What the success of methodological naturalism suggests

[Lógos Sokratikós]

The success of methodological naturalism suggests that, as far as we know at this point in time, ontological naturalism is true.

Let me put it this way:
We are in the dark, pitch black dark, driving thorugh the city. All we can see is within the car. We have a map and we guess this map corresponds with this city. Suppose we trust this map, hit the gas, drive through the city, making turns, stops and whatever. Coincidentally, every turn is correct, every stop lifesaving and we even get to a gas station wherever the map says there is one.

You would figure, this map is the map of the city we're in.

This is the story of methodological naturalism, the working hypothesis of science. It works, and it has worked all the way from the lousy and plague-infested middle ages to this silicon-laden day.

Isn't it time to consider the map we've been using for all this time *the* map of the territory we're driving on?

Welcome to the city of Ontological Naturalism.
Population: N-thousand research programs and counting.

[figuer]

The success of methodological naturalism suggests that, as far as we know at this point in time, ontological naturalism is true.Do not confuse the paint brush with the painter. Methodological naturalism is a system by which the mechanics of reality are explored, deciphered and exploited. Ontological naturalism is a metaphysical proposition. It can be observed historically that metaphysical straight jackets can harm scientific inquiry. Leave methodological naturalism alone...

[WCH]

I don't like the analogy, mainly because science is a way of making the map, not a map itself (methodology, not content), and naturalism is a completely meaningless and empty word.

and plus, we've had plenty of wrong turns, detours and accidents. Unforseen birth defects from pills for morning sickness, eugenics, pollution, etc. What's great about science is that it's good at correcting its course once it's realised that the course is wrong.

Or are you really suggesting that we haven't had a single problem of any sort since the Enlightenment?

[Lógos Sokratikós]

The success of methodological naturalism suggests that, as far as we know at this point in time, ontological naturalism is true.Do not confuse the paint brush with the painter. Methodological naturalism is a system by which the mechanics of reality are explored, deciphered and exploited. Ontological naturalism is a metaphysical proposition. It can be observed historically that metaphysical straight jackets can harm scientific inquiry. Leave methodological naturalism alone...

Really, how could it if they are isomorphic? It's the difference between "Let's suppose we're a couple" and "By Jove, MaryAnne! Let's stop pretending! After 30 years we're a goddam couple for goodness sake!"

[Lógos Sokratikós]

Let me put it this way, my Antillean friend. What's the difference between playing with Daddy Yankee and declaring yourself a reguetonero?


--------------------------
For non-latinos:
Daddy Yankee - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daddy_Yankee
Reguetón - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reggaeton

[figuer]

Let me put it this way, my Antillean friend. What's the difference between playing with Daddy Yankee and declaring yourself a reguetonero?My Centralian friend...to mention such abominable noise is inappropriate in decent conversation (may the spirit of Motzart protect me!!)...furthermore the analogy is incorrect...many practitioners of methodological naturalism were/are not ontological naturalists.

[Deleet]

I agree with the OP. Keith Augustine argued something similar in his paper "A defense of naturalism"
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/keith_augustine/thesis.html


(P1) If after an intensive search of the natural world scientists and historians have found no uncontroversial evidence for likely candidates for a supernatural event then naturalism is probably true.
(P2) After an intensive search of the natural world scientists and historians have found no uncontroversial evidence for likely candidates for a supernatural event.
(C) Therefore, naturalism is probably true.

[beausoleil]

The success of methodological naturalism suggests that, as far as we know at this point in time, ontological naturalism is true.

Let me put it this way:
We are in the dark, pitch black dark, driving thorugh the city. All we can see is within the car. We have a map and we guess this map corresponds with this city. Suppose we trust this map, hit the gas, drive through the city, making turns, stops and whatever. Coincidentally, every turn is correct, every stop lifesaving and we even get to a gas station wherever the map says there is one.

You would figure, this map is the map of the city we're in.


No, you would figure that the map accurately represents some of the city. Whether there are bits of the city not represented by the map - roads not on the map, for instance - would be moot.

[figuer]

No, you would figure that the map accurately represents some of the city. Whether there are bits of the city not represented by the map...Actually, the map can never represent "the city" accurately...it is an abstraction...a tool. It does not include the bricks in the buildings, nor the passing pedestrian or the urinating dog...it does not include the road signs or the sunshine or the rain...the ambulance siren or the gun shot...finally, it does not include the man using the map, or the map itself...all of which are part of the city. And the moral of the story is: Mapping the city is an infinite task that can not be completed satisfactorily, due to the fact that the city is in eternal flux...thus the error in using methodological naturalism to justify conclusive metaphysical claims.

[WCH]

(P1) If after an intensive search of the natural world scientists and historians have found no uncontroversial evidence for likely candidates for a supernatural event then naturalism is probably true.
(P2) After an intensive search of the natural world scientists and historians have found no uncontroversial evidence for likely candidates for a supernatural event.
(C) Therefore, naturalism is probably true.Duh. Naturalism is tautological. If something exists, it's natural. Take electricity for example -- before we understood it, it would've been considered magical. A skeptic at the time might have said something like "no supernatural nonsense like electricity exists, only the natural world is real!" and then once it was proven, the position was changed to "it's a natural force."

Circular much?

Christ. Naturalists are as bad as Christians sometimes.

[Simen]

Circular much?

Christ. Naturalists are as bad as Christians sometimes.

If magical powers, gods, metaphysical "mind-stuff", etc., were found to exist, then naturalism would be worthless. I don't doubt that some would call them natural phenomena and move on, but this kind of discovery would call for such a radical reformulation of our view of the world that I think we can properly say naturalism would be falsified and transcended.

But you're right, it's very hard to define what's natural and what's supernatural, outside of the obvious ones (gods versus quarks).

[figuer]

If magical powers, gods, metaphysical "mind-stuff", etc., were found to exist, then naturalism would be worthless. I don't doubt that some would call them natural phenomena and move on, but this kind of discovery would call for such a radical reformulation of our view of the world that I think we can properly say naturalism would be falsified and transcended.
As per WCH: Christ. Naturalists are as bad as Christians sometimes.

[Simen]

Why? What's so bad, exactly?

[figuer]

Why? What's so bad, exactly?You insist in establishing a distinction between known nature and unknown nature...as if the mere accident that humans are presently ignorant of something renders it 'unnatural' or 'supernatural'. If a 'god' exist, and the workings of nature depend on its existence, then such an entity is a part of the natural order. That this would entail a revision of present theory or methodology is quite irrelevant. It would still be 'naturalism', just of a different kind.

[beausoleil]

No, you would figure that the map accurately represents some of the city. Whether there are bits of the city not represented by the map...Actually, the map can never represent "the city" accurately...it is an abstraction...a tool. It does not include the bricks in the buildings, nor the passing pedestrian or the urinating dog...it does not include the road signs or the sunshine or the rain...the ambulance siren or the gun shot...finally, it does not include the man using the map, or the map itself...all of which are part of the city. And the moral of the story is: Mapping the city is an infinite task that can not be completed satisfactorily, due to the fact that the city is in eternal flux...thus the error in using methodological naturalism to justify conclusive metaphysical claims.

Which is roughly what I said, but at more length, and for some reason phrased as if it is correcting me.

:)

[judge]

I agree with the OP. Keith Augustine argued something similar in his paper "A defense of naturalism"
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/keith_augustine/thesis.html


(P1) If after an intensive search of the natural world scientists and historians have found no uncontroversial evidence for likely candidates for a supernatural event then naturalism is probably true.
(P2) After an intensive search of the natural world scientists and historians have found no uncontroversial evidence for likely candidates for a supernatural event.
(C) Therefore, naturalism is probably true.


But there are, are there not, scientists and historians who think supernatural things do exist.


Isn't is merely that supernatural things are by definition, not subject to methodological naturalism.
For me, to suggest the supernatural does not exist because it wont be subject to MN, is like saying "what my net doesn't catch isn't a fish".

[figuer]

Which is roughly what I said, but at more length, and for some reason phrased as if it is correcting me. :):wave: No intention of seeming to be correcting you..I was just continuing your line of thought.

[Lógos Sokratikós]

Let me put it this way, my Antillean friend. What's the difference between playing with Daddy Yankee and declaring yourself a reguetonero?My Centralian friend...to mention such abominable noise is inappropriate in decent conversation (may the spirit of Motzart protect me!!)...furthermore the analogy is incorrect...many practitioners of methodological naturalism were/are not ontological naturalists.

Irrelevant. Those methodological naturalists were in denial or weren't sure yet. God's maps do not help to get through the city of the universe, that's for sure. "Let's suppose the universe runs on its own, no matter what the vicar says. No matter how mysterious, this new region where we set foot, no matter where it is, God isn't a factor, wherever it is, God isn't there, you can bet your lunch to it" is a working hypothesis that has worked very well thank you. After 400 years, why would you say it's not corroborated?

If there is one model that has stood since Copernicus, it's hypothetical godlessness. If you play with Daddy Yankee but you say you don't do reguetón, that's fine but it is not true. A ti si te gusta la gasolina. :D *


-----------------------
* For those of you who don't understand the cultural analogy, you can read it as: If you play with Aerosmith, but you say you don't do rock, that's fine but it's not true. You are "living on the edge"!

[figuer]

Those methodological naturalists were in denial.In denial of what? If anything the history of methodological naturalism (empirical science), teaches that subscribing to a particular ontology/metaphysics is not only unnecessary but counterproductive.

A ti si te gusta la gasolina. :DQue asco. ¿Donde está el emoticon vomitivo cuando lo necesito? (Aunque al Daddy si me lo beberia...si se calla la boca).

[Lógos Sokratikós]

I don't like the analogy, mainly because science is a way of making the map, not a map itself (methodology, not content), and naturalism is a completely meaningless and empty word.

and plus, we've had plenty of wrong turns, detours and accidents. Unforseen birth defects from pills for morning sickness, eugenics, pollution, etc. What's great about science is that it's good at correcting its course once it's realised that the course is wrong.

Or are you really suggesting that we haven't had a single problem of any sort since the Enlightenment?

Of all the failed hypotheses, of all the dead ends, the one hypothesis that hasn't failed (as I said on my post right above) that's godlessness. You can bet your lunch, no matter what new area of research you're at, God will not be a factor, nor spirits, nor jinn, nor flying boddhisatvas. And we've been doing it for 400 hundred years, and every time it results true. So curious, right?

We might find God, devils or jinn some 300 years from now, but right now, 2008, and everything between 2008 and 1610, supernaturalism is as good a bet as the moon turning cubical tonight.

[figuer]

If there is one model that has stood since Copernicus, it's hypothetical godlessness.
1. How is Copernicus model godless?

2. What's god has to do with it?* (Not subscribing to Ontological Naturalism I mean).

*Yes...to be read a la Tina...as you are so musical in this thread.

[Lógos Sokratikós]

If there is one model that has stood since Copernicus, it's hypothetical godlessness.
1. How is Copernicus model godless?

2. What's god has to do with it?* (Not subscribing to Ontological Naturalism I mean).

*Yes...to be read a la Tina...as you are so musical in this thread.

How is it godless? The same way a donut is. There are no gods in the recipe.

Of course, speghetti is another issue. Blessed be His Noodly Appendage.

[figuer]

Godlessness/godliness are irrelevant in Copernicus...you are establishing a rather unsound discourse...naturalism should not deal with the concept god, either pro or con (particular mythologies are another matter). God/no God is simply irrelevant to the scientific methodology...thus ontology is to be avoided as an unnecesary appendage.

[faithlessgod]

Naturalism (my physicalist version): All there is natural. Everything including us is either the product of a natural process, is a natural process or some combination of the two. A natural process is a combination of matter-energy in space-time.

Ontological (Metaphysical) Naturalism (ON): Any proposed process that cannot, in fact, be reduced to a combination of matter-energy in space-time does not exist. (The "in fact" emphasis this is an ontological not epistemological position)

Epistemological (Methodological) Naturalism (EN): Seeks processes that can, in principle, be reduced to a combination of matter-energy in space-time.

Maps and Territory: EN itself has been the most successful map generating" process we have to date. The products of this are maps and these are better than any other maps generated by any other alternative epistemic inquiry.

Deflationary Metaphysics: My view is based on deflationary metaphysics, to chose the minimum metaphysics - if one is needed at all - would be to chose ON, the one most likely to be correct and least likely to be false given the evidence - the success of EN - to date. This is my default position wrt to my worldview.

One can use EN without endorsing ON. There is no necessary connection.

Can EN refute ON as I stated it? Yes it could discover, say, a new force that is more than, in principle, a combination of matter-energy in space-time. Just because EN seeks such a solution does not mean it is bound to only consider that given all the evidence, but only if the evidence says otherwise. The evidence could prove otherwise and then my ON would be refuted. That would not be an to me issue since my ON is only provisional and a posteriori and so updateable in the light of new evidence however I regard this as highly unlikely given the evidence to date. I would find this tremendously exciting and interesting if it did occur but that is not a reason not to hold ON.

[Lógos Sokratikós]

Godlessness/godliness are irrelevant in Copernicus...you are establishing a rather unsound discourse...naturalism should not deal with the concept god, either pro or con (particular mythologies are another matter). God/no God is simply irrelevant to the scientific methodology...thus ontology is to be avoided as an unnecesary appendage.

Question: Is there a God in copernicus' theory? Yes or no?
There is not, that's what I mean. I don't know what it means to you, but if you're discussing what I meant, that's it. Just like there's "electricitylessness" in Newton's Universal Laws of Gravitation, there's godlessness in Copenicus' system −that's what I meant. I didn't say "positive atheism", I just said "godlessness", the lack of God as a factor. There aren't electrons, magnetism or bubble gum in it either.

[Lógos Sokratikós]

One can use EN without endorsing ON. There is no necessary connection.


Right. Just like you can be a physicist and believe in the Greek pantheon.

There's an issue with the OP. Can we prove a universal negative? It seems as if the OP is upholding atheism's universal negative, but that's not the case. Science (and our daily lives) has a scenario, which we call "nature". In no part of nature (the verifiable range of existence) is there a God as a factor. It's been so for 400 years. Thousands of research projects have been performed pretending there is no supernatural factors and this working hypothesis has shown right every time. EVERY time. The scenario of our lives is naturalistic. Nature has no jinn, no demons and no angels. This world is not demon haunted, to paraphrase Carl Sagan. Or is it?


Can EN refute ON as I stated it? Yes it could discover, say, a new force that is more than, in principle, a combination of matter-energy in space-time. Just because EN seeks such a solution does not mean it is bound to only consider that given all the evidence, but only if the evidence says otherwise. The evidence could prove otherwise and then my ON would be refuted. That would not be an to me issue since my ON is only provisional and a posteriori and so updateable in the light of new evidence however I regard this as highly unlikely given the evidence to date. I would find this tremendously exciting and interesting if it did occur but that is not a reason not to hold ON.

Didn't quite get this. If you believe it's important, you might want to explain it. If not, let it be.

[breezanne]

The success of methodological naturalism suggests that when we carefully observe observables, we learn a great deal about the behavior of observables.

[figuer]

Right. Just like you can be a physicist and believe in the Greek pantheon. You are basing this whole thread on false analogies. You can be a physicist and not believe or disbelief anything.

[Lógos Sokratikós]

The success of methodological naturalism suggests that when we carefully observe observables, we learn a great deal about the behavior of observables.

Yeah, in science we test hypotheses, but this doesn't tell us anything about the world. :rolleyes:

[Lógos Sokratikós]

Right. Just like you can be a physicist and believe in the Greek pantheon. You are basing this whole thread on false analogies. You can be a physicist and not believe or disbelief anything.

You are not fairly representing what I am saying.

[figuer]

You are not fairly representing what I am saying.No I am not. Your claim is quite clearly that scientist are obliged to have a certain belief system.

[Lógos Sokratikós]

You are not fairly representing what I am saying.No I am not. Your claim is quite clearly that scientist are obliged to have a certain belief system.

No, it is not. I've said time and time agains on this very thread that you can believe in voudoun, God or anything like it and be a scientist. That isn't the point. You're derailing. The subject of the thread is the consequence of the spectacular success of methodological naturalism and its implications. The subject is epistemological.

[Lógos Sokratikós]

Reiteration for clarity:

The OP proposes that working "as if" the world was naturalistic (nothing supernatural or præternatural occurs in the verifiable world) for four hundred years and thousands of successful research programs, implies that, as far as we can verify, in this world we live in, only natural occurrences, not supernatural ones, can account for occurrences.

[breezanne]

Fine, then mental minds (and all conceptions within them) qualify as "natural." Ideas must be admitted as part of nature.

[Lógos Sokratikós]

Fine, then mental minds (and all conceptions within them) qualify as "natural." Ideas must be admitted as part of nature.

Absolutely.

[figuer]

Seems to me Logos you just claimed to your thread being about nothing at all.

[Lógos Sokratikós]

[wrong thread]

[Lógos Sokratikós]

Seems to me Logos you just claimed to your thread being about nothing at all.

Yes, the OP is blank and we've had several people discussing it because they hallucinated. It appears IIDB can send LSD through the web through our screens!

[WCH]

Lógos, your blindness is pitiable.

[Lógos Sokratikós]

Lógos, your blindness is pitiable.

And your ad homnem is not. It is actually on the spot and what the discussion requires at this point. :D

[premjan]

The only reason you would indulge in methodological naturalism is that you suspect ontological naturalism to be mostly the case. Whether it is absolutely the case is another matter however.

[WCH]

Lógos, your blindness is pitiable.

And your ad homnem is not. It is actually on the spot and what the discussion requires at this point. :DAt this point it's all that's really left to be said. Your position is entirely circular, and that's been pointed out repeatedly, yet you keep insisting that it's true -- as if that means anything; it isn't "not true," it's just meaningless. Maybe eventually you'll figure this out for yourself, but obviously having it pointed out to you isn't working.

[premjan]

Basically methodological naturalism is consistent with the existence of God as well as ontological naturalism. In fact the God hypothesis is less restrictive than methodological naturalism, depending on the precise nature of the God.

[kaugust]

Duh. Naturalism is tautological. If something exists, it's natural.


Actually, the argument I presented was of the valid logical form called modus ponens. The question is whether it is sound. And it is certainly not circular, since I define a "likely candidate for a supernatural event" and give examples of such candidates which, if actually found in nature, would show that naturalism is more likely than not to be false. The question is why uncontroversial examples of such candidates are nowhere to be found if naturalism is false; naturalism predicts that uncontroversial examples of such candidates will not be found, such that if they were found, naturalism would be falsified in the sense of being shown to be more likely to be false than true.


Circular much?

Christ. Naturalists are as bad as Christians sometimes.

Not circular at all, since your statement "If something exists, it's natural" is a straw man caricature of what most naturalists actually believe. For evidence of what naturalists actually believe, see the section of Richard Carrier's review of Michael Rea's The World Without Design titled "A Brief Ethnography of Contemporary Naturalism":

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/rea.html

Perhaps your insistence that naturalism must mean "everything that exists is natural" is a presupposition which you must cling to at all costs lest you be incapable of defeating any more defensible version of metaphysical naturalism, since you seem unwilling to engage any other version of it.

[figuer]

Yes, the OP is blank and we've had several people discussing it because they hallucinated. The OP is not blank...but your conceptual contradictions throughout the thread render your point empty of meaning.

[SwoleMan]

The OP is not blank...but your conceptual contradictions throughout the thread render your point empty of meaning

Contradictions? Empty of meaning? Uhm, no. I have no trouble at all following Lógos Sokratikós's argument, and I think it's a fairly good one.

[figuer]

Contradictions? Empty of meaning? Uhm, no. .
The following Logo quotes show contradiction:The success of methodological naturalism suggests that, as far as we know at this point in time, ontological naturalism is true.
The subject of the thread is the consequence of the spectacular success of methodological naturalism and its implications. The subject is epistemological.First the theme is ontological... later it is epistemological.If there is one model that has stood since Copernicus, it's hypothetical godlessness.I've said time and time agains on this very thread that you can believe in voudoun, God or anything like it and be a scientist.First he emphasises that science is godless, later that science is compatible with god believe.

Other contradictions are present throughout.

[untermensche]

To say all is "natural" is useful but it doesn't tell us what anything is.

What is an electron? Why does it move? What is charge? Why is there "the natural" as opposed to nothing?

[kaugust]

Why is there "the natural" as opposed to nothing?

Suppose there is a God who created nature and existed before nature did. Then the question becomes "Why was there 'God' as opposed to nothing at all?"

In other word, the sort of question you ask remains whatever your views on how nature got here.

[untermensche]

Why is there "the natural" as opposed to nothing?

Suppose there is a God who created nature and existed before nature did. Then the question becomes "Why was there 'God' as opposed to nothing at all?"

In other word, the sort of question you ask remains whatever your views on how nature got here.
God is a cheap answer. A pretend answer.

But the question remains.

[WCH]

Perhaps your insistence that naturalism must mean "everything that exists is natural" is a presupposition which you must cling to at all costs lest you be incapable of defeating any more defensible version of metaphysical naturalism, since you seem unwilling to engage any other version of it.Why would I want to "engage" any other version of it? Who said I even disagree? :huh:

It's just the people dumb enough to say that nothing thought to be magical can exist because it's supernatural that bother me; you can define anything you want as natural, so as soon as it gets proven to be real, the goalposts get moved. If ghosts or spirits existed (I don't think they do), they would be natural entities that simply work in different ways than we do and follow physical principles, but not necessarily the same physical principles -- just because we haven't explained something yet doesn't mean it can't be explained. And, as I said, I think most of the stuff we consider to be supernatural to be a load of horseshit -- it's simply the category of "supernatural" that I object to, as I consider it to be devoid of meaning. Nothing is supernatural, and nothing can be supernatural, so why the hell would you take failure to find anything supernatural to mean anything?

Alternatively, if "supernatural" applies more broadly to things which are not obviously made up of matter in the way that we're normally used to thinking about it, naturalism is the horseshit: electricity and light throw it right out the window.

Explain to me the way in which the discovery of electricity, or our inability to explain how photons actually work, is not proof of something magical.

The whole thing is just a huge false dichotomy, caused by atheists who are extremely bitter about religion and like to lord over the religionists the success of scientific method. But at what point does the false distinction between "natural" and "supernatural" come into play? Science is for testing observable phenomena. That has nothing to do with this idea of "natural" and "supernatural" -- it simply tests what is. If something "supernatural" (such as electricity) is observable and testable, we can do science on it, explain why it exists, and figure out what we can do with it. So why maintain the false distinction? Saying gods "aren't" is a lot more meaningful than saying they're "supernatural."

[figuer]

My opposition to the OP's suggestion has nothing to do with god. I just consider that metaphysical positions are unnecessary.

[Lógos Sokratikós]

First he emphasises that science is godless, later that science is compatible with god believe.


You rephrase to much, which creates strawmen. Let me explain, what I said was scientific theories don't have gods (or spirits or any other præternaturalistic concept) as explanatory constructs, although scientists in their free time can and have entertained super- and præternaturalistic beliefs. Two different subjects, no contradiction.

[Lógos Sokratikós]

My opposition to the OP's suggestion has nothing to do with god. I just consider that metaphysical positions are unnecessary.

I'm sorry that you think so, science has plenty of philosophical consequences, gnoseological, ontological, ethical, etc. Plus, theories always have ontological groundings, they state entities and relationships between them. You're holding on to an outmoded radical positivistic philosophy.

[figuer]

...science has plenty of philosophical consequences, gnoseological, ontological, ethical, etc. Plus, theories always have ontological groundings....So?...that doesn't mean you are obliged to make a metaphysical confession of faith.

[WCH]

I'm sorry that you think so, science has plenty of philosophical consequences, gnoseological, ontological, ethical, etc. Plus, theories always have ontological groundings, they state entities and relationships between them. You're holding on to an outmoded radical positivistic philosophy.For most of those, not really. The way one of my profs explained it was saying that science is very good at telling us how to obtain our goals in the most effective way, but cannot speak to which goals we should try to obtain (which is the realm of ethics and philosophy). Certainly science has consequences, and gives all these disciplines some facts to work with (for instance, what creatures are capable of feeling pain in the way that humans do), but it doesn't do much beyond that.

[Lógos Sokratikós]

...science has plenty of philosophical consequences, gnoseological, ontological, ethical, etc. Plus, theories always have ontological groundings....So?...that doesn't mean you are obliged to make a metaphysical confession of faith.

Naw... You can be all the secretive you can manage. :)

[Lógos Sokratikós]

I'm sorry that you think so, science has plenty of philosophical consequences, gnoseological, ontological, ethical, etc. Plus, theories always have ontological groundings, they state entities and relationships between them. You're holding on to an outmoded radical positivistic philosophy.For most of those, not really. The way one of my profs explained it was saying that science is very good at telling us how to obtain our goals in the most effective way, but cannot speak to which goals we should try to obtain (which is the realm of ethics and philosophy). Certainly science has consequences, and gives all these disciplines some facts to work with (for instance, what creatures are capable of feeling pain in the way that humans do), but it doesn't do much beyond that.

Agreed. Nevertheless, you're talking about the methodology of science, which is only part of the story.

[figuer]

...what I said was scientific theories don't have gods.. as explanatory constructs, although scientists in their free time can and have entertained (god) beliefs.Did Darwin's theory of evolution have atoms and the big bang? No. Does that mean that it was "atomless" or "bigbangless" or imcompatible with these? No. A theory based on observation of a particular phenomena, describing a particular phenomena, certainly is not going to mention subject X not directly pertaining to that phenomena. That however does not permit someone to claim that such a theory supports a metaphysical belief excluding subject X, since X lies outside the scope of the theory/observations.

[Lógos Sokratikós]

...what I said was scientific theories don't have gods.. as explanatory constructs, although scientists in their free time can and have entertained (god) beliefs.Did Darwin's theory of evolution have atoms and the big bang? No. Does that mean that it was "atomless" or "bigbangless" or imcompatible with these? No. A theory based on observation of a particular phenomena, describing a particular phenomena, certainly is not going to mention subject X not directly pertaining to that phenomena. That however does not permit someone to claim that such a theory supports a metaphysical belief excluding subject X, since X lies outside the scope of the theory/observations.

Big bang cosmology is not the immediate context of whatever theory of evolution we're talking about (science is beyond Darwin, he's only of historical importance). The constructs, measurements and other theoretical components of a particular theory are merely those that it requires. Of course, a theory of evolution does require standing upon organic chemistry, game theory, etc, and these are its context but not its components.

[figuer]

The constructs, measurements and other theoretical components of a particular theory are merely those that it requires.Exactly, that is precisely my point. One of the things that science does not require is metaphysical conviction. Thus I can not accept what you 'suggest' in the OP, as it would weaken the integrity of methodological naturalism itself. As can be observed, then, my 'conviction' is methodological, not ontological.

[Lógos Sokratikós]

The constructs, measurements and other theoretical components of a particular theory are merely those that it requires.Exactly, that is precisely my point. One of the things that science does not require is metaphysical conviction. Thus I can not accept what you 'suggest' in the OP, as it would weaken the integrity of methodological naturalism itself. As can be observed, then, my 'conviction' is methodological, not ontological.

No "metaphysical" convictions, you can be a scientologist or a pureland buddhist praying to boddhisatvas to get you out of your karmic mess. But theories have plenty ontological components, and that's where the OP comes in. No currently accepted scientific theory has gods or faeries, it's been so for 400 years, safest bet it will stay that way, science points strongly towards a world that's not demon-haunted.

[figuer]

But theories have plenty ontological components, and that's where the OP comes in. Your OP suggest that materialistic atheism should be the orthodox metaphysical view, according to your interpretation of the findings of the methodological naturalism. In my opinion this is a confusion, brought by the fact that the scientific method can only study material manifestations, and that some god concepts are indicated as erratic.

...science points strongly towards a world that's not demon-haunted.No it does not...it has simply labeled the demons by other names...or failed to identify them (semiotically speaking of course).

[breezanne]

Lógos,
Using the map/science analogy you presented... as several people accurately pointed out, the map represents the immediate material territory of the traveler, to whatever degree of detail it has been developed (and/or revised).

There remain many, many things that the map does not represent, and was never designed to represent. The earth's crust and core beneath, the water table, the weather, the changing night sky, not to mention the organisms that move about within the city, the cultural and criminal activity within the city at any given moment, etc. Even more importantly, it does not represent the traveler, or their purpose for being in that territory, or what they remember or wish or plan or fear to do there... the map does not represent memory/purpose/meaning/significance. Those lie on another level, within the minds of mapmakers, inhabitants, travelers.

So in a way, you are overstating the usefulness of maps... as though maps tell the whole story of reality. They don't... and good mapmakers know very well that they don't. Reasonable folks don't confuse the map even with the territory itself, much less realms or levels beyond the territory. Alan Watts' book, "Does it Matter?" has some fine discussions on this particular bit of human confusion.

[SwoleMan]

No it does not...it has simply labeled the demons by other names...or failed to identify them (semiotically speaking of course

Wut?

[figuer]

No it does not...it has simply labeled the demons by other names...or failed to identify them (semiotically speaking of courseWut?Notice I wrote: "semiotically speaking of course"...metaphorically...

[Lógos Sokratikós]

Lógos,
Using the map/science analogy you presented... as several people accurately pointed out, the map represents the immediate material territory of the traveler, to whatever degree of detail it has been developed (and/or revised).

There remain many, many things that the map does not represent, and was never designed to represent. The earth's crust and core beneath, the water table, the weather, the changing night sky, not to mention the organisms that move about within the city, the cultural and criminal activity within the city at any given moment, etc. Even more importantly, it does not represent the traveler, or their purpose for being in that territory, or what they remember or wish or plan or fear to do there... the map does not represent memory/purpose/meaning/significance. Those lie on another level, within the minds of mapmakers, inhabitants, travelers.

So in a way, you are overstating the usefulness of maps... as though maps tell the whole story of reality. They don't... and good mapmakers know very well that they don't. Reasonable folks don't confuse the map even with the territory itself, much less realms or levels beyond the territory. Alan Watts' book, "Does it Matter?" has some fine discussions on this particular bit of human confusion.

The map is not the territory. But using a map of the wrong country will get you lost, and the right map will get you well oriented, and where it says you are, you are, and get's you there. Naturalism is a map that's proved to get anyone anywhere and at every level in the universe. The map fits the territory like a glove. Naturalism is a good map because it is true: every event in the verifiable universe has all-natural determinants and causes. It's a hypothesis tested for 400 years and still going strong. So many tests all point towards one conclusion: verifiable existence is natural. It's overkill.

[Deleet]

Duh. Naturalism is tautological. If something exists, it's natural.

No--straw man.

Circular much?

Christ. Naturalists are as bad as Christians sometimes.


Mere assertions.

Edit: I see Keith beat me to it, but after all that's fine. It's his argument. :)

[breezanne]

Lógos,
Using the map/science analogy you presented... as several people accurately pointed out, the map represents the immediate material territory of the traveler, to whatever degree of detail it has been developed (and/or revised).

There remain many, many things that the map does not represent, and was never designed to represent. The earth's crust and core beneath, the water table, the weather, the changing night sky, not to mention the organisms that move about within the city, the cultural and criminal activity within the city at any given moment, etc. Even more importantly, it does not represent the traveler, or their purpose for being in that territory, or what they remember or wish or plan or fear to do there... the map does not represent memory/purpose/meaning/significance. Those lie on another level, within the minds of mapmakers, inhabitants, travelers.

So in a way, you are overstating the usefulness of maps... as though maps tell the whole story of reality. They don't... and good mapmakers know very well that they don't. Reasonable folks don't confuse the map even with the territory itself, much less realms or levels beyond the territory. Alan Watts' book, "Does it Matter?" has some fine discussions on this particular bit of human confusion.

The map is not the territory. But using a map of the wrong country will get you lost, and the right map will get you well oriented, and where it says you are, you are, and get's you there. Naturalism is a map that's proved to get anyone anywhere and at every level in the universe. The map fits the territory like a glove. Naturalism is a good map because it is true: every event in the verifiable universe has all-natural determinants and causes. It's a hypothesis tested for 400 years and still going strong. So many tests all point towards one conclusion: verifiable existence is natural. It's overkill.Yes, maps are good representations of particular physical territory. Not the rest of reality, as I discussed. Nothing about either science/maps/(methodological naturalism) or metaphysical naturalism/physicalism describes or explains the existence or relevance of awareness/memory/purpose/meaning/significance.

Observations of observables tell us much about observables. Not so much about observers.

[SwoleMan]

Wut?Notice I wrote: "semiotically speaking of course"...metaphorically...

I know. It wasn't what my "wut?" was about. But never mind.

[figuer]

Naturalism is a good map because it is true: every event in the verifiable universe has all-natural determinants and causes.That is because "natural" is a label which is applied to all observables...even those that are yet unexplained.

It's a hypothesis tested for 400 years and still going strong. So many tests all point towards one conclusion: verifiable existence is natural.If verifiable existence is natural, and gods were verified to exist, then they would be natural according to your stated principle. Which makes your statement rather superfluous, since it negates by definition the scale of the supernatural, except as synonymous with 'fantasy' (which is always my point regarding such a concept).

[Lógos Sokratikós]

Naturalism is a good map because it is true: every event in the verifiable universe has all-natural determinants and causes.That is because "natural" is a label which is applied to all observables...even those that are yet unexplained.

It's a hypothesis tested for 400 years and still going strong. So many tests all point towards one conclusion: verifiable existence is natural.If verifiable existence is natural, and gods were verified to exist, then they would be natural according to your stated principle. Which makes your statement rather superfluous, since it negates by definition the scale of the supernatural, except as synonymous with 'fantasy' (which is always my point regarding such a concept).

Actually, no.

Let me put it this way. In the time when religion ran "young and wild and free", the deity and different spiritual entities such as demons, supposed to control all sorts of events in the world. The angels would push the planets, the demons would torment us and the deity would power our faith and good deeds with grace. The first scientists came up to explain the world in naturalistic terms, without recourse in the deity. For all we know they were believers in the deity, but went on to explain everything −everything they could, that is− in purely naturalistic terms. This is called methodological naturalism, believing (or not) in the deity but working as if there were none. An excellent example of this breed of scientists was Newton. It's hard to know if they imagined what they were unleashing. Soon people were participating in a sort of coup where the demons did not haunt the mentally disordered and God did not create the world in six days 6000 years ago and didn't create humanity from a mudpie man. Supposing God was not here there and everywhere was a successful predictor of events in the verifiable world. The OP states that in consequence, supposing the deity and friends are not here there and anywhere, therefore that's the way things are.

A bold jump? I'd say no. I'd say it's in the same league as Dmitri Mendeleev's predictions of the characteristics of the then unknown elements. When you have enough evidence, reality jumps straight up from the chalkboard. Anyone in 1850 predicting there would be no deity, no faerie and no spook in any area of science 150 years later would have been absolutely right. Now that is what I call a verified fully refutable hypothesis.

[Lógos Sokratikós]

I rock, huh?

:devil1:

[figuer]

I rock, huh?:huh:

[faithlessgod]

There's an issue with the OP. Can we prove a universal negative? It seems as if the OP is upholding atheism's universal negative, but that's not the case. Science (and our daily lives) has a scenario, which we call "nature". In no part of nature (the verifiable range of existence) is there a God as a factor. It's been so for 400 years. Thousands of research projects have been performed pretending there is no supernatural factors and this working hypothesis has shown right every time. EVERY time. The scenario of our lives is naturalistic. Nature has no jinn, no demons and no angels. This world is not demon haunted, to paraphrase Carl Sagan. Or is it?
Very roughly, there are two points here (1) proving a universal negative and (2) the success of MN (my EN). On Bayesian reasoning granting equal prior probabilities to S and N models of the world, MN has shown though its success that the a posteriori probability of S being true is vanishingly small and N very high. As for god (a subset of S) we have found no need of that hypothesis so it's a posteriori probability is even smallar than supernaturalism.

Wrt (1) is absence of evidence, proof of absence? (We mean pragmatic/scientific not logical proof here). Well there are plenty of things that have absence of evidence just because god is more popular than invisible pink unicorns is an irrelevant argumentum ad populum. So we have a large number of claims for which we have no evidence, that is we have insufficient evidence to believe which is same as, in negative cases, sufficient evidence to disbelieve. To choose god over an IPU is arbitrary and based on whim. Choosing them all true is incoherent- especially incompatible gods. The only sensible epistemic choice is to presume them all false until shown otherwise.

These are two related arguments but they are not the same but do come to the same conclusion both of which support my choice of Ontological naturalism as more likely true - point 1 N has much positive evidence in its favor and the default with positive evidence is to presume it true - and less likely false - point 2 the huge positive differential a posteriori probability of N over S, so N's competitors are very far behind.

[SwoleMan]

I rock, huh?

:devil1:

I think you do :) (I'm doing little more than licking your ass in this thread, but what the hell, haha).

[faithlessgod]

verifiable existence is natural, and gods were verified to exist, then they would be natural according to your stated principle. Which makes your statement rather superfluous, since it negates by definition the scale of the supernatural, except as synonymous with 'fantasy' (which is always my point regarding such a concept).
That is why I carefully specified what I mean by a natural process - a combination of matter-energy in space-time. My approach is not superfluous or tautological. Supernatural is specifically something other than that. I posited an metaphysical naturalism MN that denies anything but such a natural process, should such a process be discovered it would be by my definition non-natural and would refute my MN.

[figuer]

For all we know they were believers in the deity, but went on to explain everything −everything they could, that is− in purely naturalistic terms.You mean that they observed the mechanics of reality and found that previous explanations were wrong. Great step in human development, but...your point?

This is called methodological naturalism, believing (or not) in the deity but working as if there were none.Working as if there were none?? Not really. They simply moved the ambit of deities to another scale. You are extrapolating concepts here.

Anyone in 1850 predicting there would be no deity, no faerie and no spook in any area of science 150 years later would have been absolutely right.First, that is not entirely true. Second, it is not the same as suggesting that Ontological Naturalism should be considered as the de facto metaphysics of those practicing the scientific method. Again, you are confusing and mixing the different ambit and scale to which method and ontology belong.

[figuer]

That is why I carefully specified what I mean by a natural process - a combination of matter-energy in space-time....Supernatural is specifically something other than that.Your definition of natural corresponds to that associated with Ontological Naturalism. My definition of natural is 'that which exists'. Thus my definition is incompatible with Ontological Naturalism.

I posited an metaphysical naturalism MN that denies anything but such a natural process, should such a process be discovered it would be by my definition non-natural and would refute my MN.This denial that anything but combinations of matter-energy exists are the reason for my rejection of Ontological Naturalism. I just don't consider that there is any justification for such an explicit statement of certainty.

[figuer]

Logos, as faithlessgod especified, Ontological Naturalism has to do with the 'belief' that nature is restricted to combinations of matter/energy. As can be observed it has nothing to do, per se, with rejecting gods or demons or faeries, but rather with limiting reality to a specific set of components. You consider that the success of methodological naturalism justifies this belief. I, however, looking at that same history of science, reach the contrary conclusion; that imposing preconceived limits on what constitutes reality always leads to scientific failure, unnecesary dogmas and is just plain foolish and unnecesary. Thus I can not subscribe to Ontological Naturalism or any other metaphysical construct.

[Lógos Sokratikós]

This is called methodological naturalism, believing (or not) in the deity but working as if there were none.

Working as if there were none?? Not really. They simply moved the ambit of deities to another scale.

Yes. Name of the scale? "Outta here".
And basically, they've stayed there.

[Lógos Sokratikós]

Logos, as faithlessgod especified, Ontological Naturalism has to do with the 'belief' that nature is restricted to combinations of matter/energy. As can be observed it has nothing to do, per se, with rejecting gods or demons or faeries, but rather with limiting reality to a specific set of components. You consider that the success of methodological naturalism justifies this belief. I, however, looking at that same history of science, reach the contrary conclusion; that imposing preconceived limits on what constitutes reality always leads to scientific failure, unnecesary dogmas and is just plain foolish and unnecesary. Thus I can not subscribe to Ontological Naturalism or any other metaphysical construct.

It's not a dogma: It's a consequence.
Science isn't inconsequential. In fact, consequences of hypothetical assumptions properly operationalized and effectuated to obtain observations pertinent to the range of the hypotheses themselves is everything of what science is about.

[figuer]

It's not a dogma: It's a consequence.
Science isn't inconsequential. In fact, consequences of hypothetical assumptions properly operationalized and effectuated to obtain observations pertinent to the range of the hypotheses themselves is everything of what science is about.:D Vuestro lenguaje rebuscado busca el efecto de un hechizo.

The consequence is: We can only describe what we can observe. Not: Only that which we can observe exists.

[breezanne]

We can only describe what we can observe. Not: Only that which we can observe exists.Excelente.

[Lógos Sokratikós]

Figuer, my choice of words might look rebuscado but it's what I found useful at the time. I actually still don't agree with the choice but it works. Nighty night.

[faithlessgod]

That is why I carefully specified what I mean by a natural process - a combination of matter-energy in space-time....Supernatural is specifically something other than that.Your definition of natural corresponds to that associated with Ontological Naturalism.
No this is my definition of physical naturalism (PN). EN seeks to find solutions of this form, ON asserts this is all there is.

My definition of natural is 'that which exists'.
This is not a definition of natural. It is just an assertion. What is your defintion?


Thus my definition is incompatible with Ontological Naturalism.
Well if you are not a metaphysical naturalist you do not get to define it on behalf of those, such as me, who are. Yours is a straw man argument.


I posited an metaphysical naturalism MN that denies anything but such a natural process, should such a process be discovered it would be by my definition non-natural and would refute my MN.This denial that anything but combinations of matter-energy exists are the reason for my rejection of Ontological Naturalism. I just don't consider that there is any justification for such an explicit statement of certainty.
Certainty is just what metaphysical reasoning does - that is why it is metaphysical! It looks like you are saying that there is no justification for any metaphysical view then to single out ON is misleading.

My justification is based on a deflationary metaphysical approach. This is the minimum metaphysics possible given what we know and this leads to ON.

[faithlessgod]

Logos, as faithlessgod especified, Ontological Naturalism has to do with the 'belief' that nature is restricted to combinations of matter/energy.
in space/time. yup agree

As can be observed it has nothing to do, per se, with rejecting gods or demons or faeries, but rather with limiting reality to a specific set of components. You consider that the success of methodological naturalism justifies this belief.
So do I but only when others argue for other metaphysics. My metaphsycis is conditional on others arguing other metaphysics and given the evidence that ON is more likely true and less likely false.

I, however, looking at that same history of science, reach the contrary conclusion; that imposing preconceived limits on what constitutes reality always leads to scientific failure, unnecesary dogmas and is just plain foolish and unnecesary. Thus I can not subscribe to Ontological Naturalism or any other metaphysical construct.
So you reject metaphysics per se. No issue with that. But then it looks like you are arguing for gods or equivalent? That would be metaphysical. What is you position on this?

[faithlessgod]

The consequence is: We can only describe what we can observe. Not: Only that which we can observe exists.
I disagree. Some of the greatest ideas/tests in science have often described what we have not yet observed and there are many things we cannot observe and we can still infer their existence.

[WCH]

@faithlessgod
It's all well and good to call it a strawman, but I haven't seen a good explanation of what divides things into "natural" and "supernatural." Could you explain it briefly?

I maintain that gravity, electricity and light are all magic; that they also have natural explanations is merely in support of my argument that it's a false dichotomy. Please explain how these three things fit into naturalism, and, given your explanation of them, what sorts of things would not.

[faithlessgod]

@faithlessgod
It's all well and good to call it a strawman, but I haven't seen a good explanation of what divides things into "natural" and "supernatural." Could you explain it briefly?

I maintain that gravity, electricity and light are all magic; that they also have natural explanations is merely in support of my argument that it's a false dichotomy. Please explain how these three things fit into naturalism, and, given your explanation of them, what sorts of things would not.
I already have "a natural process is combinations of matter-energy in space-time" and this is by definition not magic or supernatural. What is your definition of magic? Looks like equivocation to me.

[figuer]

I disagree. Some of the greatest ideas/tests in science have often described what we have not yet observed and there are many things we cannot observe and we can still infer their existence.I disagree. Those 'unobserved' or 'infered' things can be observed by their actions upon other things...plus mathemathics is a form of observation.

[figuer]

So you reject metaphysics per se. No issue with that. But then it looks like you are arguing for gods or equivalent? That would be metaphysical. What is you position on this?
I am not arguing for gods...and if I did that wouldn't be metaphysical...or is it metaphysical to argue for gravity?

[WCH]

I already have "a natural process is combinations of matter-energy in space-time" and this is by definition not magic or supernatural. What is your definition of magic? Looks like equivocation to me.By your definition, yes. To my mind, that it involves combinations of matter-energy in space-time simply means it's real, not mundane. As for how I define magic... honestly, I don't, really. Aleister Crowley's definition (he being the closest we can get to an authority on the subject) is "the science and art of causing change to occur in conformity with the will." Thing is, that's ridiculously broad and can describe basically anything, so it's not really the most useful definition.

Way I'm thinking of it is that, if in the 15th century a magician mixed two substances in a jar, connected them to a specially designed metal structure and was able to deliver a shock at a distance to anybody who touches that structure, that would be magic, in precisely the way we think of it today: using special techniques to manipulate forces with the result of producing real effects which cannot normally be accomplished except through similar techniques.

When I play Dungeons & Dragons, for instance, my Wizard is the character who is talented at tapping into the natural forces of that world to cause "change to occur in conformity with the will," as Crowley might put it. Nothing the Wizard does is impossible, or supernatural in that world... just complicated and amazing. In that way, the Wizard of D&D is just that world's practical scientist. I see no way in which tapping into natural forces in this world to produce devices like particle accelerators, glowsticks, cameras or radios is any different than magic.

and... to my knowledge, exactly how gravity and light work as combinations of matter-energy isn't really clear. Once you start getting into things like "fields" and "charges," I'd say you've crossed over from the mundane into the magical, although I admit there's no easily discernable dividing line.

[faithlessgod]

I already have "a natural process is combinations of matter-energy in space-time" and this is by definition not magic or supernatural. What is your definition of magic? Looks like equivocation to me.By your definition, yes. To my mind, that it involves combinations of matter-energy in space-time simply means it's real, not mundane.
And that is all I need for my natrualism.

As for how I define magic... honestly, I don't, really. Aleister Crowley's definition (he being the closest we can get to an authority on the subject) is "the science and art of causing change to occur in conformity with the will." Thing is, that's ridiculously broad and can describe basically anything, so it's not really the most useful definition.
If its too broad it becomes useless as a differentiator to use to distinguish the natural from the supernatural.


Way I'm thinking of it is that, if in the 15th century a magician mixed two substances in a jar, connected them to a specially designed metal structure and was able to deliver a shock at a distance to anybody who touches that structure, that would be magic, in precisely the way we think of it today: using special techniques to manipulate forces with the result of producing real effects which cannot normally be accomplished except through similar techniques.
No this is quite different. Too many may not understand the science and use an expression like "its magic" but they do not mean or should not mean it the way you imply.


I see no way in which tapping into natural forces in this world to produce devices like particle accelerators, glowsticks, cameras or radios is any different than magic.
You have just shown that your notion of magic fails to be of any use as a differentiator period since you seem to think that everything is supernatural, do you really mean that?


and... to my knowledge, exactly how gravity and light work as combinations of matter-energy isn't really clear.
To your knowledge. Not to any scientist who studies these things.


Once you start getting into things like "fields" and "charges," I'd say you've crossed over from the mundane into the magical, although I admit there's no easily discernable dividing line.
With my definition you most definitely have not crossed the dividing since this is all combinations of matter-energy in space-time.

You cannot redefine what naturalism so that you define it away, this is what you appear to imply here.

[WCH]

You have just shown that your notion of magic fails to be of any use as a differentiator period since you seem to think that everything is supernatural, do you really mean that?No!.

I've said repeatedly that nothing is supernatural; the word "supernatural" being completely bereft of meaning. What exactly could hypothetically exist which would not be natural?

[LeoM]

You have just shown that your notion of magic fails to be of any use as a differentiator period since you seem to think that everything is supernatural, do you really mean that?No!.

I've said repeatedly that nothing is supernatural; the word "supernatural" being completely bereft of meaning. What exactly could hypothetically exist which would not be natural?

Let's see apparitions, premonitions etc

[Marduk]

No!.

I've said repeatedly that nothing is supernatural; the word "supernatural" being completely bereft of meaning. What exactly could hypothetically exist which would not be natural?

Let's see apparitions, premonitions etc


If apparitions & premonitions exist they would be natural, WCH is right. If the universe contains something it is natural, if it doesn't contain something it does not exist and is meaningless, not supernatural.

[WCH]

Let's see apparitions, premonitions etcYou mean like holograms and weather forecasts?

[Underseer]

The success of methodological naturalism suggests that, as far as we know at this point in time, ontological naturalism is true.Do not confuse the paint brush with the painter. Methodological naturalism is a system by which the mechanics of reality are explored, deciphered and exploited. Ontological naturalism is a metaphysical proposition. It can be observed historically that metaphysical straight jackets can harm scientific inquiry. Leave methodological naturalism alone...

How exactly would methodological naturalism harm scientific inquiry?

[figuer]

How exactly would methodological naturalism harm scientific inquiry?:huh: That wasn't even suggested... but Ontological Naturalism would.

[LeoM]

Let's see apparitions, premonitions etcYou mean like holograms and weather forecasts?

Lol no the paranormal

[WCH]

Google's define feature tells me "paranormal" has two meanings...

1) Beyond the realm of normal experience, in which case a great many things are paranormal

2) Outside of scientific understanding. Which also describes a lot of thing... anything we don't understand *yet*

So plenty of things would be both "paranormal" and natural... hallucinations, for instance.

[faithlessgod]

You have just shown that your notion of magic fails to be of any use as a differentiator period since you seem to think that everything is supernatural, do you really mean that?No!.

I've said repeatedly that nothing is supernatural; the word "supernatural" being completely bereft of meaning. What exactly could hypothetically exist which would not be natural?
Then you have no argument at all, which was my point and your emphatic NO! confirms. If you have defined away supernatural then natural becomes a meaningless term too. If you are trying to make an argument against Metaphysical Naturalism you do not get to define away the problem, as your critique becomes empty too, this is the fallacy of equivocation and a straw man of your own construction.

[figuer]

Then you have no argument at all, which was my point and your emphatic NO! confirms. If you have defined away supernatural then natural becomes a meaningless term too.You are mistaken. 'Natural' does not require the category 'Supernatural' to acquire definition. The definition: Natural = all that exists, reality; can be observed to be completely meaningful in itself.

The category 'Supernatural' makes no sense, except as residue of mythologycal thought. It would thus refer to mythical constructions and literary fantasies.


If you are trying to make an argument against Metaphysical Naturalism you do not get to define away the problem, as your critique becomes empty too, this is the fallacy of equivocation and a straw man of your own construction.This 'critique' is very empty...and fallacious.

[Michael Sansom]

It's not a dogma: It's a consequence.
Science isn't inconsequential. In fact, consequences of hypothetical assumptions properly operationalized and effectuated to obtain observations pertinent to the range of the hypotheses themselves is everything of what science is about.:D Vuestro lenguaje rebuscado busca el efecto de un hechizo.

The consequence is: We can only describe what we can observe. Not: Only that which we can observe exists.

No. We have many hypotheses (e.g., some string theory, quark confinement, black hole theory) expressed with math suffieciently detailed to qualify as a description whose underlying structures are not (ever?) directly observable.
If that is the end of the story, all we would have is some elegant theoretical mathematics, not science.

To be science, such hypotheses must have consequesces which can be observed. The more such observations, the better tested are the hypotheses. With enough such observations, we might tentatively accept the hypothesis even if it concerns an unobservable (e.g., virtual particles).

I think this is in accord with Lógos Sokratikós' position above.

One of the rules of the game of science is MN; if you don't like the rules, play another game. ON is not necessary to do science but should you need an ontology (I assume most people do), ON is at least reasonable given the current state of our knowledge. Tentatively holding to ON does not imply being closed to anything.

[figuer]

No. We have many hypotheses (e.g., some string theory, quark confinement, black hole theory) expressed with math suffieciently detailed to qualify as a description whose underlying structures are not (ever?) directly observable.

I had already covered such an objection in post #91
Those 'unobserved' or 'infered' things can be observed by their actions upon other things...plus mathemathics is a form of observation.

[WCH]

Then you have no argument at all, which was my point and your emphatic NO! confirms. If you have defined away supernatural then natural becomes a meaningless term too.Um, yeah... I've been saying this whole time that natural and supernatural is a false dichotomy, that the words don't mean a whole lot. Natural means it exists, supernatural means... well... not much. Fantastical, maybe... at best a way of referring to things that exist in myth but not in reality, at worst a way of describing everything we do not currently have a good, scientific explanation for.If you are trying to make an argument against Metaphysical Naturalism you do not get to define away the problem, as your critique becomes empty too, this is the fallacy of equivocation and a straw man of your own construction.Guh... what I'm saying is that Metaphysical Naturalism is tautological, and therefore correct but not worthwhile as a position or worldview because it's devoid of content -- even worse than atheism, because at least atheism is rejecting a specific, commonly held truth claim, whereas naturalism is just saying "what is, is, and what isn't, isn't. Now agree with me or be shunned." If something was found to exist, it would be placed in the "natural" column. Insisting on "naturalism" implies to me that so called Naturalists really do believe in gods, spirits, etc, but are angry and conflicted about it and so lash out, denying certain things, and dogmatically asserting only what they consider natural to exist. If your understanding of the universe really didn't include any of these things, it wouldn't be worth saying. Obviously only the natural exists... because natural means it exists!

Why the hell would you define yourselves around a categorical opposition involving something that isn't even real?

[Michael Sansom]

No. We have many hypotheses (e.g., some string theory, quark confinement, black hole theory) expressed with math suffieciently detailed to qualify as a description whose underlying structures are not (ever?) directly observable.

I had already covered such an objection in post #91
Those 'unobserved' or 'infered' things can be observed by their actions upon other things...plus mathemathics is a form of observation.

That's a mighty big plus but a good rhetorical move.

Please justify the bolded.

[WCH]

I disagree. Mathematics is not observation; mathematics is all about a priori truth, whereas observation is, by definition, a posteriori.

Another way of saying it is that mathematics is objective, whereas observation is always, at least on some level, subjective.

[kaugust]

I've been saying this whole time that natural and supernatural is a false dichotomy, that the words don't mean a whole lot. Natural means it exists, supernatural means... well... not much. Fantastical, maybe... at best a way of referring to things that exist in myth but not in reality, at worst a way of describing everything we do not currently have a good, scientific explanation for.

Guh... what I'm saying is that Metaphysical Naturalism is tautological, and therefore correct but not worthwhile as a position or worldview because it's devoid of content

This is false. The trivial version of metaphysical naturalism you present is tautological and devoid of content. Other versions of metaphysical naturalism are not. Please stop conflating the two as if all versions (instead of just some versions) of metaphysical naturalism were trivial. In my masters thesis I write:


Naturalism would become trivially true if we abandoned the practical natural-supernatural distinction. The argument for trivial naturalism would be that it is impossible to draw the natural-supernatural distinction in practice and therefore we are never justified in positing supernatural causes because we can never say that the cause of an event is not natural. This implies that naturalism always wins by default on epistemological grounds, even though not necessarily so on metaphysical grounds. Naturalism becomes trivially true because no matter what phenomenon we encounter, we cannot say it is not a naturally-caused phenomenon. If we abandon the natural-supernatural distinction in practice, so far as we can tell any logically possible event may be a naturally-caused event. Consequently, naturalism becomes trivially true in practice but uninformative and supernaturalism is never an option for belief since all causes of events in the natural world may be natural causes.


There. Now that you see that metaphysical naturalists have explicitly rejected defining naturalism in the trivial sense you complain about, could you stop attacking that straw man version of it and address a nontrivial version of naturalism that most naturalists actually accept? Or is that too much to ask?

[WCH]

@kaugust
I don't understand the point of the quoted text. It basically agrees with my point, and provides no alternative where naturalism wouldn't be trivially true. Maybe the next paragraph does?

I'm sure you're all getting sick of me saying your espoused worldview is trivial, but I'm getting sick of you insisting that it isn't with little more to back that up than "not-uh!" and then accusing me of fallacious reasoning.

[Michael Sansom]

I disagree. Mathematics is not observation; mathematics is all about a priori truth, whereas observation is, by definition, a posteriori.

Another way of saying it is that mathematics is objective, whereas observation is always, at least on some level, subjective.

It's a priori given an axiom system plus definitions of the mathematical "objects" you are interested in. So math is objective about mathematical "objects". That some of these "objects" model aspects of what is real is a posteriori.

Observation, observers, observables are terms used in different ways by most physicists and some of the posters here. As has been pointed out before in other similar threads, the subjectivity of an observer/observation is a philosophical or metaphysical add-on and not part of the physics. The methodology of physics attempts to eliminate any subjective bias in confronting an hypothesis with whatever is the case.

[WCH]

They're still models of what is real, not what is actually real. For me that's an important distinction. Means it's incredibly useful for predictive power, but it can never be more than an approximation, can't actually directly translate to real experience.

[figuer]

Please justify (plus mathemathics is a form of observation..)In scientific models mathematical predictions arise from observations, and gain validity only if they match posterior observations. Otherwise they are speculations. The history in science of discarded mathematical models is monumental.

[figuer]

In my masters thesis I write:....I do not find your ideas convincing.

[mirage]

(P1) If after an intensive search of the natural world scientists and historians have found no uncontroversial evidence for likely candidates for a supernatural event then naturalism is probably true.
(P2) After an intensive search of the natural world scientists and historians have found no uncontroversial evidence for likely candidates for a supernatural event.
(C) Therefore, naturalism is probably true.Duh. Naturalism is tautological. If something exists, it's natural. Take electricity for example -- before we understood it, it would've been considered magical. A skeptic at the time might have said something like "no supernatural nonsense like electricity exists, only the natural world is real!" and then once it was proven, the position was changed to "it's a natural force."

Circular much?

Christ. Naturalists are as bad as Christians sometimes.
Ooo! Sign me up to the "what the hell does naturalism actually mean?" party.

No, I don't believe in spooks either. Do we really need to dress it up in a dubious metaphysical label?

[kaugust]

@kaugust
I don't understand the point of the quoted text. It basically agrees with my point, and provides no alternative where naturalism wouldn't be trivially true. Maybe the next paragraph does?


It agrees with your point to the extent that I agree that it is foolish to define naturalism in such a way that it is trivially true. The rest of the paper, not the next paragraph, presents an argument for a falsifiable form of naturalism that is not trivially true. It could be shown to be false if there were any credible instances of a "likely candidate for a supernatural event," which I precisely define and give hypothetic examples of. If such likely candidates actually occurred, then naturalism would be more likely to be false than true. Fortunately for naturalists, supernaturalists have nothing to show for their beliefs but... mere beliefs. They have no knowledge of supernatural events in the way that there is knowledge that slavery was prevalent in America before the Civil War or that dinosaurs once existed.


I'm sure you're all getting sick of me saying your espoused worldview is trivial, but I'm getting sick of you insisting that it isn't with little more to back that up than "not-uh!" and then accusing me of fallacious reasoning.

Well WCH, I only got sucked into this thread because you specifically said that the argument for naturalism thaty I develop in my thesis is tautological, which is false. It is not tautological. I defined "likely candidate for a supernatural event" in a specific way such that only certain peculiar sorts of events would ever qualify--and then asked why there is no uncontroversial evidence for such events if naturalism is false. It is an inductive argument that if naturalism is false, then such events would likely occur. We have video of planes impacting both towers of the World Trade Center, but not a single indisputable video of a ghost--and that with all these security cameras running out there everywhere. (On London streets literally 24 hours a day/7 days a week.) There are innumerable ways that supernaturalism could be vindicated--any good old-fashioned Old Testament miracle for all to see would do the trick--but such events don't happen. And the reason that don't happen, most likely, is because there are no supernatural influences on the natural world.

[WCH]

Is your paper posted online somewhere, or would you like to email it to me? I'm sure it'd be a worthwhile read.

I still think that you're basically abusing the freedom of defining supernatural in whichever way you choose. I see no reason, for instance, why electricity and gravity should not have been considered to be supernatural before we understood them, and, similarly, I see no reason why, if we were able to identify and understand one of these things you call supernatural, the goal posts would not shift again. But I've yet to read your paper; I'm sure you understand that "I've written a paper which proves you're wrong" is not, in and of itself, a compelling argument.

[kaugust]

Is your paper posted online somewhere, or would you like to email it to me? I'm sure it'd be a worthwhile read.


Yes--this is where Deleet quoted my argument and you replied claiming that the argument was circular/tautological. The link to the paper is mentioned in the first page of this thread in Deleet's post:

http://iidb.infidels.org/vbb/showpost.php?p=5359351&postcount=7


I still think that you're basically abusing the freedom of defining supernatural in whichever way you choose.


I think "abuse" is an unfortunate word, but I do address in detail how "supernatural" is to be understood.


I see no reason, for instance, why electricity and gravity should not have been considered to be supernatural before we understood them


Well, for starters these are impersonal forces. They are clearly governed by impersonal laws rather than phenomena generated by invisible agencies showing evidence of having intentions.


and, similarly, I see no reason why, if we were able to identify and understand one of these things you call supernatural, the goal posts would not shift again.


The way I see it, there are two issues here: (1) What it means for an event to be supernatural in a metaphysical/ontological sense--which I think can be clearly demarcated from natural events (I called these "in theory" criteria) and (2) what diagnostic criteria we have for identifying potential supernatural events--an epistemological issue.

I go into both of these issues in great detail, largely justifying my diagnostic criteria on the basis of the conceptual natural/supernatural distinction.

I am not really sure how "the goal posts" could be moved given my diagnostic identification criteria since these are rather forensic; some other criteria would have to overthrow mine for that to happen. But even if one could do that, at the end of the day what phenomena that count as a "likely candidate for a supernatural event" on some other criteria would probably be very similar to the sort that count on the criteria I developed.


But I've yet to read your paper; I'm sure you understand that "I've written a paper which proves you're wrong" is not, in and of itself, a compelling argument.

I didn't say that. Deleet quoted my paper providing a link, and you claimed my argument was circular. But if you had looked at the argument in the context of the paper, you would see that--even if you think I go wrong in any particular place/s--it is clearly not a circular argument. So you automatically saying that it was circular without even looking at it to discern that it was not annoyed me a bit.

[WCH]

Cool. Reading now... I like it so far, well written and touches on a number of good points. If I still disagree with you by the end I'll post saying so. :)

[J842P]

Really, how could it if they are isomorphic?
But you can you really say its isomorphic, though, especially considering the nature of Kuhnian paradigm shifts.

[LeoM]

@kaugust
I don't understand the point of the quoted text. It basically agrees with my point, and provides no alternative where naturalism wouldn't be trivially true. Maybe the next paragraph does?


It agrees with your point to the extent that I agree that it is foolish to define naturalism in such a way that it is trivially true. The rest of the paper, not the next paragraph, presents an argument for a falsifiable form of naturalism that is not trivially true. It could be shown to be false if there were any credible instances of a "likely candidate for a supernatural event," which I precisely define and give hypothetic examples of. If such likely candidates actually occurred, then naturalism would be more likely to be false than true. Fortunately for naturalists, supernaturalists have nothing to show for their beliefs but... mere beliefs. They have no knowledge of supernatural events in the way that there is knowledge that slavery was prevalent in America before the Civil War or that dinosaurs once existed.


I'm sure you're all getting sick of me saying your espoused worldview is trivial, but I'm getting sick of you insisting that it isn't with little more to back that up than "not-uh!" and then accusing me of fallacious reasoning.

Well WCH, I only got sucked into this thread because you specifically said that the argument for naturalism thaty I develop in my thesis is tautological, which is false. It is not tautological. I defined "likely candidate for a supernatural event" in a specific way such that only certain peculiar sorts of events would ever qualify--and then asked why there is no uncontroversial evidence for such events if naturalism is false. It is an inductive argument that if naturalism is false, then such events would likely occur. We have video of planes impacting both towers of the World Trade Center, but not a single indisputable video of a ghost--and that with all these security cameras running out there everywhere. (On London streets literally 24 hours a day/7 days a week.) There are innumerable ways that supernaturalism could be vindicated--any good old-fashioned Old Testament miracle for all to see would do the trick--but such events don't happen. And the reason that don't happen, most likely, is because there are no supernatural influences on the natural world.

What about the global consciousness project that took data from people at the 9-11 attack?

[Antiplastic]

Duh. Naturalism is tautological. If something exists, it's natural. Take electricity for example -- before we understood it, it would've been considered magical. A skeptic at the time might have said something like "no supernatural nonsense like electricity exists, only the natural world is real!" and then once it was proven, the position was changed to "it's a natural force."

Circular much?

Christ. Naturalists are as bad as Christians sometimes.
Ooo! Sign me up to the "what the hell does naturalism actually mean?" party.

No, I don't believe in spooks either. Do we really need to dress it up in a dubious metaphysical label?

I honestly have no idea where WCH is getting his idiolectical usage from. Does he think that ghosthunters are going around asserting "nonexistence exists"?

AFAICT the usage most consistent with the philosophical literature is that something is natural when it is nonmental; so supernatural causes would be causes which are irreducibly mental. (Tabelling for the moment the epistemological concern about how one tells the difference between "apparently irreducible" and "irreducible in principle".)

So in terms of one's empirical world model, a naturalist would be someone who believes at the end of the day that all truths necessary to describe and predict observation will take the form of non-intentional (or "non-semantic") predicates. A non-natural predicate would be, say, Jones 'believes that' so and so, or this movie is 'about' Roman gladiators, or Smith's actions were 'morally wrong'. I am not a moral naturalist in the sense that I don't believe moral facts can be reduced to or identified with any natural facts, but I am a moral naturalist in the sense that, being a noncognitivist, I don't believe that moral claims are in the business of making descriptions which contribute to one's empirical world-model.

I suppose a supernatural claim would just be that not only are there irreducibly semantic predicates in our models, but that some of these entail entities which are causally efficacious (intelligent designers, entelechies, etc.)

[LeoM]

It agrees with your point to the extent that I agree that it is foolish to define naturalism in such a way that it is trivially true. The rest of the paper, not the next paragraph, presents an argument for a falsifiable form of naturalism that is not trivially true. It could be shown to be false if there were any credible instances of a "likely candidate for a supernatural event," which I precisely define and give hypothetic examples of. If such likely candidates actually occurred, then naturalism would be more likely to be false than true. Fortunately for naturalists, supernaturalists have nothing to show for their beliefs but... mere beliefs. They have no knowledge of supernatural events in the way that there is knowledge that slavery was prevalent in America before the Civil War or that dinosaurs once existed.



Well WCH, I only got sucked into this thread because you specifically said that the argument for naturalism thaty I develop in my thesis is tautological, which is false. It is not tautological. I defined "likely candidate for a supernatural event" in a specific way such that only certain peculiar sorts of events would ever qualify--and then asked why there is no uncontroversial evidence for such events if naturalism is false. It is an inductive argument that if naturalism is false, then such events would likely occur. We have video of planes impacting both towers of the World Trade Center, but not a single indisputable video of a ghost--and that with all these security cameras running out there everywhere. (On London streets literally 24 hours a day/7 days a week.) There are innumerable ways that supernaturalism could be vindicated--any good old-fashioned Old Testament miracle for all to see would do the trick--but such events don't happen. And the reason that don't happen, most likely, is because there are no supernatural influences on the natural world.

What about the global consciousness project that took data from people at the 9-11 attack?

I had many experiences with the paranormal two were premonitions. My first premonition involved sept 11th terrorist's attacks on New York I saw on my premonitions two very large building close together then a saw a airplane crashing into the buidling then another aiplane crashing into the second building. In the second premonition i saw my uncle Dennis on a airplane I had these premonitions at night, lightening struck the airplane not once but twice.


My mom called my uncle Dennis because he was coming down to visit me and family he said the exact same thing i saw in my premonition he said lightening struck the airplane twice and it did not catch on fire in my premonition the same thing happened the airplane did not catch on fire. One day my mom and I were using the ouija board her mother came through which would be my grandmother she said she was alright and that everything is fine just wanted to hi and check and see what my how my mom was she said she had to go.

Another experience I had was with my brother Tommy's former girlfriend he and her were living in a old apartment and soon as I was there I could feel a presence I know this may sound crazy but I started to feel Tommy's former girlfriend her name is Suzanne father who died in the room.

My mother had many experiences to before I was born she told me where she used to live and that when she use to godown to the basement she would hear that weird sounds.

One night my Mom told me the next day that when she was sleeping then woke up she saw a big black dog it started going towards my dad she said she saw this big black dog not once but for 4 nights in a row.

Another experience was when my mother was using the ouija board she told me to come over and hold her to the chair because she felt someone trying to push her of the chair. Honestly i could also feel a force try to push of the chair too.

[Antiplastic]

I had a feeling you were going to say that.

[WCH]

I honestly have no idea where WCH is getting his idiolectical usage from. Does he think that ghosthunters are going around asserting "nonexistence exists"?Maybe from the OP?

and, actually, funny that you should mention it, but I have seen a ghosthunter assert that nonexistence exists. We were on acid, and it was a joke.

[faithlessgod]

Then you have no argument at all, which was my point and your emphatic NO! confirms. If you have defined away supernatural then natural becomes a meaningless term too.You are mistaken. 'Natural' does not require the category 'Supernatural' to acquire definition. The definition: Natural = all that exists, reality; can be observed to be completely meaningful in itself.
This is a straw man definition of naturalism plain and simple.


The category 'Supernatural' makes no sense, except as residue of mythologycal thought. It would thus refer to mythical constructions and literary fantasies.
Then this confirms you have no substantive point to make regarding MN/ON. You do not get to define what I am, I do and I have and have pre-empted all your points which you still fail to address.If you want to make a charitable attempt to make a sound and valid argument, which you have not so far, you need to address and not ignore the points I (and others) have made.


If you are trying to make an argument against Metaphysical Naturalism you do not get to define away the problem, as your critique becomes empty too, this is the fallacy of equivocation and a straw man of your own construction.This 'critique' is very empty...and fallacious.
That is empty rhetoric - you given no evidence as to why you conclude this and I do not believe that you can. I, in the other hand, have made quite clear what I stand for and as to the problems with your critique. There is no tu quoque here.

Unless you are willing to actually engage in real debate, this debate is pointless.

[faithlessgod]

Looks like you and figuer are on the same page, the wrong one.

Then you have no argument at all, which was my point and your emphatic NO! confirms. If you have defined away supernatural then natural becomes a meaningless term too.Um, yeah... I've been saying this whole time that natural and supernatural is a false dichotomy, that the words don't mean a whole lot. Natural means it exists, supernatural means... well... not much.
Are you naturalist? Not likely given your points here. Well I am and I have clearly defined what I mean. Stop arguing against a straw man, no-one here would defend such a position. If you want to engage with naturalists and understand naturalism now is your opportunity but it is up to you.


Fantastical, maybe... at best a way of referring to things that exist in myth but not in reality, at worst a way of describing everything we do not currently have a good, scientific explanation for.
ON/MN is more than scientific explanation, it is about possible explanation in terms of only natural processes, in my version combinations of matter-energy in space-time.


If you are trying to make an argument against Metaphysical Naturalism you do not get to define away the problem, as your critique becomes empty too, this is the fallacy of equivocation and a straw man of your own construction.Guh... what I'm saying is that Metaphysical Naturalism is tautological, and therefore correct but not worthwhile as a position or worldview because it's devoid of content
Why should I care what you think ON is, you presumably do not hold such a position and I do and I have made it quite clear what I mean (which is quite consistent with others here). Either you address the substantive points or you have nothing to contribute.


-- even worse than atheism, because at least atheism is rejecting a specific, commonly held truth claim, whereas naturalism is just saying "what is, is, and what isn't, isn't. Now agree with me or be shunned." If something was found to exist, it would be placed in the "natural" column. Insisting on "naturalism" implies to me that so called Naturalists really do believe in gods, spirits, etc, but are angry and conflicted about it and so lash out, denying certain things, and dogmatically asserting only what they consider natural to exist. If your understanding of the universe really didn't include any of these things, it wouldn't be worth saying. Obviously only the natural exists... because natural means it exists!
Rambling incoherent non-sense.


Why the hell would you define yourselves around a categorical opposition involving something that isn't even real?
Why the hell are you addressing a straw man when there are real naturalists here?

[faithlessgod]

AFAICT the usage most consistent with the philosophical literature is that something is natural when it is nonmental; so supernatural causes would be causes which are irreducibly mental. (Tabelling for the moment the epistemological concern about how one tells the difference between "apparently irreducible" and "irreducible in principle".)
Whilst we are on the same page and side in this debate I have to disagree that whatever is mental is supernatural. Whatever "mental" is, if it exists it is reducible, in fact, to combinations of matter-energy in space-time.And I see no reason to decide a priori that mental states are not a type physical state. (However this is an internal debate between one naturalist to another which might confuse the non-naturalists here.)

[Michael Sansom]

They're still models of what is real, not what is actually real. For me that's an important distinction. Means it's incredibly useful for predictive power, but it can never be more than an approximation, can't actually directly translate to real experience.

I don't contest this. I was contesting that math per se can be considered an observer/observation.

[Antiplastic]

AFAICT the usage most consistent with the philosophical literature is that something is natural when it is nonmental; so supernatural causes would be causes which are irreducibly mental. (Tabelling for the moment the epistemological concern about how one tells the difference between "apparently irreducible" and "irreducible in principle".)
Whilst we are on the same page and side in this debate I have to disagree that whatever is mental is supernatural.

What do you mean, "disagree"? Who is saying that whatever is mental is supernatural?

Whatever "mental" is, if it exists it is reducible, in fact, to combinations of matter-energy in space-time.And I see no reason to decide a priori that mental states are not a type physical state.

And neither do I.

[Antiplastic]

I honestly have no idea where WCH is getting his idiolectical usage from. Does he think that ghosthunters are going around asserting "nonexistence exists"?Maybe from the OP?


I read the OP. It consists in the assertion that, apparently, nothing supernatural exists. Nowhere did it define "supernatural" as "nonexistent", any more than the cure for cancer, which does not exist, is by definition nonexistent. But that's beside the point, because even if he did later, he'd be wrong.

[Michael Sansom]

Please justify (plus mathemathics is a form of observation..)In scientific models mathematical predictions arise from observations, and gain validity only if they match posterior observations. Otherwise they are speculations. The history in science of discarded mathematical models is monumental.

That's the power of science; falsified theories (and any equations along for the ride) are discarded.

Some mathematical models are partly based on observations; some are purely speculative and remain so unless they generate predictions that can be tested. Mathematics itself cannot serve in the role of an observation.

[mirage]

Ooo! Sign me up to the "what the hell does naturalism actually mean?" party.

No, I don't believe in spooks either. Do we really need to dress it up in a dubious metaphysical label?

I honestly have no idea where WCH is getting his idiolectical usage from. Does he think that ghosthunters are going around asserting "nonexistence exists"?

AFAICT the usage most consistent with the philosophical literature is that something is natural when it is nonmental; so supernatural causes would be causes which are irreducibly mental. (Tabelling for the moment the epistemological concern about how one tells the difference between "apparently irreducible" and "irreducible in principle".)

So in terms of one's empirical world model, a naturalist would be someone who believes at the end of the day that all truths necessary to describe and predict observation will take the form of non-intentional (or "non-semantic") predicates. A non-natural predicate would be, say, Jones 'believes that' so and so, or this movie is 'about' Roman gladiators, or Smith's actions were 'morally wrong'. I am not a moral naturalist in the sense that I don't believe moral facts can be reduced to or identified with any natural facts, but I am a moral naturalist in the sense that, being a noncognitivist, I don't believe that moral claims are in the business of making descriptions which contribute to one's empirical world-model.

I suppose a supernatural claim would just be that not only are there irreducibly semantic predicates in our models, but that some of these entail entities which are causally efficacious (intelligent designers, entelechies, etc.)
That is certainly one argument to have but my understanding is that "naturalism" is nowhere near as clear cut as a philosophical term:

Stanford Encyclopedia: Naturalism (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/naturalism/)

So understood, ‘naturalism’ is not a particularly informative term as applied to contemporary philosophers. The great majority of contemporary philosophers would happily accept naturalism as just characterized—that is, they would both reject ‘supernatural’ entities, and allow that science is a possible route (if not necessarily the only one) to important truths about the ‘human spirit’.

[J842P]

Circular much?

Christ. Naturalists are as bad as Christians sometimes.

If magical powers, gods, metaphysical "mind-stuff", etc., were found to exist, then naturalism would be worthless. I don't doubt that some would call them natural phenomena and move on, but this kind of discovery would call for such a radical reformulation of our view of the world that I think we can properly say naturalism would be falsified and transcended.

But you're right, it's very hard to define what's natural and what's supernatural, outside of the obvious ones (gods versus quarks).

Similar findings have been found. They are called paradigm shifts. Consider the shift from classical mechanics to quantum mechanics.

Its not about how radical the shift is. Not at the root of it. Ontological naturalism, as I've always understood it, is the position that we can use the scientific method to know everything there is to know about the world. So once we've made a shift, and we discover that what we are left with is still amenable to the scientific inquiry, then naturalism is retained (as in the case I mentioned above for physics). However, if there is something that cannot be understood using science, then naturalism fails.

[Lógos Sokratikós]

If magical powers, gods, metaphysical "mind-stuff", etc., were found to exist, then naturalism would be worthless. I don't doubt that some would call them natural phenomena and move on, but this kind of discovery would call for such a radical reformulation of our view of the world that I think we can properly say naturalism would be falsified and transcended.

But you're right, it's very hard to define what's natural and what's supernatural, outside of the obvious ones (gods versus quarks).

Similar findings have been found. They are called paradigm shifts. Consider the shift from classical mechanics to quantum mechanics.

Its not about how radical the shift is. Not at the root of it. Ontological naturalism, as I've always understood it, is the position that we can use the scientific method to know everything there is to know about the world. So once we've made a shift, and we discover that what we are left with is still amenable to the scientific inquiry, then naturalism is retained (as in the case I mentioned above for physics). However, if there is something that cannot be understood using science, then naturalism