Yeah, and understand how come we have methodological naturalism and no truth, proof and don't use metaphysics. And how come we this:
https://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/whatisscience_12
Including "Science doesn't draw conclusions about supernatural explanations."
Methodological Naturalism is a philosophy, as well as all forms of Metaphysics.
Both use epistemology (philosophy of knowledge), but how Metaphysics and Methodological Naturalism approach natural phenomena, differed greatly.
The differences are that Metaphysics don’t require testing any of their explanations, don’t require evidence, don’t require experiments. Hence Scientific Method isn’t important, evidence and experiments aren’t important to Metaphysics.
All Metaphysics required, are abstract explanations of phenomena, and applying the abstract First Principle to what exist.
There lies the problem with Metaphysics, relying on abstract concepts, and never testing these abstract concepts, hence not Metaphysics isn’t science.
Methodological Naturalism, by itself, isn’t science, but it does tell us, how scientists should approach natural phenomena, steps required to objectively determine if the concept is true or not true.
These required steps involved
- Falsifiability,
- Scientific Method, and
- Peer Review.
The whole thing required to investigate natural phenomena, by formulating a model (eg hypothesis) to explain WHAT it is, HOW does it work, and then develop methodology as to how, where and when to test the model, and the only way to test these hypotheses are through observational evidence.
Evidence are the only ways to objectively determine if the hypothesis succeeds or fails:
- if it is true and probable, or
- if it is false and improbable.
Evidence can either be discovered in uncontrolled environment, thus fieldwork, or in controlled environments, like in a laboratory where experiments are employed to find the evidence.
Evidence is real, and part of natural phenomena. Evidence are used to test the model, and determine which model is science and which model isn’t science.
And sciences, especially natural science and physical science, required evidence, not “proof”, to determine validity of the hypothesis.
As I have been telling philosophers and creationists for years, evidence and proof are not the same things. Science don’t prove or disprove models, they test models.
Proof are merely logical model, like mathematical equations. Maths and mathematical equations are useful in science and you can see them being used in physics, including astrophysics, but they are not evidence themselves.
These equations, like the explanations and predictions in a hypothesis, must be all tested. So if, the evidence disagree with the equations, then the equations (or proofs) in the hypothesis are wrong, not the evidence.
You seemed to be confusing proof with evidence.
None of the approach used in Methodological Naturalism is required in Metaphysics, because evidence isn’t important in Metaphysics.
Science required evidence, not abstract metaphysical deduction and a priori.
Deductive reasoning is a useful method in logic, but it has limitations, and it still very much subjective, and people being humans, can make mistakes in their reasoning and derive at the wrong conclusions, and people, especially philosophers can be biased.
To me, modern Metaphysics are mostly useless in science; Metaphysics is overrated philosophy, and the application of Metaphysics is limited.