The Surprisingly Sexy Reason Naturalism is a Guiding Principle of the Sciences

[Sunstone]

The other day I was listening to someone who expressed the absolutely insufferable opinion that a guiding principle of science -- i.e. naturalism -- is a product of bias on the part of scientists.

In effect, they were asserting that the only reason the world's million or so scientists do not entertain supernatural explanations for things is because they're all prejudiced against such explanations!

Tut! Tut! Tut! Nothing could be further from the truth!

Yet this seems to be a common enough criticism of the sciences nowadays -- especially with creationists. See this alarming article for instance: Naturalism, Evidence, and Creationism:The Case of Phillip Johnson. Creationists these days are not only saying stuff like, "Naturalism is a mere bias of scientists", but they are saying such things where children might read them!

DOESN'T ANYONE THINK OF THE CHILDREN THESE DAYS?

Naturalism, of course, is the philosophical view that there are natural explanations for natural phenomena and that there is no logical or other necessity to resort to supernatural explanations for such phenomena. It is indeed a guiding principle of the sciences.

Naturalism more or less dates back in the history of thought roughly 2,500 years to Thales of Milieus who seems to have invented the concept. It comes in two forms, sometimes called "ontological naturalism" and "methodological naturalism", and of those two forms, methodological naturalism appears to be the most popular with scientists. Methodological naturalism does NOT posit that natural explanations are the only possible explanations for natural phenomena. Instead, it allows for the possibility that supernatural explanations might exist. Yet, methodological naturalism recognizes that supernatural explanations are beyond the scope of the sciences. i.e. You do not, as a scientist, say, "Lightening is caused by the gods".

So is naturalism a mere bias on the part of the world's scientists? Do scientists rule out explaining things in supernatural terms merely because they are prejudiced against such explanations?

Nope.

The truth is naturalism is not a mere bias, but rather follows logically from the foundation stone of the sciences: Intersubjective verifiability.

Intersubjective verifiablilty is an astonishingly sexy term* that means the verification of something by two or more "subjects". That is, by two or more people.

For instance, if both I observe that it's raining, and you observe that it's raining, you and I have thus intersubjectively verified that it's raining. Intersubjective verifiability is more or less the logical cornerstone of the sciences. All the crucial features of the sciences -- including naturalism -- either follow logically from that principle or are at least logically compatible with that principle.

So how does naturalism follow from intersubjective verifiability?

It follows because you cannot intersubjectively verify supernatural things with any reliability. You are only able to intersubjectively verify natural things with any reliability (By "reliability", I mean reproductablity and/or replicability). Hence, rather than being the result of a bias, naturalism is a logically necessary consequence of intersubjective verifiability, the foundation stone of the sciences.

At least, that's how I see it. It's all pretty darn sexy, if you ask me.

Comments? Observations? Misunderstandings? Straw men? Rants?


____________________________________
Footnote: *Actually, I'm lying. "Intersubjective verifiability" is anything but sexy. Happy now?

 

[Rival]

I object based on the fact that I am not educated enough to give an adequate response.

 

[Sunstone]

I object based on the fact that I am not educated enough to give an adequate response.

That would not stop 99.9% of humanity from vehemently asserting an opinion here.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Comments? Observations? Misunderstandings? Straw men? Rants?

I could go on that it's interesting, and that in that light makes them both seem necessary tools of the trade, but those things are boring. So here is my comment:
Quit posting threads I generally agree with and don't motivate me to speak.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

I object based on the fact that I am not educated enough to give an adequate response.

That would not stop 99.9% of humanity from vehemently asserting an opinion here.

So do you think that excuses you from being obnoxiously opinionated on the matter, Rival?

 

[Sunstone]

So do you think that excuses you from being obnoxiously opinionated on the matter, Rival?

Obviously, she is ducking her responsibilities as a member of our species! Burn her! Burn the witch!

 

[joe1776]

Maybe I'm misunderstanding. It seems to me that you set up a rule that nothing can exist if it doesn't share the properties of conscious reality and you think that logically dismisses the possible existence of an unconscious reality.

If you and others lived your entire life in an artificially lit house with no windows, where everything can be "intersubjectively verified," would you conclude that nothing can exist outside the walls of your house because it can't be intersubjectively verified?

 

[Rival]

So do you think that excuses you from being obnoxiously opinionated on the matter, Rival?

What the? I don't remember asking your opinion on this obvious issue.

 

[atanu]

....Methodological naturalism does NOT posit that natural explanations are the only possible explanations for natural phenomena. I...

Science cannot function if stripped of its methodological naturalism. However, in my opinion, metaphysical claims that only natural causes exist are often made in the name of science -- sometimes out of ignorance and sometimes knowingly.

 

[icehorse]

Maybe I'm misunderstanding. It seems to me that you set up a rule that nothing can exist if it doesn't share the properties of conscious reality and you think that logically dismisses the possible existence of an unconscious reality.

If you and others lived your entire life in an artificially lit house with no windows, where everything can be "intersubjectively verified," would you conclude that nothing can exist outside the walls of your house because it can't be intersubjectively verified?

The thing is that "science" doesn't make such precluding assertions. Science remains open to new evidence.

 

[Sunstone]

However, in my opinion, metaphysical claims that only natural causes exist are often made in the name of science -- sometimes out of ignorance and sometimes knowingly.

It is intellectually sloppy to think that intersubjective verifiability -- the logical cornerstone of the sciences -- requires ontological naturalism. It does not. However, it does require some sort of naturalism.

 

[PureX]

Naturalism, of course, is the philosophical view that there are natural explanations for natural phenomena and that there is no logical or other necessity to resort to supernatural explanations for such phenomena. It is indeed a guiding principle of the sciences.

The foolishness and the bias begins, here, with the unfounded assumption that the only alternative to "naturalism" is unnaturalism: i.e., the "supernatural". One group of fools buys into this reasoning and thereby dismisses outright any and all possibility that there is more to existence than it's mindless physicality. While the other group of fools then presumes that "God" and all metaphysical experience must be defined as and by all things "supernatural". Thus creating two groups of fools that ignore the obvious coalescence of physics and metaphysics happening right inside their own minds, and so cannot reason together, at all. It's like one monkey holding his hand over his right eye and declaring that all reality is left-handed, while the other monkey holds his hand over his left eye and then declares the whole world to be right-handed.

The possibilities are not "reality is natural" vs "reality is unnatural (supernatural)". Reality is both physical and metaphysical, simultaneously. They function together.

 

[Sunstone]

Maybe I'm misunderstanding. It seems to me that you set up a rule that nothing can exist if it doesn't share the properties of conscious reality and you think that logically dismisses the possible existence of an unconscious reality.

That's not what I'm saying at all, and I'm not at all sure how you have come to think that's what I'm saying.

 

[icehorse]

It follows because you cannot intersubjectively verify supernatural things with any reliability. You are only able to intersubjectively verify natural things with any reliability (By "reliability", I mean reproductablity and/or replicability). Hence, rather than being the result of a bias, naturalism is a logically necessary consequence of intersubjective verifiability, the foundation stone of the sciences.

I like it, sexy indeed.

One thing I'd add is that "science" doesn't declare itself to be universally applicable. There are many things for which intersubjective verifiability is useful (e.g. the flow of electrons through metals, laws of motion and such), but science doesn't say - for example - "We cannot reliably reproduce the experience of love, therefore it doesn't exist". Science knows what it knows and is honest about what it doesn't know.

 

[Sunstone]

The foolishness and the bias begins, here, with the unfounded assumption that the only alternative to "naturalism" is unnaturalism: i.e., the "supernatural". One group of fools buys into this reasoning and thereby dismisses outright any and all possibility that there is more to existence than it's mindless physicality. While the other group of fools then presumes that "God" and all metaphysical experience must be defined as and by all things "supernatural". Thus creating two groups of fools that ignore the obvious coalescence of physics and metaphysics happening right inside their own minds, and so cannot reason together, at all. It's like one monkey holding his hand over his right eye and declaring that all reality is left-handed, while the other monkey holds his hand over his left eye and then declares the whole world to be right-handed.

The possibilities are not "reality is natural" vs "reality is unnatural (supernatural)". Reality is both physical and metaphysical, simultaneously. They function together.

I am forced to reject your analysis on the grounds that it is a straw man. Naturalism, as I defined it in the OP does not ENTAIL "dismissing outright any and all possibility that there is more to existence than it's [sic] mindless physicality". Rather, naturalism can be merely methodological in nature in which case, it amounts to an acknowledgement of the possibility of a supernatural reality. For you to suggest that it entails dismissing the supernatural -- or whatever you want to call it -- amounts to creating a straw man.

 

[Sunstone]

I like it, sexy indeed.

One thing I'd add is that "science" doesn't declare itself to be universally applicable. There are many things for which intersubjective verifiability is useful (e.g. the flow of electrons through metals, laws of motion and such), but science doesn't say - for example - "We cannot reliably reproduce the experience of love, therefore it doesn't exist". Science knows what it knows and is honest about what it doesn't know.

That's an excellent point. Thanks for making it explicit.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

Obviously, she is ducking her responsibilities as a member of our species! Burn her! Burn the witch!

I refuse to pick up her slack.

 

[joe1776]

The thing is that "science" doesn't make such precluding assertions. Science remains open to new evidence.

Yes, of course but my remarks were not aimed at debating science.

I misunderstood the OP because I confused Sunstone's version of Naturalism with the original. From the Stanford site:

The term “naturalism” has no very precise meaning in contemporary philosophy. Its current usage derives from debates in America in the first half of the last century. The self-proclaimed “naturalists” from that period included John Dewey, Ernest Nagel, Sidney Hook and Roy Wood Sellars. These philosophers aimed to ally philosophy more closely with science. They urged that reality is exhausted by nature, containing nothing “supernatural”, and that the scientific method should be used to investigate all areas of reality, including the “human spirit” (Krikorian 1944; Kim 2003).

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

The other day I was listening to someone who expressed the absolutely insufferable opinion that a guiding principle of science -- i.e. naturalism -- is a product of bias on the part of scientists.

In effect, they were asserting that the only reason the world's million or so scientists do not entertain supernatural explanations for things is because they're all prejudiced against such explanations!

Tut! Tut! Tut! Nothing could be further from the truth! Yet this seems to be a common enough criticism of the sciences nowadays -- especially with creationists. See this alarming article for instance: Naturalism, Evidence, and Creationism:The Case of Phillip Johnson.

Naturalism, of course, is the philosophical view that there are natural explanations for natural phenomena and that there is no logical or other necessity to resort to supernatural explanations for such phenomena. It is indeed a guiding principle of the sciences.

Naturalism more or less dates back in the history of thought roughly 2,500 years to Thales of Milieus who seems to have invented the concept. It comes in two forms, sometimes called "ontological naturalism" and "methodological naturalism", and of those two forms, methodological naturalism appears to be the most popular with scientists. Methodological naturalism does NOT posit that natural explanations are the only possible explanations for natural phenomena. Instead, it allows for the possibility that supernatural explanations might exist. Yet, methodological naturalism recognizes that supernatural explanations are beyond the scope of the sciences. i.e. You do not, as a scientist, say, "Lightening is caused by the gods".

So is naturalism a mere bias on the part of the world's scientists? Do scientists rule out explaining things in supernatural terms merely because they are prejudiced against such explanations?

Nope.

The truth is naturalism is not a mere bias, but rather follows logically from the foundation stone of the sciences: Intersubjective verifiability.

Intersubjective verifiablilty is an astonishingly sexy term* that means the verification of something by two or more "subjects". That is, by two or more people.

For instance, if both I observe that it's raining, and you observe that it's raining, you and I have thus intersubjectively verified that it's raining. Intersubjective verifiability is more or less the logical cornerstone of the sciences. All the crucial features of the sciences -- including naturalism -- either follow logically from that principle or are at least logically compatible with that principle.

So how does naturalism follow from intersubjective verifiability?

It follows because you cannot intersubjectively verify supernatural things with any reliability. You are only able to intersubjectively verify natural things with any reliability (By "reliability", I mean reproductablity and/or replicability). Hence, rather than being the result of a bias, naturalism is a logically necessary consequence of intersubjective verifiability, the foundation stone of the sciences.

At least, that's how I see it. It's all pretty darn sexy, if you ask me.

Comments? Observations? Misunderstandings? Straw men? Rants?

We have no use for the concept of the supernatural in science, an idea that is inherently problematic. Why would anything that exists not be just another aspect of reality - of the natural? This idea adds nothing.

Also, there is no clear understanding of what is meant by the supernatural, so no distinct idea of what it is that some people are claiming exists or might exist when they use the word. The claim appears to be that there are places and entities in them capable of monitoring and affecting our wold, but which we cannot detect. That is, that the supernatural realm is the set of things that have a causal relationship with our universe, but are disconnected from it in the other direction - unless, of course, you want your prayers to get there.

Then throw in how well we've done without supernaturalism. All of the progress of science has been made without invoking that idea.

In fact, science had to wait for the magical thinking and belief by faith to get out of its way before real progress could be made - so that the magical influence of the stars on our lives (astrology) could evolve into the skeptical and empirical study of the stars (astronomy).

 

[joe1776]

So how does naturalism follow from intersubjective verifiability?

It follows because you cannot intersubjectively verify supernatural things with any reliability. You are only able to intersubjectively verify natural things with any reliability (By "reliability", I mean reproductablity and/or replicability). Hence, rather than being the result of a bias, naturalism is a logically necessary consequence of intersubjective verifiability, the foundation stone of the sciences.

If scientists "cannot intersubjectively verify supernatural things with any reliability," then logically they can only work with natural things. But they cannot logically conclude from that fact that supernatural things don't exist. If they do so conclude, that would be evidence on its face of bias.

Do you agree?