@Rumraket be nice to our guest @jim. Your points are good, but drop the insults. Seriously.
1 Like
Before MN … it was still not Alchemy. That was my point.
So when did MN become the established term?
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.
1 Like
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.
2 Likes
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 causes. 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.
3 Likes
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"
.
.
.
“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.”
No, you didn’t say that. You asked a question about students instead.
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.
1 Like
This is the exchange I’m referring to - note the emphasis:
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.
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”?
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.
1 Like
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.
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.
When i speak of God, i mean the one in Scripture
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.
You’re misinformed.
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.
There are other forms of Scripture besides the one you adhere to.
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.
Thanks
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.
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?
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.
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.
1 Like