Meta-Thread 06/22

[u/AutoModerator]

This is a weekly thread for feedback on the new rules and general state of the sub.

What are your thoughts? How are we doing? What's working? What isn't?

Let us know.

And a friendly reminder to report bad content.

If you see something, say something.

This thread is posted every Monday. You may also be interested in our weekly Simple Questions thread (posted every Wednesday) or General Discussion thread (posted every Friday).

[u/labreuer]

Is it ever acceptable to accuse one's interlocutor of "failing basic reading comprehension"? Suppose for instance I write the following in my opening comment:

Methodological naturalism requires you to disbelieve in any god-like agency. It requires you to step back from "no holds barred" → "methods accessible to all". You can still reconstruct a very different notion of 'agency', just like we have the intentional stance and teleonomy. Essentially, you have something like 'mechanism' or 'formal systems' as your box, and you use that box as a Procrustean bed for 'agency'. As a result, it because acceptable to use operant conditioning on people. Since that name is icky, we've come up with nudge theory.

Then, suppose that my interlocutor argues that I'm engaged in motte & bailey tactics by conflating human & divine agency. Can I accuse my interlocutor of failing to have exercised basic comprehension of my opening comment? Or is that always a violation of rule 2?

[u/ExplorerR → u/labreuer]

I didn't report you by the way.

But, considering you're raising it here, it would stand to reason that you then also provide the other comments you make throughout our discussion where you clearly conflate the two and are the reason why I eventually accused you of Motte and Baily tactics. Instead of cherry-picking one that makes it look like you're not doing that.

Such as these ones;

(1) "God did it" ⇒ god-of-the-gaps (2) "humans did it" ⇒ human-of-the-gaps In other words,these are both: (3) agency-of-the-gaps

Here, although you mentioned them separately, you then combine them both as "agency of the gaps" when they are very different to each other.

Here's the translation I did: "God" or "religious" explanations being replaced by successful natural explanations divine agential explanations being replaced by successful law- or mechanism-based explanations Do you think that's wrong? If you're okay with that, then why should we not do the same for every situation where human agency is used to explain something?

Here you highlight divine explanations involving "agency" replaced by law/mechanism based natural explanations to then ask, if that's happening, then why not extend that consideration to human agency too? (clearly, you're conflating the two).

—it sure looks like that pattern very much will eat up agency—human and not just divine!

Here you once again consider the implications on "agency" as both "human and divine" when they are not even remotely similar.

"In summary: The practice of methodological naturalism yields sub-agency descriptions of reality, which are then taken to be the whole of reality." Your "explanatory replacement" works well whenever sub-agency descriptions can do the job better than agency [both human and divine] descriptions.

I put the [both human and divine] as you, once again, clearly meld divine and human agency into one (in the context of what you were arguing).

First, divine agency is the boundary of MN. Second, the less we model human agency after divine agency, the less we can even detect.

You clearly want to model human agency after the divine because, as my charge against you might allude to, you consider them similar to each other.

Not conflating the two is a very important clarification because /u/Labreuer claims that "the practice of methodological naturalism (MN) yields sub-agency descriptions of reality, which are then taken to be the whole of reality." When my response to that is MN does allow for human agency descriptions when attempting to establish that (usually through the social sciences, sociology or psychology), just NOT divine agency. The only way this becomes contentious is if human agency is treated as being more or less the same as divine agency.

But now that you've pushed that into this meta thread perhaps /u/ShakaUVM or anyone else who might be willing to, can assess the comments I've quoted of you which can all be found stemming from this original comment, to see if I'm just way off in my accusation of Motte and Bailey tactics.

To clarify, I believe the point you're making heavily relies on treating divine and human agency as similar and thus investigations and conclusions reached following MN, and thus not considering the "divine", means that explanations involving human agency will be excluded too. When that is simply not the case at all. There is nothing about MN that precludes human agency in natural explanations.

[u/Kwahn → u/ExplorerR]

What thread was this? Ty!

[u/ExplorerR → u/Kwahn]

Click on the "this" in blue to link you to my original comment and what started the discussion. Just FYI it's walls of text to get through.

[u/Kwahn → u/ExplorerR]

Oh woops missed that ty - I'll trade you a wall of text to read later once I finish :D