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 institutions_3aC, both lights and fish, have organizational objectives_2aC that emerge from (and situate) the potential of righteousness_1aC, 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.

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.

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.

0021 Methodological_a naturalism_b may be depicted as a two-level interscope.  Method goes with the empirio-schematic judgment.  Naturalism goes with the Naturalist’s judgment.

The naturalist intellect_3b 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 science_3a follows the rule of the naturalist’s intellect_3b.  Any disciplinary language_3a 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.

0023 At this point, I run with two metaphors.

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.

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 level_a, but on the naturalism level_b.  The ground rule of the naturalist intellect_3b 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 language_3a, describing methods, brings the actuality of metaphysically-open models_2a into relation with the possibilities inherent in observations and measurments_1a.

0027 Once again, here is the two-level interscope for methodological_a naturalism_b.

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 “method_a” has already been neutralized by Laudan.  So, “naturalism_b” 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 intellect_3b.

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-level_a is the empirio-schematic judgment.  The empirio-schematic judgment is the actuality₂ of the situation level_b.

0034 Where does the ground rule of “no metaphysics” come from?

Does it come from inside the circle?

Does it come from outside the circle?

Why is the perspective level empty?

What does that imply?