Methodological Naturalism (in science)

[wattsr1]

Is little more than saying of some phenomenon or some structure:-

1) "Nature did this",

2) "Here is how we think it did so",

3) "Here is our evidence", and

4) "This is why we think the evidence supports 2) and hence 1)."

The beauty of it as a guiding principle is that most of us can agree that nature exists.

[phank]

I'm not sure I'd start by stating my conclusion, and then looking for ways to justify it. That approach makes me itch. I'd be more comfortable saying

1) Here is a structure or phenomenon to be explained;

2) Here are all the observations that might be relevant;

3) Here is how these observations can be understood to provide an explanation;

4) Here is a possible test to see whether this understanding is correct

5) Tentatively, this structure or phenomenon is natural because only natural evidence was needed to explain it.

[wattsr1]

I'm not sure I'd start by stating my conclusion, and then looking for ways to justify it. That approach makes me itch. I'd be more comfortable saying

1) Here is a structure or phenomenon to be explained;

2) Here are all the observations that might be relevant;

3) Here is how these observations can be understood to provide an explanation;

4) Here is a possible test to see whether this understanding is correct

5) Tentatively, this structure or phenomenon is natural because only natural evidence was needed to explain it.

You might have a point there. Perhaps I was mixing in a bit of philosophical naturalism.

However, I think MN has that concept underpinning it, namely that nature exists, and that our minds can understand it to some extent.

I understand that in the case of one poster, such a claim that nature exists is an opinion only. And in the case of another poster, there are always other non metaphysically neutral, but just as plausible claims, to the one that nature exists.

[magellan004]

Is little more than saying of some phenomenon or some structure:-

1) "Nature did this",

2) "Here is how we think it did so",

3) "Here is our evidence", and

4) "This is why we think the evidence supports 2) and hence 1)."

The beauty of it as a guiding principle is that most of us can agree that nature exists.

As Zack Martin commented/asked in another thread - that depends on how you identify or recognise 'Nature'. Naturalism , I understand, excludes something that is inherently bound to the concept of nature - God.
Therefore it would be just as useful to hypothesise 'God did this'.

Magellan

[wattsr1]

As Zack Martin commented/asked in another thread - that depends on how you identify or recognise 'Nature'. Naturalism , I understand, excludes something that is inherently bound to the concept of nature - God.
Therefore it would be just as useful to hypothesise 'God did this'.

Magellan

Ah. Mags is a deist now.

Fair enough.

[lao tzu]

He could be a Spinozan.

[pancreasman]

I'd like to see a test for the hypothesis 'God did this'.

[phank]

I'd like to see a test for the hypothesis 'God did this'.

But you see this test every day! The test is, you ask "did god do this?" The answer is obviously yes, so it passes the test. If you wish a more rigorous test, you must appeal to qualified authority. Since god is the highest possible authority, and since god SAID he did everything, therefore he did. It's not like you can go over his head, right?

(Note that the exact same test is applied to the hypothesis "my opinion is right." Did you pray? Yes. Did god tell you your opinion was wrong? No. QED)

And this is the ONLY avenue to knowledge that lies outside the scope of science. You must admit, it's a LOT easier, and a LOT more certain, than that science stuff.

[magellan004]

But you see this test every day! The test is, you ask "did god do this?" The answer is obviously yes, so it passes the test. If you wish a more rigorous test, you must appeal to qualified authority. Since god is the highest possible authority, and since god SAID he did everything, therefore he did. It's not like you can go over his head, right?

(Note that the exact same test is applied to the hypothesis "my opinion is right." Did you pray? Yes. Did god tell you your opinion was wrong? No. QED)

And this is the ONLY avenue to knowledge that lies outside the scope of science. You must admit, it's a LOT easier, and a LOT more certain, than that science stuff.

Almost but not quite.
'Evolution did this.' The test is 'Do you think evolution did this?'
'This organism is a new species' The test is 'Do you think this organisim is a new species.'

If you don't like tests which ask people to report what they observed then you have to discard evolution.

Magellan

[lucaspa]

I'm not sure I'd start by stating my conclusion, and then looking for ways to justify it. That approach makes me itch. I'd be more comfortable saying

1) Here is a structure or phenomenon to be explained;

2) Here are all the observations that might be relevant;

3) Here is how these observations can be understood to provide an explanation;

4) Here is a possible test to see whether this understanding is correct

5) Tentatively, this structure or phenomenon is natural because only natural evidence was needed to explain it.

That is somewhat philosophical naturalism. The problem with #5 is that science can only get "natural evidence". So, DUH, natural evidence "explained it".

Next post for what MN really is.

[lucaspa]

Is little more than saying of some phenomenon or some structure:-

1) "Nature did this",

2) "Here is how we think it did so",

3) "Here is our evidence", and

4) "This is why we think the evidence supports 2) and hence 1)."

The beauty of it as a guiding principle is that most of us can agree that nature exists.

MN isn't a "guiding principle". It's a limitation of science that arises directly from how we do experiments. Science is limited to looking at only "natural" causes. Here's how it works:

Let's say you want to find ALL causes/entities necessary for plant growth. So you go out and get a number of plants. You put them in the following conditions:
1. Sunlight, water, soil, air
2. Sunlight, water, soil, but in a clear box where the air has been pumped out.
3. Sunlight, water, no soil, air.
4. Sunlight, no water, soil, air
5. A darkened box with no sunlight, but with water, soil, air.

This scientific protocol will tell you if these 4 entities/causes are necessary for plant growth. You can add others if you wish but you will follow the same scientific protocol. You always have a control where you know the entity is absent and compare it to an experimental where you know the entity is present.

Now comes the kicker. How about the supernatural or deity? Where is my control for that? Which plant can I point to and say "this one has no supernatural in it?" or "God is not in this plant?" I can't. Which plant can I point to and say "this one has supernatural in it?" or "God is in this plant"? I can't. I am limited to looking at only material causes that I can set up "controls" for.

So, is God or the supernatural also necessary for plant growth? I don't know and I can't find out via science.

Maybe. Maybe not. As a scientist, I can't comment.

So how can we get God/supernatural into science? We have to try to sneak it in the backdoor. We propose a material method by which supernatural/God works and then look for the method. The classic example is Flood Geology. God caused a world wide flood and the flood caused all of geology. The flood is the material cause. So science tested whether a world-wide flood caused all of geology and found that idea to be wrong, false.

Another material method proposed for God/supernatural to work by is direct manufacture. God zaps something into existence in its present form. An example would be God speaking the stars and moon into existence in Genesis 1. Another example would be abiogenesis: God zaps the first cell into existence. True, we don't know the method of manufacture (it is "miracle"), Yeah, yeah, we don't know how miracle works, but that is irrelevant to the study. But in this case "miracle' becomes, like the Flood, a material cause. We can look to see if stars or the moon or the first cell had to be produced in their present form. OR, are there other material causes which could produce them? It turns out there are other material causes.

Does this eliminate God? Of course not. Because we can't test to see if these material causes require God/supernatural (like miracle does).

[lucaspa]

I'd like to see a test for the hypothesis 'God did this'.

By itself that is not testable. What you have to propose is how "God did this".

Creationists propose that God does things by direct manufacture. God manufactured the first DNA molecule. God manufactured the first cell. God manufactured humans (either by speaking them into existence or forming from dust). The data clear show that this method didn't happen.

But what if you propose that God did the universe by the Big Bang, galaxies, stars, and planets by gravity, life by chemistry, and the diversity of life by evolution?

We know the methods are correct. Does that mean "God did this"?

[lucaspa]

'Evolution did this.' The test is 'Do you think evolution did this?'
'This organism is a new species' The test is 'Do you think this organisim is a new species.'

Those aren't the tests. If you hypothesize "evolution did this", then there are specific consequences of evolution working. You look for those, not say "do you think evolution did this".

Similarly, if you set up an experiment for speciation, there are specific consequences of speciation (reproductive isolation for sexually reproducing organisms). So you test for these consequences.

Now, there have been many reports of speciation. ALL of them involve evolution. NONE of them involve God zapping a species into existence.

[Jorge]

Is little more than saying of some phenomenon or some structure:-

1) "Nature did this",

2) "Here is how we think it did so",

3) "Here is our evidence", and

4) "This is why we think the evidence supports 2) and hence 1)."

The beauty of it as a guiding principle is that most of us can agree that nature exists.

************************************************

The above post has the philosophical depth of a 3rd grader.
Stick to your day job, Roland.

(1) Nature does indeed exist. The question is, what is its source?

(2) Just because nature exists, how does that lead any rational person
to conclude that, "Therefore, nature is the source of everything."?
That is, after all, what Materialists / Atheists believe.

(3) Just because one is able to explain something via nature does in
no way provide the ontological foundation for that thing. For instance,
we can "explain" that a Mozart Concerto results from air vibrations
generated by percussion, string, wind, and other instruments. We can
even get a computer to digitally generate those same sounds. However,
nature cannot in any way, shape or form explain the specific arrangement
of those sounds that we perceive as 'beautiful, touching, inspiring', etc.

(4) Those are just 3 of a great many points that your superficial post
neglects to address. But that's how it is : Materialists / Atheists /
Evo-Faithful can only treat a matter superficially because the details
dethrone their worldview in a heartbeat.

Jorge

[Wally]

The above post has the philosophical depth of a 3rd grader.
Stick to your day job, Roland.

Then that puts you at about a kindergarten level.