be accompanied by a pouring of the Balvenie, matured in rum casks and aged 14 years. After all, that is nearly the length of time that the words in Pennock’s paper have matured, in the cask of the Synthese.
Pennock’s abstract puts the headline question into context. The 2005 decision, Kitzmiller versus Dover Area School Board, rules that Intelligent Design (ID) cannot be taught as a science. This suggests that it cannot be taught at all, because the flip side of science is religion. Public schools cannot teach religion. That would violate the separation of church and state.
0002 The ruling follows a prior legal defeat, the 1981, McLean versus Arkansas decision against teaching creationism as science. Afterwards, creationists contend that religion and science cannot be distinguished. They cite a philosopher who claims that there are not sufficient criteria for demarcation, especially when considering method.
In contrast, Pennock argues that the word, “sufficient”, should be replaced by the word, “ballpark”. Rules of thumb are capable of distinguishing between science and religion. One rule of thumb is methodical naturalism. Science relies on it. Religion does not.
Does Pennock influence the 2005 Kitzmiller vs Dover trial?
Of course, why would Pennock write about the incident years later?
The text itself, is not clear.
What is clear?
Judge John E. Jones III rules that ID pretends to be a science. ID is really an apparatus of a sectarian religion. Teaching ID in public schools would be the establishment of a religion, in violation of the first amendment of the Constitution of the United States.
Both sides of the case ask the judge to rule on this point.
0003 The ruling comes as a victory for Big Government (il)Liberals (BG(il)L), who portray the contest as follows.
The “villains” are the Board of Directors of the Public Schools of Dover, Pennsylvania. Creationists gain enough seats to vote to make the ID textbook, Of Pandas and People, available as biology curricula. In this book, natural selection becomes “Darwin’s theory”, which is not a fact, but a theory.
The “heroes” are several parents who sue the district. They all fall under the label, “Kitzmiller”.
Curiously, “kitze” is a neuter noun for a kid goat. “Miller” is a person who grinds grain in a mill. Perhaps, the concatenation carries a symbolic message.
The “villainous” school district is defended by the Thomas More Law Center, which does not realize that they are about to have their heads handed back to them. This becomes clear after they call key leaders of the ID movement to testify.
The lawyers at the Thomas More Center think that this trial will provide a platform for these players. But, as the media circus tent goes up, many ID players withdraw. What a disaster for the Dover Board lawyers!
0004 The BG(il)L corporate media portray the legal drama as a replay of the 1925 Scopes Trial.
To Pennock, the trial is more like the 1981 McLean vs Arkansas trial. The McClean decision concludes that so called “creation science” is not science, but religion. Here, “religion” means “a Christian faction”.
Such a ruling seems simple enough. But, the judge, William Overton, relies on a philosopher of science, Michael Ruse, who offers criteria to distinguish science from non-science.
0005 What are the criteria (A-E)?
Science (A) must be guided by natural law.
Science (B) explains by reference to natural law.
Science (C) is tested against the empirical world.
The conclusions of science (D) are tentative, and not necessarily the final word, because…
Science (E) is falsifiable.
0006 After the 1981 Overton decision, two philosophers, Larry Laudan and Philip Quinn, take issue with Ruse’s criteria. Do they write on behalf of the ID movement? Is this damage control? Pennock is drawn into the debate after he contributes expert testimony on the question whether ID is science or whether ID is religion.
Is this the trauma giving rise to Pennock’s article?
Hard to say.
0007 Pennock reflects upon the question posed in the title.
He wants to offer a more acceptable path for distinguishing science and religion.
0008 Can one differentiate science from non-science?
Why is this question relevant?
The first amendment of the U.S. Constitution states that the federal government shall not establish a religion.
Is that the same as establishing a non-science?
So, the first question twists. Is religion a non-science?
It turns away from an old relevance, where the word “religion” means “a Christian faction”.
It twists towards a new relevance, where “religion” is defined by an underlying meaning, presence and message. This is the topic of the masterwork, How To Define the Word, Religion.
0009 Why is this twist relevant?
What if the U.S. federal government establishes a religion?
What would be the nature of this religion?
Clearly, this religion is not a Christian faction.
Rather, it consists of diverse movements, a thousand points of light, that (F) claim to be “not religious” and (G) demand sovereign power in order to implement their organizational objectives. Since each objective arises from the potential of righteousness, these diverse religions constantly signal their virtues. They are keen on making sure that their organizational objectives get the government funds that they deserve. Righteousness wins power and money.
Does the legal debate that Pennock addresses concern a single point of light, among thousands?
No. Public education is… um… a big fish.
Yes, it’s a gigantic fish with sharp teeth.
0010 So, the question turns full circle.
Can science be taught as a religion?
The world is upside down. The ocean is where the sky should be. The sky is where the sea should be. The demarcation problem rests on the surface of this upside-down ocean. In this world, whales fly in the waters above.
The Story of Creation floats as a little boat that draws the leviathan of public education down from the heights, in a re-enactment of an orientation-challenged Moby Dick. The Captain Ahab of Creation Science wants to kill the leviathan, directly. In doing so, he would bring the celestial waters of the deep state into consciousness. The highly elevated deep state contains a thousand institutions, whose points of light orient Big Government (il)Liberals. Plus, this heavenly sea holds some really big fish.
Because these institutions3aC, both lights and fish, have organizational objectives2aC that emerge from (and situate) the potential of righteousness1aC, they are religions.
They appear to be stars dwelling high in a fish-filled celestial ocean of righteousness.
Ah, the relevant question becomes, “How does one distinguish religion from non-religion?”
0011 Here is how this fully twisted vision appears.
Figure 01
0012 Does this explain why the dismissal of the demarcation problem is premature?
If the world is upside down, then The Creation Science aims to lance a leviathan that dwells deep in the narratives of the heavenly waters of Big Government (il)Liberalism.
0013 Okay. I must hold, in my mind, the upside-down celestial waters.
Within these waters, a leviathan swims, asking the questions, “Can Intelligent Design be taught as a science? How do we demark science and non-science (that is, religion)?”
But, those on the surface, the sailors on the ship, The Creation Science, suspect that the leviathan is really asking, “Can we teach science as a religion?”
Of course, it all depends on how one defines the word, “religion”.
0014 In section 3, Pennock considers the philosophy behind the 2005 Kitzmiller vs Dover decision and establishes five points (H-L).
First (H), Kitzmiller does not follow the criteria used in the McLean case (points A-E).
Second (I), Kitzmiller relies on a ballpark demarcation (a ground rule, so to speak). Creationism violates this ground rule.
Third (J), the ground rule is methodological naturalism. This rule says, “Metaphysics is not allowed.”
The word, “metaphysics”, is rooted in two terms, meta- (to cross over) and -physics (the physical). Naturalism does not allow its followers to pass out of the realm of phenomena. Phenomena consists in that which is observable and measurable.
0015 Pennock dwells on this point (J) at length.
To me, he describes the Naturalist’s judgment.
Allow me to elaborate.
A judgment is a primal triadic relation, consisting in three elements: relation, what is and what ought to be.
0016 The relation is the naturalist intellect, which rules out metaphysics. This relation is imbued with Peirce’s category of thirdness. Thirdness associates with a normal context3, as described in A Primer on the Category-Based Nested Form.
0017 What is consists of phenomena. Phenomena are observable and measurable features of a thing or event.
There is a certain philosophical emptiness to phenomena. After all, phenomena do not constitute the thing itself, even though some may imagine that this is the case. The thing itself cannot be objectified as its phenomena. So, there is a word for the thing itself: “noumenon”.
What does this imply?
What is may be expressed as a continuity between two real elements, a noumenon and its phenomena. That continuity is placed in brackets for notational clarity. What is consists of a noumenon [cannot be objectified as] its phenomena.
This dyad belongs to the category of firstness. Firstness is the monadic realm of possibility. Phenomena have the potential to be observed and measured. A noumenon has the potential of capturing the attention of the naturalist intellect.
0018 What ought to be consists of another judgment, where disciplinary language (relation, thirdness) brings together mechanical and mathematical models (what ought to be, secondness) with observations and measurements (what is, firstness). This triadic relation is called “the empirio-schematic judgment” and first appears in Comments on Jacques Maritain’s Book (1935) Natural Philosophy.
The empirio-schematic judgment, what ought to be, in the Naturalist’s judgment, is imbued with secondness, the character of actuality.
Here is a diagram.
Figure 02
0019 Fourth (K), the ground rule of “no metaphysics” does not appeal to the criterion of falsifiability (E).
At this point, I can see that the criteria espoused by Michael Ruse applies to portions of the Naturalist’s judgment. A and B cohere to the naturalist intellect (relation) and the selection of noumena (what is). Noumena must be things that have observable and measurable facets to their forms. C, D and E pertain to the connection between the empirio-schematic judgment (what ought to be) and phenomena (what is).
In terms of the metaphor of inversion, Michael Ruse’s criteria keep us firmly fixed in the celestial waters, where the leviathan of the “not religious” sciences swims.
0020 In order to appreciate this whale of a topic, swimming in the heights of state-funded liquidity, I unfold the Naturalist’s and the empirio-schematic judgments into category-based nested forms, based on their assigned categories. The result is a two-level interscope
The interscope is introduced in A Primer on Sensible and Social Construction.
Here is the diagram.
Figure 03
0021 Methodologicala naturalismb may be depicted as a two-level interscope. Method goes with the empirio-schematic judgment. Naturalism goes with the Naturalist’s judgment.
The naturalist intellect3b rules out metaphysics. This rule is Pennock’s last point (L). The rule, “no metaphysics”, comes from an occluded perspective level. The rule does not reveal what is in the perspective level. Indeed, the naturalist views the rule as coming from the content level.
Disciplinary language for each science3a follows the rule of the naturalist’s intellect3b. Any disciplinary language3a that discusses metaphysics cannot be labeled as a “science”.
Of course, in this situation, the word, “metaphysics”, is code for Christian theology. But, that is not what “metaphysics” really means, as previously noted.
This exclusion follows the logic of normal contexts. Normal contexts exclude, align or complement.
0022 Creation science talks about metaphysics, while pretending not to.So, in the 1981 McLean vs Arkansas trial, the leviathan in the celestial waters of BG(il)L descends to upset the boat, The Creation Science, and bites off the leg of its captain.
First, the world is upside down. The ocean of Big Government (il)Liberalism sloshes above, as a world suspended in surreal liquidity, heavy and looming. The regulatory sea holds a thousand points of light, each submerged in its own righteousness. A leviathan swims in these celestial waters. This leviathan applies the first amendment of the U.S. Constitution to education by state and federally funded institutions. These schools may teach science, but not religion. Here, “religion” means “a Christian faction”.
Second, a small boat, initially named The Creation Science, then later (after the unfortunate moment when the captain lost a leg to stand on) named The Intelligent Design, floats on the surface, that is, the bottom, of this inverted ocean. This boat hunts the above-mentioned leviathan. The academically inclined sailors fashion a lance of that looks like the methodological level of science. But, the captain does not fully comprehend what harm it can do.
The captain?
0024 Philosopher Larry Laudan comes under scrutiny in the fourth section of Pennock’s essay. After the McLean case (the leg-bite), this philosopher writes three articles denying a demarcation between science and religion. There are no criteria for strictly distinguishing what is religious, what is scientific, what is pseudo-scientific and what is unscientific.
Laudan struggles mightily against the criteria of Michael Ruse (A-E).
Two arguments support his conclusions (M and N).
The first (M) says, more or less, “There is a lack of unity between philosophers about the demarcation criteria.”
Okay, experts rarely agree. That is the nature of experts.
The second (N) says, more or less, “The 1981 McLean versus Arkansas case is hollow, because it canonizes a false stereotype of what science is and how it works.”
I suspect that this is correct because Ruse’s criteria (A-E) pertain to what is and what ought to be in the Naturalist’s judgment. The empirio-schematic judgment (what ought to be) unfolds into the content level of the following two-level interscope. The Naturalist’s judgment unfolds into the situation level.
Figure 04
0025 Michael Ruse’s criteria (A-E) draw attention to the content level.
Perhaps, this is why the author, Robert Pennock, wants to set the record straight.
The 1981 McLean case focuses on the content of science.
The 2005 Kitzmiller case focuses on the situation of science.
What does this suggest?
0025 The Intelligent Design comes up with a better tactic. Of Pandas and People follows the style of the empirio-schematic judgment. Ruse’s criteria lack teeth.Pennock sees this and proposes that science must be distinguished, not on the methodological levela, but on the naturalism levelb. The ground rule of the naturalist intellect3b is “no metaphysics”.
0026 In 1981, the ship, The Creation Science, encounters the leviathan swimming in the celestial waters. The captain loses a leg to stand on, but realizes that he can fashion a new leg even better than the first. He repairs the ship and re-brands her, The Intelligent Design. In 2005, this ship lures the leviathan down from its heavenly deep, once again.
In this interval, philosopher Larry Laudan vigorously attacks the foundation of the leviathan’s first victory. He pulls teeth. He demolishes the argument that science and religion may be distinguished on the basis of method.
Finally, The Intelligent Design opens sail with a methodology identical to the empirio-schematic judgment and coherent with its content-level nested form. The normal context of disciplinary language3a, describing methods, brings the actuality of metaphysically-open models2a into relation with the possibilities inherent in observations and measurments1a.
0027 Once again, here is the two-level interscope for methodologicala naturalismb.
Figure 05
0028 Pennock wants to defend the demarcation of science and religion. Method does not offer sufficient critieria. So, he configures a new foundation. He calls it “methodological naturalism”. But, the “methoda” has already been neutralized by Laudan. So, “naturalismb” is the key.
To this end, in section 5 of this article, Pennock constructs a weak version of the distinction between science and religion, one that grants many of Laudan’s points. Tellingly, instead of referring to the ship’s new name, The Intelligent Design, Pennock sticks to the old label, The Creation Science.
Pennock writes four sub-sections (O-R).
0029 The first (O) concerns the dustbin of history.
Creation Science is not even a bad science. For example, some say that the Earth is only a few thousand years old. Others say that Noah’s Flood is global. These models are not supported by data.
0030 The second (P) concerns disciplinary language.
The ship, The Creation Science, has no coherent disciplinary language, outside of Biblical interpretation. The language of Intelligent Design is also incoherent. Even if one observes phenomena associated to impossible events, one cannot conclude that the events are miraculous.
Okay, one can conclude that the events are miraculous. But, that would violate the rules of the naturalist intellect3b.
0031 The third (Q) is pragmatic.
Methodological naturalists recognize science. Why can’t philosophers like Laudan? Why are courses on the philosophy of science not taught by theologians?
What do the sailors on The Intelligent Design hear?
Someone in the waters asks, “Why are courses on the philosophy of religion not taught by scientists? Er… I mean… taught by highly certified naturalists who self-identify as ‘not religious’?”
Oh, never mind, they are.
0032 The fourth (R) is empirical.
Science educators say that there is a real distinction between science and non-science, such as Creation Science. The National Science Teacher’s Association insists that scientific claims are not religious.
Or, should I say that the empirio-schematic judgment is not religious?
What about “scientific” or methodological naturalism?
Is that not religious?
Of course, the rule of naturalism says, “No metaphysics.”
Who is surprised that no mechanical or mathematical models appeal to supernatural forces?
Pennock finally feels the sharp point of an issue that cannot be confronted. He states that his account explicates “scientific” naturalism as a methodological commitment, not a metaphysical one. The ground rule of “no metaphysics” is… um… not metaphysical.
0033 Say what?
What is the philosopher’s task?
Is it possible for a philosopher to accept that the claim to be “not religious” may, indeed, be not religious?
Since when do philosophers spout tautologies?
Take a glance, once again, at the two-level interscope for methodological naturalism.
There is a certain circularity to the structure. The content-levela is the empirio-schematic judgment. The empirio-schematic judgment is the actuality2 of the situation levelb.
0034 Where does the ground rule of “no metaphysics” come from?
0035 In the sixth section of Robert Pennock’s Essay, titled “Can’t Philosophers Tell the Difference between Science and Religion?: Demarcation Revisited”, the author speculates why Larry Laudan fails to see a demarcation between science and religion. After all, it is so easy to see. Look at the rules.
Religion inspires the nautical mission of The Intelligent Design, in an inverted world, where Big Government (il)Liberalism commands the waters above and the world of tradition sublimates into the atmosphere below. The ocean is our ceiling. The air is our floor.
A thousand points of light shine in the immense celestial ocean. Each illumination is immersed in its own righteousness. A leviathan swims high in these heavenly, dense, waters. This leviathan addresses the issue of public education. The states require it. The states pay for it. The states perform it. It works even as Big Government (il)Liberalism turns the ocean into the sky. How it weighs upon us.
The U.S. Constitution says that the government shall not establish a religion. So, public education may teach science, which is not “religious”, but not Creation Science nor Intelligent Design, which are religious.
Here, “religion” means “a Christian faction”.
Pennock writes in triumph.
0036 Section 6 of Pennock’s essay diagnoses and rehabilitates Laudan.
Why does Laudan fail at recognizing the distinction between science and religion?
Pennock offers four reasons (S-V).
0037 First (S), Laudan does not take the creationist’s claims seriously. Creationists hold epistemological assumptions unfamiliar to science.
What does this mean?
The crew of The Creation Science promotes bad method. They do not adhere to the empirio-schematic judgment, because their disciplinary language includes metaphysics (that is, Christian theology).
0038 Second (T), Laudan does not frame the demarcation problem properly. We should not expect a “strict” line, based on criteria about methods.
To me, this means that the two-level interscope confuses. There are always two issues, one related to situation and one related to content. Here, the content level concerns scientific practice (that is, method). The situation level pertains to the Naturalist’s judgment (that includes, “no metaphysics”).
0039 Third (U), Laudan is influenced by Karl Popper’s claims that falsification defines scientific methodology.
Once again, the content level is the focus of attention.
0040 Fourth (V), the 2005 Kitzmiller decision does not appeal to falsification as demarcation criteria. Rather, it appeals to the very issue that Laudan seems to miss: The naturalist intellect3b rules out metaphysics.
Pennock wonders, more or less, “What should we think about philosophers (such as Laudan), if they cannot distinguish between science and sectarian religion posing as science?”
I suspect both Pennock and his foil, Laudan, recognize the difference.
The question is, “What makes the difference real?”
Laudan says that the distinction is not real, because we cannot ascertain clear and valid demarcation criteria.
Well, he may not really say that. Pennock’s foil says that.
0041 The real difference concerns following the rules. Naturalism rules metaphysics out. Religion rules metaphysics in. The demarcation should express that fact that the rule of “no metaphysics” applies to naturalism but not Christian factions… I mean to say… “religion”.
To me, the issue shifts from methods to something more ambiguous. How does one decide whether the naturalist intellect’s rule is valid or not? The decision cannot be based on physics. The decision must be based on metaphysics.
The rule, “no metaphysics”, must ultimately be based on metaphysics.
0042 That means that free will enters the picture.
Pennock takes the naturalist rule at face value. Naturalism rules out metaphysics. Therefore, it is “not religious”. Does this mean that any institution that self-identifies as “not religious” can also say that it is “scientific”? Can this rule be gamed?
After all, this is precisely the issue in both 1981 McLean and 2005 Kitzmiller contests. Creation science blatantly tries to game the rule. Later, Intelligent Design (ID) games the rule in a much more sophisticated style. ID mimics the empirio-schematic judgment, occupying the content-level, while (sneakily) violating the naturalist’s rule of “no metaphysics”.
ID’s logic is easy to see. If an evolved attribute, such as a bacteria’s flagellum, is not possible, then a miracle must have occurred. A “mythical being” must have intervened.
0043 What does this “mythical being” do?
The mythical being does not cobble together phenomena. The mythical being creates a noumenon, the thing itself.
The merit to ID can thus be articulated, by saying, “God creates a noumenon and the scientists observe and measure its phenomena. Sometimes, phenomena do not fully account for their noumenon. This is the case for the bacteria’s flagellum and other biological structures.”
0044 Here is a picture of that statement.
Figure 06
0045 What potentiates the naturalist intellect3b?
The dyad, a noumenon [cannot be objectified as] its phenomena1b, does. This dyad belongs to what is1b in the Naturalist’s judgment. This element is imbued with firstness, because phenomena are defined by their potential1b to be observed and measured1a and a noumenon1b has the potential1b of being discussed3a by the naturalist intellect3b.
The two components of this dyad tie into the content-level nested form of methodology. A noumenon1b stands as the presence that is referred to in disciplinary language3a. Its phenomena1b virtually (meaning, “in virtue”) emerges from and situates observations and measurements1a. The contiguity1b is [cannot be objectified as].
0047 What does this imply?
The contiguity between a noumenon and its phenomena1b cannot be explained by physics.
But, the naturalist intellect3b has a rule that says, “Metaphysics is not allowed.”
0048 Hmmm. Have I located the metaphysical commitment within the Naturalist’s judgment?
The naturalist intellect3b assigns the metaphysical aspect of creation to the noumenon1b, which cannot be objectified as its phenomena1b. So, disciplinary language3a assumes the presence of the thing itself, the noumenon1b, but dares not speak of it, for fear of violating the rule of “no metaphysics”3b.
Physics cannot justify the rule of the naturalist intellect. So, it must be metaphysical.
Also, the source of this commitment comes from the empty perspective levelc.
0049 The naturalist3b hides the source2c of its metaphysical rule of “no metaphysics”.
What does this imply?
The system can be gamed.
0050 How?
We can cobble together phenomena in a manner that will tempt us into believing that a noumenon exists.
For example, in the 19th century, various physical phenomena point to a noumenon, which scientists label “the ether”. The ether transports force through vacuum. As it turns out, the ether is completely imaginary. It is a mythical being.
0051 If science is “not religious”, then can a “not religious” religion game Pennock’s criteria, not from the side of Christianity, Judaism and Islam (which cannot shake the designation, “religious”), but from the side of the Big Government (il)Liberalism (where self-identification as “not religious” is common)?
0052 The world is inverted. Above us stands the celestial ocean of Big Government (il)Liberalism (BG(il)L). Below ushovers an atmosphere where Christianity, Judaism and Islam are designated “religions”, and therefore excluded, by the first amendment of the U.S. Constitution, from public (that is, state) institutions, especially schools. Their sublimation begins during the 1960s.
Die-hard Christians respond by generating something that appears to be science. Creation science makes claims about natural events verifying Biblical witness.
In 1981, the leviathan of BG(il)L public education sweeps down to the surface and attacks the little ship, The Creation Science, and ruins its effectiveness. Creation Science does not properly follow style of the empirio-schematic judgment. The McLean case distinguishes between science and religion on the basis of methodology.
0054 The captain of the ship lost one leg. But, he fashions a new one in the style of the empirio-schematic judgment. He rebuilds the ship, branding it TheIntelligent Design.
In 2005, the leviathan is again provoked to come down through the celestial waters and attack the ship. The ship has a lance that pierces the skin of the leviathan. The Intelligent Design forces experts, such as Pennock, to come up with a demarcation that is situational. Intelligent Design does not follow the rule of the naturalist intellect. That rule says, “No metaphysics.”
In addition, the naturalist’s rule is not based on anything physical. So, the rule must be metaphysical.
0055 These comments reveal how the rule plays out. Metaphysics must be hidden within the presence of the thing itself, the noumenon1b, which is contiguous with those properties that can be observed and measured, the phenomena1b. The [contiguity] mirrors the rule. A noumenon1b [cannot be objectified as] its phenomena1b.
Here is how that looks.
Figure 07
0056 What does The Intelligent Design do that the Creation Science does not?
The Intelligent Design is equipped with an empirio-schematic judgment that observes and measures phenomena that do not fully add up to their noumenon, the thing itself. ID favors things that are very complicated, such as the bacteria’s flagellum or the human immune system, where many components are observed and measured1a. Their corresponding phenomena1b can never explain the thing itself: the bacteria swims and the human recovers from an illness. The models2aare never sufficient. The whole is so much greater than the parts. The investigator experiences awe. The investigator is struck by a noumenon, but cannot say so, since “religion” is banished from disciplinary language.
The empirio-schematic judgment2b is supposed to virtually emerge from (and situate) mechanical and mathematical models2a. Methodologicala naturalismb has a redundancy. The situation-level actuality2b re-capitulates the content-level nested forma. The situation-level actuality2b completes the content-level nested forma. There should be no surplus2b, because any surplus2b flows into something1b that cannot be objectified as phenomena1b. This something1b is where metaphysics is hidden, according to the dictates of the naturalist intellect3b. ID aims to show that the noumenon1b has a lifec of its own, a life1c that his hidden by the rule of the naturalist intellect3b on the order of someone or something upstairs2c.
Here is how that looks.
Figure 08
0057 That’s one way to game Pennock’s system.In 2005, the celestial leviathan mauls, but does not destroy the ship, The Intelligent Design. Plus, the leviathan takes a lance into its flank. The lance reveals the barbed fact that the leviathan depends on a metaphysical rule, stating that metaphysics is not allowed in science. The rope tied to the lance is long. Perhaps, 14 years long. Cheers.
