Racism and Methodological Naturalism

No, they are just part of methodological naturalism. There is nothing supernatural about math, and science regularly uses it.

1 Like

There’s nothing that could not be believed on faith. Everyone can just assert that their beliefs are supported by faith. Faith is not reliable source of truth since it can be invoked as the bedrock for any belief or truth claim.

You could just as well assert that racism is right and believe it on faith, as you could assert that racism is wrong and believe it on faith.

No, because then it would not be a faith position, it would be a belief based on the justification, rather than just faith.

2 Likes

On the subject of what can be known, it is entirely possible (in the sense of being logically conceivable) that there are true propositions that cannot be demonstrated to be true by any system of logic or theory of knowledge.

To say that MN is the best, or even the only way we have of discovering what is true or not true, is not to say that all truthes can be discovered by MN. It could be that MN is the only way of discovering what is true, but there are some truthes that cannot be discovered.

The wrongness of racism could be an undiscoverable truth, but faith would not solve the problem, as you would not be able to argue that it’s contradiction was false. That’s the problem with faith, it can have no justification, and as such it’s negation is equally valid if faith is taken to be good justification for anything.

4 Likes

Sounds like a category error. One can believe racism is wrong but doesn’t one reach into metaphysics to make such value judgments? Which universal metaphysical principles can we definitively determine? There some principles we accept almost universally. We say we ‘know’ these are ‘true’ but it seems to involve a different sort of reasoning and criteria that includes more subjectively determined axioms and weights. Which just boils down to: I’m not sure there is a “calculus of ethics”.

1 Like

I would say that we don’t use methodological naturalism to determine human worth. Instead, we use a subjective morality that is derived from empathy and reason. Channeling Hume, science can only tell us how things are. Science can not tell us how things ought to be.

2 Likes

That is consistent with MN. What you describe does not require accepting the existence of anything “supernatural.”

People here seem to be conflating MN and science. They are not the same thing.

1 Like

Before I make any more of my case, I’d be curious how @Jonathan_Burke and @pevaquark respond.

But it does require subjectivity which does not fit into MN.

1 Like

It’s not really my thing.

1 Like

Of course it does.

How so? In all of my training and experiences in the sciences we use objective, empirical measurements in our research.

Again, I am talking about MN, not science. We do not need to believe in the “supernatural” to account for subjectivity.

What about the methodology side of MN? Don’t you need empirical and objective observations in MN?

1 Like

Not as I understand it. The term “methodological” is here just a qualifier to distinguish it from philosophical or metaphysical naturalism i.e. to make clear that one is not taking a ontological position that excludes the supernatural, but only doing so for the practical purpose of employing a particular method.

1 Like

What is that particular method?

It can be whatever. If you are making a cake, and you don’t expect fairies or angels to be a part of the process, you are using MN in baking.

Everything I read says that MN is synonymous with the scientific method. Do you know of anyone who describes MN as being different from the scientific method?

I’ve never read that. I’ve always seen it described as on attribute or feature of the scientific method. Not as the scientific method.

1 Like

I would be interested in any references you have describing the difference between MN and the scientific method.

1 Like

26 posts were split to a new topic: Faith in science and faith in religion