I guess I’m going to have to repeat this often on the forum since I keep getting asked this question. I’ll see if I can make myself clear. There’s a distinction that I think needs to be addressed about looking extensively for a “reasonable” natural cause and looking extensively for “any imaginable possible” natural cause. When scientists start crossing the boundary between a reasonable explanation into explanations that have no basis in reality, I think someone in the community should be able to reign them in and say, “Hey, this is pretty wild. Maybe you’re going a little overboard.”
However, it seems like with MN the attitude is “We have to look for a natural cause regardless of the cost because we “know” there is one. And no matter how crazy it may seem, we have to explore every imaginable possibility even if it’s way beyond reason.” Does that make sense?
So no, I’m not wanting to make scientists stop exploring natural explanations even if there’s good reason to suspect there isn’t any. I just think they need to distinguish between reasonable and unreasonable explanations and at the same time be “open” to the fact that there may be no natural explanation, especially when the more and more science discovers, that is where the evidence is leading. That I think would temper their investigations in a way that makes sense, rather than what I would consider, chasing after fairytale possibilities that will end up going nowhere which seems to be increasingly the case.
Obviously if there is a natural explanation that reasonably and sufficiently explains a phenomenon we wouldn’t go looking for a metaphysical cause. But what I’m saying is that when there doesn’t seem to be any natural explanation, and after years of investigation the evidence keeps suggesting that there isn’t one, that is justification for looking at explanations outside of the natural realm. I don’t see any problem with that reasoning. Do you? If so please explain.