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?
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.
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.
I would be interested in any references you have describing the difference between MN and the scientific method.
26 posts were split to a new topic: Faith in science and faith in religion