# How to perform science without using "methodological naturalism."

**URL:** <https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/how-to-perform-science-without-using-methodological-naturalism/5971>\
**Category:** Side Conversation\
**Created:** [April 30, 2019, 1:01pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/how-to-perform-science-without-using-methodological-naturalism/5971 "2019-04-30T13:01:53Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 20\
**Page:** 3

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![swamidass](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/swamidass/32/3_2.png) [@swamidass](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/swamidass)\
**Post date:** [April 30, 2019, 7:34pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/how-to-perform-science-without-using-methodological-naturalism/5971/41 "2019-04-30T19:34:42Z")

</div>

> [@Jim](#):
>
> Good point. I didn’t mean to imply that there couldn’t be both going on simultaneously. The point I’m attempting to make is that the scientific community could use a little humility and admit when there’s really no natural explanation based on current research that can explain a certain event when such is the case.

Um, we do admit that there is no known natural explanation yet to explain every step in OOL. How can anyone make statements about unknown natural explanations?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Faizal\_Ali](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/faizal_ali/32/12416_2.png) [@Faizal\_Ali](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Faizal_Ali)\
**Post date:** [April 30, 2019, 7:50pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/how-to-perform-science-without-using-methodological-naturalism/5971/42 "2019-04-30T19:50:34Z")

</div>

> [@Jim](#):
>
> What seems to be the usual response is “we just don’t know” which depending on the case tends to be somewhat vague.

That does not seem vague at all. It is precise and accurate.

OTOH, saying “We will never know”, which seems to be what you are suggesting (correct me if I am wrong), would not be accurate, and would be making a claim that cannot be justified by the available evidence.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Faizal\_Ali](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/faizal_ali/32/12416_2.png) [@Faizal\_Ali](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Faizal_Ali)\
**Post date:** [April 30, 2019, 7:52pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/how-to-perform-science-without-using-methodological-naturalism/5971/43 "2019-04-30T19:52:47Z")

</div>

> [@Jim](#):
>
> I think it would be more clear to say in cases where it’s appropriate, based on current research we haven’t been able to find any natural explanation for the issue in question and therefore can only defer the issue to other fields of study until such a time as new evidence is revealed that would change things.

What are the “other fields of study” you are referring to? Can you give some examples of the diseases they have cured, physical laws they have discovered, or new technologies they have invented after scientists had given up and passed the job on to them?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Jim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ac91a4/32.png) [@Jim](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Jim)\
**Post date:** [April 30, 2019, 7:55pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/how-to-perform-science-without-using-methodological-naturalism/5971/44 "2019-04-30T19:55:18Z")

</div>

Oh. So would I be justified to say that according to current research over several decades science has not come up with an evidential case for OOL from natural causes. Therefore we can tentatively conclude from scientific research that there is no known natural cause and therefore a metaphysical cause could be an acceptable explanation until such a time as new evidence is revealed that would change things?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![gbrooks9](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/gbrooks9/32/7979_2.png) [@gbrooks9](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/gbrooks9)\
**Post date:** [April 30, 2019, 7:56pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/how-to-perform-science-without-using-methodological-naturalism/5971/45 "2019-04-30T19:56:42Z")

</div>

> [@Faizal\_Ali](#):
>
> Why has no one then developed an improved scientific method that dispenses with MN? Can anyone give an example of how this would be employed, and what we could learn from it?

The last time science included a hefty component of Theism and religious metaphysics was when the Christian Alchemists were trying to get the help of angels to convert lead into Gold… and to create the Philosopher’s Stone.

Alchemy and Chemistry used to be synonyms. But as what we call Chemistry started to work better and better (without praying to God or his angels)… the separation between Alchemy and Chemistry became larger and larger. Chemistry as we know didn’t really come to exist until AFTER America won its Revolution against Britain… then the French scientists won their victory over alchemical foolishness!

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![swamidass](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/swamidass/32/3_2.png) [@swamidass](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/swamidass)\
**Post date:** [April 30, 2019, 7:59pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/how-to-perform-science-without-using-methodological-naturalism/5971/46 "2019-04-30T19:59:55Z")

</div>

> [@Jim](#):
>
> Oh. So would I be justified to say that according to current research over several decades science has not come up with an evidential case for OOL from natural causes

Yes, but several decades is not long at all. By the same logic, we would have concluded flying was impossible, nuclear fission and fusion are imposssible, etc.

> [@Jim](#):
>
> Therefore we can tentatively conclude from scientific research that there is no known natural cause

Totally false. That is just not how science works.

> [@Jim](#):
>
> therefore a metaphysical cause could be an acceptable explanation until such a time as new evidence is revealed that would change things?

Absolutely not.

Regardless where the science is here, it is reasonable to wonder if God made the first cell. If that is all you are hoping for, you already have it.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Jim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ac91a4/32.png) [@Jim](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Jim)\
**Post date:** [April 30, 2019, 8:01pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/how-to-perform-science-without-using-methodological-naturalism/5971/47 "2019-04-30T20:01:45Z")

</div>

Umm, I don’t see the relevance of your questions. Different fields of study have there place of usefulness. Is the usefulness of one area of study make it superior to another? And what does that have to do with what I’m talking about? Explain to me the relevance if you can.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Faizal\_Ali](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/faizal_ali/32/12416_2.png) [@Faizal\_Ali](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Faizal_Ali)\
**Post date:** [April 30, 2019, 8:01pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/how-to-perform-science-without-using-methodological-naturalism/5971/48 "2019-04-30T20:01:46Z")

</div>

> [@Jim](#):
>
> Oh. So would I be justified to say that according to current research over several decades science has not come up with an evidential case for OOL from natural causes. Therefore we can tentatively conclude from scientific research that there is no known natural cause and therefore a metaphysical cause could be an acceptable explanation until such a time as new evidence is revealed that would change things

No.

“Metaphysical cause” does not qualify as a fall back option that is automatically assumed to be correct until a physical explanation is elucidated. It should be an explanation that requires the same degree of evidential support as a scientific explanation. Though what that evidential support would consist of is unclear to me. Can you describe what the metaphysical equivalent is of a hypothesis that has been demonstrated to be true thru empirical evidence?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Faizal\_Ali](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/faizal_ali/32/12416_2.png) [@Faizal\_Ali](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Faizal_Ali)\
**Post date:** [April 30, 2019, 8:04pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/how-to-perform-science-without-using-methodological-naturalism/5971/49 "2019-04-30T20:04:26Z")

</div>

> [@Jim](#):
>
> Umm, I don’t see the relevance of your questions. Different fields of study have there place of usefulness. Is the usefulness of one area of study make it superior to another? And what does that have to do with what I’m talking about? Explain to me the relevance if you can.

You are the one who is suggesting that there are other fields of study that can accomplish what science can, but don’t get the chance because scientists are doing all the work and not letting the practitioners of these other fields get their turn. If these fields of study, instead, have a different purpose or usefulness, then I don’t see why you are bringing them up in this discussion as an alternative to the scientific method.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![swamidass](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/swamidass/32/3_2.png) [@swamidass](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/swamidass)\
**Post date:** [April 30, 2019, 8:06pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/how-to-perform-science-without-using-methodological-naturalism/5971/50 "2019-04-30T20:06:29Z")

</div>

> [@gbrooks9](#):
>
> > Why has no one then developed an improved scientific method that dispenses with MN? Can anyone give an example of how this would be employed, and what we could learn from it?
> 
> The last time science included a hefty component of Theism and religious metaphysics was when the Christian Alchemists were trying to get the help of angels to convert lead into Gold… and to create the Philosopher’s Stone.

That is just not true.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![gbrooks9](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/gbrooks9/32/7979_2.png) [@gbrooks9](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/gbrooks9)\
**Post date:** [April 30, 2019, 8:28pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/how-to-perform-science-without-using-methodological-naturalism/5971/51 "2019-04-30T20:28:47Z")

</div>

> [@swamidass](#):
>
> That is just not true.

Which part are you saying isn’t true, @swamidass?

I’m relatively knowledgeable on the topic of Alchemy

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![nwrickert](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/nwrickert/32/810_2.png) [@nwrickert](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/nwrickert)\
**Post date:** [April 30, 2019, 8:29pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/how-to-perform-science-without-using-methodological-naturalism/5971/52 "2019-04-30T20:29:39Z")

</div>

> [@Jim](#):
>
> However, the point I’m trying to make is that whatever happens, there needs to be a reasonable justification for how things are done.

Scientists are well aware of that need.

Yes, they sometimes come up with speculative hypotheses. But scientists well understand that speculative hypotheses are not scientific conclusions.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Mercer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e274bd/32.png) [@Mercer](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Mercer)\
**Post date:** [April 30, 2019, 8:50pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/how-to-perform-science-without-using-methodological-naturalism/5971/53 "2019-04-30T20:50:54Z")

</div>

> [@Jim](#):
>
> So would I be justified to say that according to current research over several decades science has not come up with an evidential case for OOL from natural causes.

Given what you’ve written, I would be justified to say that you’ve never looked at any actual OOL research.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![swamidass](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/swamidass/32/3_2.png) [@swamidass](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/swamidass)\
**Post date:** [April 30, 2019, 8:53pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/how-to-perform-science-without-using-methodological-naturalism/5971/54 "2019-04-30T20:53:28Z")

</div>

@mercer he has freely noted at the beginning of this that he is a “layman”. Perhaps show him something interesting.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Timothy\_Horton](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/timothy_horton/32/9410_2.png) [@Timothy\_Horton](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Timothy_Horton)\
**Post date:** [April 30, 2019, 8:55pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/how-to-perform-science-without-using-methodological-naturalism/5971/55 "2019-04-30T20:55:29Z")

</div>

> [@Jim](#):
>
> Oh. So would I be justified to say that according to current research over several decades science has not come up with an evidential case for OOL from natural causes. Therefore we can tentatively conclude from scientific research that there is no known natural cause and therefore a metaphysical cause could be an acceptable explanation until such a time as new evidence is revealed that would change things?

No. That’s called the “God of the Gaps” argument and was rejected by science as valueless over 250 years ago.

Science relies 100% on MN in scientific work for the simple reason **it works**. It produces productive, tangible, valuable results. If anyone could figure out a way to incorporate the supernatural into scientific research which worked better than MN they’d be laughing all the way to the bank while they picked up their Nobel Prize. There’s nothing wrong in science with saying “we don’t know yet” to difficult problems. With OOL we are trying to recreate conditions and events which happened close to 4 billion years ago. We may never find the specific steps but that doesn’t mean we use **OOGITY BOOGITY!** as the fall back. Can you imaging what would happen if police detectives said “we have no leads in this drive by shooting so we’ll close the case and declare a trigger happy invisible pixie did it”. 🙂

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Mercer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e274bd/32.png) [@Mercer](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Mercer)\
**Post date:** [April 30, 2019, 10:04pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/how-to-perform-science-without-using-methodological-naturalism/5971/56 "2019-04-30T22:04:52Z")

</div>

> [@swamidass](#):
>
> @mercer he has freely noted at the beginning of this that he is a “layman”. Perhaps show him something interesting.

Here’s something interesting: your avoidance of substance when it comes to Tour. In the video, he is obviously lying about Szostak’s _Nature_ paper.

You asked for the timestamp, it was provided, but…nothing of substance from you on this matter.

How about if you give Jim a brutally honest assessment of Tour’s accuracy?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![swamidass](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/swamidass/32/3_2.png) [@swamidass](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/swamidass)\
**Post date:** [April 30, 2019, 10:20pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/how-to-perform-science-without-using-methodological-naturalism/5971/57 "2019-04-30T22:20:31Z")

</div>

It does seem accused Sostack of lying when he was not lying.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![gbrooks9](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/gbrooks9/32/7979_2.png) [@gbrooks9](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/gbrooks9)\
**Post date:** [April 30, 2019, 10:29pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/how-to-perform-science-without-using-methodological-naturalism/5971/58 "2019-04-30T22:29:58Z")

</div>

> [@swamidass](#):
>
> That is just not true.

@swamidass

Here’s my 2nd reminder… if something is untrue, I want to learn what it is as soon as possible.

Maybe it turns out what I wrote **was** true?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![swamidass](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/swamidass/32/3_2.png) [@swamidass](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/swamidass)\
**Post date:** [April 30, 2019, 10:46pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/how-to-perform-science-without-using-methodological-naturalism/5971/59 "2019-04-30T22:46:43Z")

</div>

There are many people trying to do away with MN even today. So the last time was not that far back.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Rumraket](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/rumraket/32/9328_2.png) [@Rumraket](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Rumraket)\
**Post date:** [April 30, 2019, 10:51pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/how-to-perform-science-without-using-methodological-naturalism/5971/60 "2019-04-30T22:51:10Z")

</div>

> [@Jim](#):
>
> My impression of MN is that it acts as a straitjacket to force scientists to go to unreasonable length to come up with a natural explanation of something when there just is no reasonable way with available evidence to explain it that way.

Then your impression is wrong and flatly ridiculous.

> Seems to me that after looking into something for a substantial amount of time that there needs to come a point where the only reasonable response is to say that it’s been extensively researched and with the available evidence so far there has not been any possible natural explanation within reason.

That is literally always the case when at the forefront of current scientific knowledge. When we don’t know, we don’t know.

> Barring further new evidence to the contrary the tentative conclusion is that there is no natural explanation.

No, the tentative conclusion is that no explanation is currently known, not that there is none. Once you start saying no explanation exists you’ve given people an excuse to stop trying to find one. How many times in history could we have given up when we ran into difficult stumbling blocks that took decades if not centuries to solve?

> But the impression I get is that because of MN that just isn’t an option. Kind of like it’s my way or the highway type situation.

Which is a wrong impression. Completely.

> But is that really a healthy approach?

No, that would not be a healthy approach, which is why it isn’t an approach anyone takes.

The actual approach is this: Until we figure out what the explanation is, we will simply say we don’t know, and try to find out. That’s it.

> It seems to me that after extensive research it would be wise to move on to other issues that would be of greater usefulness than to keep pouring into an area where no significant progress is being made

If in fact no progress has been made for a very long time then maybe you can put things on pause and come back later. Of course it isn’t really the case that no progress is being made for any of the questions discussed in this thread. Whether you happen to find that “significant” enough for your personal tastes if of zero value or consequence.

> and let philosophers and metaphysicians spend some time on it and see what they come up with.

Nobody is preventing philosophers from doing metaphysics on any questions whatsover, so they can come up with whatever they want and if it is a help to scientific progress then I’m pretty sure no actual scientist will have a problem with it.

> But of course that might open the door to Theism which for some reason it seems in the scientific community is anathema. Not a very objective approach to take in my opinion.

This is just a silly story you tell yourself because it’s one way for you to deal with the fact that there are scientists who don’t tell you things you would like to hear from them, or who tell you things you _don’t_ want to hear from them. There’s a vast body of theistic apologetics work designed to push these buttons in your psychology. The output from James Tour alone [is getting voluminous](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/comments-on-james-tour-on-orphan-genes/5009/117).

[Previous page](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/how-to-perform-science-without-using-methodological-naturalism/5971.md?page=2)

[Next page](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/how-to-perform-science-without-using-methodological-naturalism/5971.md?page=4)