Newton's Four Rules

[JoeG (Intelligent Design Deist)]

With archaeology and forensic science we can and do detect agency involvement. Using Newton’s four rules of scientific reasoning allows us to distinguish between telic and non-telic processes, ie whether an intelligent agency is required or not. To do so we use our knowledge of cause and effect relationships.

Using Newton’s four rules we are also armed with the methodology to refute/ falsify any given design inference.

[swamidass (S. Joshua Swamidass)]

Welcome @JoeG, I’m glad to have you here.

What the heck are Newton’s Four Rules?

[jongarvey]

@swamidass

What the heck are Newton’s Four Rules?

It’s not that thing that starts “God loves you and has a wonderful plan for your life,” is it?

[Guy_Coe]

1. Life’s a fig.
2. Don’t be a pig.
3. Prunes are nice, too.
4. Whatever you do, don’t read the labels too closely. We reserve the right to substitute ingredients without notice.

[pnelson (Paul A Nelson)]

@swamidass

What the heck are Newton’s Four Rules?

They occur in his Principia, at the start of Book III, the System of the World:

https://history.hanover.edu/courses/excerpts/111new.html

[swamidass (S. Joshua Swamidass)]

@pnelson

What the heck are Newton’s Four Rules?

They occur in his Principia , at the start of Book III, the System of the World:

Newton

Good to see you @pnelson. Can you define and explain them? Educate us.

[Guy_Coe]

See? The good guys show up as soon as I make a bad joke! Good to hear from you, @pnelson . Mine were just guesses… : )

[JoeG (Intelligent Design Deist)]

Newton’s four rules of scientific reasoning

1- We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances.

2- Therefore to the same natural effects we must, as far as possible, assign the same causes.

3- The qualities of bodies, which admit neither intension nor remission of degrees, and which are found to belong to all bodies within the reach of our experiments, are to be esteemed the universal qualities of all bodies whatsoever.

4- In experimental philosophy we are to look upon propositions collected by general induction from phænomena as accurately or very nearly true, notwithstanding any contrary hypotheses that may be imagined, till such time as other phænomena occur, by which they may either be made more accurate, or liable to exceptions.

Thanks for having me.

[swamidass (S. Joshua Swamidass)]

Thanks @JoeG , interesting blast from the past, but I’m not sure how this helps you

@JoeG

detect agency

@JoeG

distinguish between telic and non-telic processes

Nor is this does this appear like modern scientific reasoning.

[JoeG (Intelligent Design Deist)]

Thank you, Paul.

[JoeG (Intelligent Design Deist)]

That is standard operating procedure for doing just that. How do you think archaeologists and forensic scientists do it? SETI definitely follows those rules.

Anyone looking into the root cause of something has to follow those rules. Then we apply our knowledge of cause and effect relationships. Nature is good at producing rocks and stone formations but not Stonehenge.

[JoeG (Intelligent Design Deist)]

@JoeG

1- We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances.

2- Therefore to the same natural effects we must, as far as possible, assign the same causes.

We add intelligent agencies to nature for the cause of Stonehenge- artifacts require artisans. If someone comes along and demonstrates nature is capable of such a formation then the intelligent agency requirement is sliced off. That goes for all artifacts and alleged crimes.

[swamidass (S. Joshua Swamidass)]

@JoeG

We add intelligent agencies to nature for the cause of Stonehenge- artifacts require artisans. If someone comes along and demonstrates nature is capable of such a formation then the intelligent agency requirement is sliced off. That goes for all artifacts and alleged crimes.

Okay, help us solve this puzzle then. How was God involved in this story? How can Newton’s Four Rules and forensic science clarify the matter:

@swamidass

Divine Protection

Kaew, the Thai Navy SEAL member, was standing in the chilly flood of the cave on Tuesday night, swallowing his last bite of seafood-and-pineapple pizza, when he heard the yelled warning: More water was coming fast — get out now.

For three grueling days, he and his comrades had been hefting the 12 boys and their coach one by one through the series of slick and steep caverns to safety.

Just moments before the alarm, he had welcomed back the SEAL team that stayed with the boys for eight days on the rock where they had been trapped deep within Tham Luang’s flooded maze.

“The boys were safe, and my friends were safe,” said Kaew, who was not authorized to give his full name. “I thought, finally, the mission is a success.”

Then, when it was seemingly all over, a drainage pump to minimize flooding failed. What had been waist-high water surged to chest level in a vicious torrent where Kaew was standing, about a half-mile inside the cave’s mouth. Kaew, who had no scuba gear with him, scrambled to higher ground, barely escaping the final deluge.

It was a chaotic finale to the rescue. Many of the divers and residents of the nearby northern Thai town of Mae Sai saw the last-minute flood as a sign that divine protection had ceased only after all were safe.

For the entire mission, Kaew had wrapped a Buddha amulet hanging on his neck with waterproof tape. “The cave is sacred,” he said. “ It was protected until the very end .”

So several people there perceived God’s providential governance over this situation. It is the timing that seems to signal meaning, not any notion of laws being broken. A question for @rcohlers, how could empiricism even in principle tell us if this was special divine action or not? What evidence could tell us if it was divine protection or not? And theologically speaking, why do these question of mechanism matter even the slightest?

And look at an equally valid interpretation, chance,

“The most important piece of the rescue was good luck,” said Maj. Gen. Chalongchai Chaiyakham, the deputy commander of the Third Army region, which helped the operation. “So many things could have gone wrong, but somehow we managed to get the boys out.”

So, given this information, and anything else, was God supernaturally protecting the rescuers and the kids? Or was it just chance? Or was it both? Or neither? How does newtons rule’s tell us the answer?

[JoeG (Intelligent Design Deist)]

@swamidass

Okay, help us solve this puzzle then. How was God involved in this story? How can Newton’s Four Rules and forensic science clarify the matter:

What? Those rules cannot and do not point to any specific artisan. They can only tell you that at least one was required- and that is the case with Intelligent Design.

[JoeG (Intelligent Design Deist)]

Look at the Earth. Just think of how many just-so (lucky) cosmic collisions had to have occurred to give it its rotational speed, amount of water and terrestrial make up. Seeing that science can only allow for so much luck and the natural (as opposed to artificial) formation of the Earth is sheer dumb luck, why would anyone interested in science adhere to the naturalistic explanation?

Yet the Earth exists and there is only one reality behind the Earth’s existence. So we look at all of the factors required for that existence. The relatively large Moon to stabilize the rotation. That rotation to mix the atmospheric gasses. Etc. etc.

Then you add all of that to the fact that the Earth is the only place in the solar system with intelligent observers. And it is the only place that offers perfect/ total solar eclipses that add to our knowledge. AND because of the fact the Moon is receding those intelligent observers appeared at just the right time otherwise we wouldn’t get the same scientific information from those eclipses. Again, naturalistic explanations offer only sheer dumb luck to “explain” that coincidence.

But we still don’t get to God from that.

[swamidass (S. Joshua Swamidass)]

@JoeG

Okay, help us solve this puzzle then. How was God involved in this story? How can Newton’s Four Rules and forensic science clarify the matter:

What? Those rules cannot and do not point to any specific artisan. They can only tell you that at least one was required- and that is the case with Intelligent Design.

I get that, but how does this help you figure out the answer to these questions? Was it luck or a designer?

@swamidass

was God supernaturally protecting the rescuers and the kids? Or was it just chance? Or was it both? Or neither? How does newtons rule’s tell us the answer?

This should be straightforward and easy for you, or at least would seem from your confidence.

[JoeG (Intelligent Design Deist)]

Well science can only allow so much luck so if the evidence warrants- as in the case of life or the earth- we would go with Intelligent Design.

As for the rescue there isn’t any need to call for the supernatural. The rescuers were well trained. The kids didn’t have any reason to just die. So it was a case of humans do what we do. It was a designed rescue. It was poor luck that got them trapped.

[Guy_Coe]

And it was good luck that kept that water pump working until just after all the kids had passed through?

[swamidass (S. Joshua Swamidass)]

@JoeG

As for the rescue there isn’t any need to call for the supernatural. The rescuers were well trained. The kids didn’t have any reason to just die. So it was a case of humans do what we do. It was a designed rescue. It was poor luck that got them trapped.

Interesting. So you don’t think God was involved because a naturalistic story can explain it away?

[Guy_Coe]

Thanks for shepherding us through this story, Josh. What were/are your sources for this underreported information? Sorry; don’t mean to get in the way of your question, here.