# 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:** 4

<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, 11:28pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/how-to-perform-science-without-using-methodological-naturalism/5971/61 "2019-04-30T23:28:39Z")

</div>

@Rumraket be nice to our guest @jim. Your points are good, but drop the insults. Seriously.

---

<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:** [May 1, 2019, 1:50am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/how-to-perform-science-without-using-methodological-naturalism/5971/62 "2019-05-01T01:50:57Z")

</div>

> [@swamidass](#):
>
> There are many people trying to do away with MN even today. So the last time was not that far back.

Before MN … it was still not Alchemy. That was my point.  
So when did MN become the established term?

---

<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:** [May 1, 2019, 3:27am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/how-to-perform-science-without-using-methodological-naturalism/5971/63 "2019-05-01T03:27:21Z")

</div>

> [@swamidass](#):
>
> Fair enough.
> 
> Did you know that MN was not put in place by atheists, but by Christians? [Methodological Naturalism, So Falsely Called](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/methodological-naturalism-so-falsely-called/265)

Yes, I am somewhat aware of that, though not familiar with all the details. And I agree with you that the name is misleading. I think scientific methodology is a much better and more straightforward name for it. But I also think that unlike what I would imagine was its original intended purpose, it’s been reinterpreted to mean that a natural explanation is to be pursued beyond reason to the point of nonsense. I would imagine, since it was a Christian who developed the idea, that the original intent was to require scientists to, as much as possible, leave no stone unturned in looking for a natural explanation. But it seems to me the idea was to pursue rational ideas, not to pursue any idea, whether rational or irrational, in order to avoid at all costs anything that might point to something beyond the natural realm, which is how it seems to be used today.

---

<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:** [May 1, 2019, 3:37am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/how-to-perform-science-without-using-methodological-naturalism/5971/64 "2019-05-01T03:37:14Z")

</div>

Whether we like it or not, MN is part of science. It makes best sense to learn how to navigate with it, rather than rage against it.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Jonathan\_Burke](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/jonathan_burke/32/21_2.png) [@Jonathan\_Burke](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Jonathan_Burke)\
**Post date:** [May 1, 2019, 3:59am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/how-to-perform-science-without-using-methodological-naturalism/5971/65 "2019-05-01T03:59:34Z")

</div>

> [@Jim](#):
>
> I would imagine, since it was a Christian who developed the idea, that the original intent was to require scientists to, as much as possible, leave no stone unturned in looking for a natural explanation. But it seems to me the idea was to pursue rational ideas, not to pursue any idea, whether rational or irrational, in order to avoid at all costs anything that might point to something beyond the natural realm, which is how it seems to be used today.

Yes. Although the term is recent, the concept is very old. Here’s an example; Adelard of Bath, twelfth century.

> The Christian philosopher Adelard of Bath wrote that superstitious amazement at observable phenomena was the result of considering an event while being ignorant of its true cause. When his nephew attributed the growth of plants from the earth to the direct involvement of God, Adelard corrected him and explained it was the result of a divinely ordained natural process.
> 
> “In response to his nephew’s query about why plants rise from the earth, and the nephew’s conviction that this should be attributed to “the wonderful operation of the wonderful divine will,” Adelard replies that it is certainly “the will of the Creator that plants should rise from the earth. But this thing is not without a reason,” **which prompts Adelard to offer a naturalistic explanation based on the four elements**.”
> 
> Adelard then taught his nephew that since the universe had been ordered accordingly to divinely established laws at the creation, **phenomena observed in nature should be understood to have natural cause** s. Consequently, observers should always assume a natural cause as the primary cause, instead of attributing everything to God.
> 
> “Adelard’s emphasis on the use of reason is rather remarkable. His message is clear. He firmly believed that God was the creator of the world, and that God provided the world with a rational structure and a capacity to operate by its own laws. In this well-ordered world, **natural philosophers must always seek a rational explanation for phenomena**. They must search for a natural cause and not resort to God, the ultimate cause of all things, unless the secondary cause seems unattainable.”

More [here](https://www.academia.edu/9168757/Natural_Laws_and_Science_in_the_Judaeo-Christian_Tradition).

---

<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:** [May 1, 2019, 5:18am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/how-to-perform-science-without-using-methodological-naturalism/5971/66 "2019-05-01T05:18:28Z")

</div>

> [@Jonathan\_Burke](#):
>
> The Christian philosopher Adelard of Bath wrote that superstitious amazement at observable phenomena was the result of considering an event while being ignorant of its true cause. When his nephew attributed the growth of plants from the earth to the direct involvement of God, Adelard corrected him and explained it was the result of a divinely ordained natural process.
> 
> “In response to his nephew’s query about why plants rise from the earth, and the nephew’s conviction that this should be attributed to “the wonderful operation of the wonderful divine will,” Adelard replies that it is certainly “the will of the Creator that plants should rise from the earth. But this thing is not without a reason,” **which prompts Adelard to offer a naturalistic explanation based on the four elements**.”

@Greg

So… we can see here that Christians were talking about God-guided “naturalism” centuries ago! I add “God-Guided” to the description because certainly Adelard of Bath, was devotely Christian, and understood that behind all natural things is the presence of God!

" Adelard studied with monks at the Benedictine Monastery at [Bath Cathedral](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_Cathedral)"

> **[Adelard of Bath](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adelard_of_Bath)**
>
> Adelard of Bath (Latin: Adelardus Bathensis; c. 1080? – c. 1142–1152?) was a 12th-century English natural philosopher. He is known both for his original works and for translating many important Greek scientific works of astrology, astronomy, philosophy, alchemy and mathematics into Latin from Arabic versions, which were then introduced to Western Europe. The oldest surviving Latin translation of Euclid's Elements is a 12th-century translation by Adelard from an Arabic version. He is kno Adela...

.  
.  
.

“When Adelard of Bath lived, King Richard the Lionhearted was yet to be born but the age of crusades had begun. At the end of Adelard’s long journeys, his step, at last, turned home to England. Here, he would become a teacher of the young Prince Henry – the later King Henry II. As tutor, Adelard discharged a debt he owed the father: for it was Henry’s father, King Henry I, who had paid for his travels. But like Bilbo, Adelard was no longer the person he had been.”

> **[Adelard of Bath: When English Kings Studied the Learning of the Arabs -...](https://beyondforeignness.org/3257)**
>
> Once upon a time English Kings studied the learning of the Arabs and Adelard of Bath, who travelled widely, is at the heart of the story.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Roy](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/roy/32/3799_2.png) [@Roy](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Roy)\
**Post date:** [May 1, 2019, 8:56am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/how-to-perform-science-without-using-methodological-naturalism/5971/67 "2019-05-01T08:56:30Z")

</div>

> [@Krauze](#):
>
> > [@Roy](#):
> >
> > But nothing is testable if undetectable gremlins might be rigging your experiments.
> 
> I’ve already said I agree with this.

No, you didn’t say that. You asked a question about students instead.

> [@](#):
>
> > [@Roy](#):
> >
> > You think undetectable experiment-rigging gremlins could be non-supernatural?
> 
> I have a hard time wrapping my head about undetectable gremlins, supernatural or natural. So let’s just say that I consider both propositions equally unlikely. Of course, this is a thought experiment, and the existance or non-existance of undetectable gremlins need not concern us, anymore than a discussion about the trolley problem needs to be concerned with who it is that goes around tying innocent people to traintracks.

But this is a discussion of methodological naturalism - which is the assumption that undetectable gremlins and other supernatural beings aren’t interfering. If you are now saying that undetectable gremlins are unlikely and need not be taken into consideration, you are applying the very concept you previously considered to be unnecessary.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Krauze](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/krauze/32/4737_2.png) [@Krauze](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Krauze)\
**Post date:** [May 1, 2019, 9:26am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/how-to-perform-science-without-using-methodological-naturalism/5971/68 "2019-05-01T09:26:47Z")

</div>

> [@Roy](#):
>
> You asked a question about students instead.

This is the exchange I’m referring to - note the emphasis:

> [@Roy](#):
>
> > Suppose a scientist ran an experiment and got some results. **Are those results valid if the possibility that undetectable gremlins might have been rigging the experiment is taken into account?**
> 
> **No** , but again, the demarcational heavy lifting is performed by the issue of testability. Whether the gremlins are natural or supernatural doesn’t enter into it.

> [@Roy](#):
>
> But this is a discussion of methodological naturalism - which is the assumption that undetectable gremlins and other supernatural beings aren’t interfering. If you are now saying that undetectable gremlins are unlikely and need not be taken into consideration, you are applying the very concept you previously considered to be unnecessary.

I don’t need methodological naturalism to reject a claim that undetectable supernatural gremlins are interfering with an experiment - I merely need to point out that the claim is untestable. The same way I can reject the claim that undetectable _natural_ gremlins are inferfering. Again, the demarcational heavy lifting is performed by the demand for testability, not by methodological naturalism.

---

<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:** [May 1, 2019, 10:49am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/how-to-perform-science-without-using-methodological-naturalism/5971/69 "2019-05-01T10:49:49Z")

</div>

> [@swamidass](#):
>
> Whether we like it or not, MN is part of science. It makes best sense to learn how to navigate with it, rather than rage against it.

I still don’t think I have received an answer to my initial question. Is the fact that MN is part of science a “like it or not” proposition? Or is it even possible for science to exist without it?

ie are you saying the equivalent of “A triangle has three sides, like it or not”? Or of “Donald Trump is President, like it or not”?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Roy](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/roy/32/3799_2.png) [@Roy](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Roy)\
**Post date:** [May 1, 2019, 11:10am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/how-to-perform-science-without-using-methodological-naturalism/5971/70 "2019-05-01T11:10:51Z")

</div>

> [@Krauze](#):
>
> I don’t need methodological naturalism to reject a claim that undetectable supernatural gremlins are interfering with an experiment - I merely need to point out that the claim is untestable.

Methodological naturalism is the assumption that supernatural beings are not affecting experiments.

You are saying that you don’t need to assume that supernatural gremlins are not interfering with experiments in order to reject the untestable idea that supernatural gremlins are interfering with experiments.

In effect, you are saying that methodological naturalism is unnecessary for methodological naturalism.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Greg](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/71c47a/32.png) [@Greg](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Greg)\
**Post date:** [May 1, 2019, 2:35pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/how-to-perform-science-without-using-methodological-naturalism/5971/71 "2019-05-01T14:35:08Z")

</div>

> [@gbrooks9](#):
>
> So… we can see here that Christians were talking about God-guided “naturalism” centuries ago! I add “God-Guided” to the description because certainly Adelard of Bath, was devotely Christian, and understood that behind all natural things is the presence of God!
> 
> " Adelard studied with monks at the Benedictine Monastery at [Bath Cathedral](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_Cathedral)"

God and naturalism are like oil and water. God transcends the nature. He is, by definition, supernatural. Of course God is sovereign over nature. He established the earth with created kinds to adapt. He can control storms by speaking. He can allow nature to function without His interaction within. If you or another centuries ago tells me that the created order was caused by God as He embodies nature thereby claiming credit for its creation as one who is sort of half God and half nature, then you believe a different God than the one in the Bible. Anything that is a result of the natural is Gods because God created nature. But God does not embody nature in a way that randomness and mutation and chance and the strife of survival of the fitest and the need for lots of time are the fabric of His being as needed and relied upon in His creative purposes.

Think about this…every single one of the 5 ideas above are exactly opposite from the God of Scripture. When God wants something created, He speaks it right now. God is a planner and is never random. God does not make things that malfunction. Cancer is a mutation caused by the fall of man not by God who calls creation “good” And God never favors the overpowering oppressive to survive, but rather cares for the oppressed, lonely, weak who in their weakness humble themselves before Him for forgiveness where eternity awaits them, permanent removal from a sin stained world!

Everything you are saying here seems opposite of the character of the God of Scripture.

---

<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:** [May 1, 2019, 4:35pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/how-to-perform-science-without-using-methodological-naturalism/5971/72 "2019-05-01T16:35:47Z")

</div>

> [@Greg](#):
>
> God and naturalism are like oil and water. God transcends the nature. He is, by definition, supernatural.

I think that is just a traditional view, and not something necessarily entailed by the concept of a god. Pantheism, for example, seems to completely dispense with the distinction between natural/supernatural.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Greg](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/71c47a/32.png) [@Greg](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Greg)\
**Post date:** [May 1, 2019, 5:11pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/how-to-perform-science-without-using-methodological-naturalism/5971/73 "2019-05-01T17:11:32Z")

</div>

> [@Faizal\_Ali](#):
>
> think that is just a traditional view, and not something necessarily entailed by the concept of a god. Pantheism, for example, seems to completely dispense with the distinction between natural/supernatural.

When i speak of God, i mean the one in Scripture

---

<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:** [May 1, 2019, 5:22pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/how-to-perform-science-without-using-methodological-naturalism/5971/74 "2019-05-01T17:22:42Z")

</div>

> [@swamidass](#):
>
> Whether we like it or not, MN is part of science. It makes best sense to learn how to navigate with it, rather than rage against it.

I can understand as a scientist it would be somewhat unnecessary to make an issue of it since all one has to do is recognize its original intention and stay within those bounds. From my perspective though, I would say that the main reason as a scientist to point out its problems is to curtail the considerable amount of wasted time and money spent on pursuing nonsensical ideas.

However as a layperson, (realizing the possibility that I may be misinformed about this) from what I can gather, it has a negative effect on the general public by giving them the impression that certain “scientific theories” are established facts when, as I understand it, that’s just not the case. Correct me if I’m wrong, but though inductive inferences can be said to be pretty certain, they are still not as certain as conclusions that have been empirically verified through direct empirical investigation.

But abductive inferences are based on incomplete indirect empirical evidence where there are still a lot of unknowns and the inferences have not been and cannot be verified by direct empirical evidence since the subjects of the inferences are by definition beyond direct empirical investigation. And whether out of ignorance or not, this subtle distinction, I contend, is exploited by the media as well as some scientists that are public figures.

Whether intentional or not, this I think is misleading and should be pointed out so the general public is aware of this so they can be more informed of what the difference is between a theory that has been confirmed through direct empirical evidence, and a theory that has not been, and cannot be confirmed because it is beyond direct empirical investigation.

I’m not saying that we cannot have confidence in abductive reasoning. It’s just that I feel the distinction between the amount of certainty between what can be confirmed and what has to rely on not so certain inferences should be pointed out and made clear to the public. And the practice of equating the certainty level, by the media and a considerable amount of scientists themselves, of a theory based on abductive reasoning and one that has direct empirical confirmation should be discouraged.

---

<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:** [May 1, 2019, 5:27pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/how-to-perform-science-without-using-methodological-naturalism/5971/75 "2019-05-01T17:27:04Z")

</div>

> [@Jim](#):
>
> However as a layperson, (realizing the possibility that I may be misinformed about this) from what I can gather, it has a negative effect on the general public by giving them the impression that certain “scientific theories” are established facts when, as I understand it, that’s just not the case.

You’re misinformed.

---

<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:** [May 1, 2019, 5:30pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/how-to-perform-science-without-using-methodological-naturalism/5971/76 "2019-05-01T17:30:10Z")

</div>

> [@Jim](#):
>
> > Whether we like it or not, MN is part of science. It makes best sense to learn how to navigate with it, rather than rage against it.
> 
> I can understand as a scientist it would be somewhat unnecessary to make an issue of it since all one has to do is recognize its original intention and stay within those bounds. From my perspective though, I would say that the main reason as a scientist to point out its problems is to curtail the considerable amount of wasted time and money spent on pursuing nonsensical ideas.

That sounds correct. It also seems to apply to the layperson too. Perhaps what is needed is a better grasp of the limits of science, what it can and cannot tell us.

---

<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:** [May 1, 2019, 6:04pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/how-to-perform-science-without-using-methodological-naturalism/5971/77 "2019-05-01T18:04:34Z")

</div>

> [@Greg](#):
>
> When i speak of God, i mean the one in Scripture

There are other forms of Scripture besides the one you adhere to.

---

<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:** [May 1, 2019, 6:08pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/how-to-perform-science-without-using-methodological-naturalism/5971/78 "2019-05-01T18:08:00Z")

</div>

> [@swamidass](#):
>
> Perhaps what is needed is a better grasp of the limits of science, what it can and cannot tell us.

We have no way of knowing what those limits might be, so best not to set them up from the outset.

I think the greater need is for people to not have exaggerated ideas of what can be known _without_ science.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Greg](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/71c47a/32.png) [@Greg](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Greg)\
**Post date:** [May 1, 2019, 7:00pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/how-to-perform-science-without-using-methodological-naturalism/5971/79 "2019-05-01T19:00:29Z")

</div>

> [@Faizal\_Ali](#):
>
> There are other forms of Scripture besides the one you adhere to.

Thanks

---

<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:** [May 1, 2019, 7:01pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/how-to-perform-science-without-using-methodological-naturalism/5971/80 "2019-05-01T19:01:17Z")

</div>

> [@swamidass](#):
>
> > [@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.

Fair enough. But I think you need to take into account that in the last 100 years the research capabilities have increased exponentially as compared to the previous 2-300 years.

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

> [@swamidass](#):
>
> Totally false. That is just not how science works.

That seems a bit odd. Seems to me you said elsewhere that science can and does admit that there is no known natural cause when such is the case? Are you saying science cannot tentatively conclude that? If so I’m still a bit baffled. What’s the difference between admitting something and concluding something?

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

> [@swamidass](#):
>
> Absolutely not.

Well, I can kind of see that technically science wouldn’t be able to say such. But I don’t see any reason that it would affect the scientific endeavor to admit that a metaphysical explanation might be in order if that’s the best option available at the moment.

> [@swamidass](#):
>
> 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.

Well I’m not sure, but maybe I’m hoping for a little more humility in recognizing limits and a bit less rigidity in how it operates? Also to recognize that reasoning doesn’t work any differently outside of science than it does inside, and to recognize when something is unreasonable even if it’s scientists who are proposing it.

[Previous page](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/how-to-perform-science-without-using-methodological-naturalism/5971.md?page=3)

[Next page](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/how-to-perform-science-without-using-methodological-naturalism/5971.md?page=5)