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

[Terrywoodenpic]

Almost by definition the supernational is unprovable. As soon as something becomes subject of repeatability and certainty. It passes into the realms of scientific inspection...
No amount of magic and wishful thinking has ever proved the real existance of anything supernatural.

 

[joe1776]

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).

The reasoning function of a scientist's brain is limited to dealing with conscious reality when, a very short distance away, where the unconscious function resides in their brains, there exists an entirely different world that denies them conscious access.

I'm sure you and I can easily reject the claims of people who tell us they know what's going on in that unconscious mysterious world, but it sounds to me like you think science can supply all the answers. If that's true, we don't agree.

 

[atanu]

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.

Science does not require ontological naturalism, but eliminative and reductive materialism do so and their adherents claim their allegiance to science and only science.

 

[PureX]

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.

My point, regardless of how poorly stated, is that the IDEA of nature is itself a metaphysical phenomena in that it transcends the physical processes that generate it. And it greatly effects the physical world, in turn, through us.

Scientists are well aware of how cognitive perception alters and defines the very "laws of physics" that define "nature/natural process". Our experience of reality, itself, is a cognitive (metaphysical) phenomenological result. "Nature" can't even recognize itself with such transcendental metaphysical phenomena.

But what scientists know about science and what everyone else thinks they know about it are often two very different things. And thus, we have developed "scientism": a pseudo-philosophy based on the ideal that reality is physicality, while cognition is a kind of electro-chemical mirage. A secondary after-effect, like a shadow.

 

[Yerda]

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.

What do you think it means to say that there are, or are not, supernatural explanations? I'm never really sure what to make of this.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

it sounds to me like you think science can supply all the answers

About reality?

I didn't say that or intend to say that, but the idea does not totally contradict my beliefs. I believe that the only paths to knowledge are pure reason and experience - the methods of science (experience being empiricism).

That is, I expect that many questions are unanswerable, but I don't consult other non-scientific methods, including faith, for such answers.

Incidentally, I am content to have no answers where none are available.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Magic and the supernatural are defined by the boundaries where science has as yet been unable to penetrate.
It is mostly made up of the unknown, unknowns. That limit the bounds of science, but not that of speculation.

 

[sayak83]

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?

If God is a dependable character, then His actions can be studied and understood in a rational manner as well.

 

[joe1776]

If God is a dependable character, then His actions can be studied and understood in a rational manner as well.

In other words, we pea-brain humans ought to be able to understand the mind of a higher power if such exists?

 

[sayak83]

In other words, we pea-brain humans ought to be able to understand the mind of a higher power if such exists?

Certainly.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

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.

Well, then, would you prefer it if we phrased that as "metaphysical claims that only natural causes can be shown, and therefore known, to exist are often made in the name of science?" It would, in fact, be quite accurate.