Maarten Boudry on Methodological Naturalism

[swamidass (S. Joshua Swamidass)]

@T.j_Runyon

Here’s a paper by Maarten Boudry that made me realize the standard methodological naturalism is false:

So, let’s first talk about who Maarten Boudry is. He is a philosopher and a prominent atheist. Maybe even @Patrick knows him personally? (if so, invite him to come talk about this).

Maarten Boudry

What he is doing here, is try to lay the groundwork so that he can proclaim that science has ruled out God.

@T.j_Runyon

Now I think we should prefer natural explanations and exhaust all natural possibilities before considering supernatural ones. Because an observation is more likely to have a natural explanation than a supernatural one. This is true even if God exists. Natural explanations have a terrific track record and have replaced supernatural ones numerous times. Supernatural explanations have a poor track record. I think science only considering natural explanations just cuts off potential paths to knowledge and that’s not a good thing.

I could not disagree more.

Science does not have capacity (even without MN) to discern supernatural questions, even if we get rid of MN (as Boudry is proposing). The reason is precisely you final point:

The question then becomes when are we sure we have exhausted all natural possibilities?

I am a practicing scientist, working and engaging with leading scientists every day. I cannot envision how we could possibly know that we have “exhausted” all natural possibilities. We could certainly exhaust our creativity. We could exhaust our knowledge. Without entering into science fiction, how could any one possibly “exhaust” natural possibilities?

Such a counter-factual requires either God-like knowledge of nature, or profound blindness to the fact we do not have God-like knowledge of nature. It is something only a philosopher could propose with a straight face. I cannot plausibly imagine constructing that type of confidence about the natural world. It is stunningly implausible hubris.

I was just at an NIH review committee. I’m imagining a fictional R01 being discussed, where Aim 1 is “rule out all natural possibilities;” Aim 2 is “consider other possibilities.” I can’t even imagine what the approach would be, and would struggle to discuss it with out breaking into laughter. There is no process I know of or can imagine for accomplishing Aim 1. It is an absurd claim, that no real scientist would ever consider putting before their peers.

---

@T.j_Runyon, this is not directed at you personally, and I hope you do not take this with offense. I think, however, you just got cat-fished. If you think I’m wrong, how exactly would you propose “ruling out all natural possibilities?” It sounds like a paraphrase of Sherlock Holmes more than anything I’ve seen in science.