Philosophical vs Methodological Naturalism

[alexey]

This thread is a follow-up to several discussions that took place on this forum.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Philosophical_naturalism

Philosophical naturalism is the doctrine that the observable world is all there is.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Methodological_naturalism

Methodological naturalism is the label for the required assumption of philosophical naturalism when working with the scientific method. Methodological naturalists limit their scientific research to the study of natural causes, because any attempts to define causal relationships with the supernatural are never fruitful, and result in the creation of scientific "dead ends" and God of the gaps-type hypotheses. To avoid these traps scientists assume that all causes are empirical and naturalistic; which means they can be measured, quantified and studied methodically.

Scientists are not required to have a philosophical naturalism belief system (they are not required to be atheists to practice or use science).

However, scientists are required to be methodological naturalists when doing science.

Methodological naturalism lies at the core of all modern science and technology.

Now to continue an ongoing discussion from another thread:

 

Is there a reason to believe the false positive rate (that the system is random, but patterns are detected) is higher than the false negative rate (that no patterns are detected, but there is a pattern)?

Methodological naturalism tells you the patterns.

I think in terms of strategies, and I try to base my strategies on those patterns.

You may think in terms of beliefs, and you may or may not consider those patterns to be good reasons to believe.

 

And by what measure? I think in terms of those things several systems perform better. I see a lot that happens in the world that is not predicted to be at least likely from only naturalism where models that include naturalism + other things perform better in terms of all of those things.

I am always on a lookout for better performing systems. I am currently not aware of any competition to naturalism or ways to improve it by augmentation.

 

(Alexey) has done no test to show that the pattern is actually significant or better than any other system that makes predictions.

I value methodological naturalism because it lies at the core of all science and all technology.

[PeterMP]

Now to continue an ongoing discussion from another thread:

 

Methodological naturalism tells you the patterns.

Methodological naturalism is going to have false positives and false negatives.

 

In the context of all of science and the universe (and/or larger system (i.e. multiverse)), it is not clear what those rates will be to me.

So to say that it tells you the patterns is misleading and realistically incorrect. It tells you things that might be patterns given some chance of being wrong.

Where I don't know what the chance of begin wrong is, and if you do, you've failed to share it with me over multiple threads.

And if you did know them, you could have ended this discussion a long time ago.

 

I think in terms of strategies, and I try to base my strategies on those patterns.

In an isolated context, I don't have a problem with that.

 

You may think in terms of beliefs, and you may or may not consider those patterns to be good reasons to believe.

I agree with this, but much of your argument presented in other threads over time seems to be that these patterns should be believed because of some level high quality evidence supporting them, which would bring us back to what is the false negative and positive rate.

 

I am always on a lookout for better performing systems. I am currently not aware of any competition to naturalism or ways to improve it by augmentation.

You aren't aware of models where the system appears to be highly natural, but is not completely?

That's a little odd because I think I've posted papers on such systems before and in pretty good detain explained the reasoning and evidence for them (i.e. this is a simulation), discussed such a system in the last thread (well now two threads ago), and at least in terms of western society/culture is where naturalism came from (i.e. the belief that God has created a mostly natural world for us to live in and that by studying nature we can learn about our existence and creation was an important belief of early Christian thinkers and motivated many important and early scientists).

In that sense, the apparent naturalism is a prediction that was made by Christians in the context of their belief in God.

[Jumbo]

(i hope this perturbs no one and i am not here to really participate at length; but for folks other than the "usual suspects" who may find some of this stuff in some of these threads a bit out of their wheelhouse, i am putting up a relevant link with other relevant links on that page, that i think/hope might useful to anyone so interested, and for once it's not the philosophy site at Stanford ) 

 

http://www.diffen.com/difference/Objective_vs_Subjective

 

(if you click, be patient for a moment as you read/explore the page---it's not just about grammar )

[alexey]

Methodological naturalism is going to have false positives and false negatives.

In the context of all of science and the universe (and/or larger system (i.e. multiverse)), it is not clear what those rates will be to me.

So to say that it tells you the patterns is misleading and realistically incorrect. It tells you things that might be patterns given some chance of being wrong.

Where I don't know what the chance of begin wrong is, and if you do, you've failed to share it with me over multiple threads.

And if you did know them, you could have ended this discussion a long time ago.

Regardless of this uncertainty, methodological naturalism allows us to create wonderful technology and make astoundingly accurate predictions.

I agree with this, but much of your argument presented in other threads over time seems to be that these patterns should be believed because of some level high quality evidence supporting them, which would bring us back to what is the false negative and positive rate.

"should be believed" is about philosophical naturalism.

I prefer to think in terms of strategies rather than beliefs. Methodological naturalism may not provide a ground for beliefs, but provides sufficient ground for evidence-based strategies.

You aren't aware of models where the system appears to be highly natural, but is not completely?

Maybe in areas such as meaning and value, but not when it comes to discovering and validating patterns.

That's a little odd because I think I've posted papers on such systems before and in pretty good detain explained the reasoning and evidence for them (i.e. this is a simulation), discussed such a system in this thread, and at least in terms of western society/culture is where naturalism came from (i.e. the belief that God has created a mostly natural world for us to live in and that by studying nature we can learn about our existence and creation was an important belief of early Christian thinkers and motivated many important and early scientists).

In that sense, the apparent naturalism is a prediction that was made by Christians in the context of their belief in God.

Although some forms of Christianity seem to accept some forms of naturalism, the central dogma of Christianity appears to be an explicit rejection of naturalism.

Deism appears to be most successful at resolving the idea of a supernatural god with naturalism.

[PeterMP]

Regardless of this uncertainty, methodological naturalism allows us to create wonderful technology and make astoundingly accurate predictions.

"should be believed" is about philosophical naturalism.

I prefer to think in terms of strategies rather than beliefs. Methodological naturalism may not provide a ground for beliefs, but provides sufficient ground for evidence-based strategies.

Maybe in areas such as meaning and value, but not when it comes to discovering and validating patterns.

Although some forms of Christianity seem to accept some forms of naturalism, the central dogma of Christianity appears to be an explicit rejection of naturalism.

Deism appears to be most successful at resolving the idea of a supernatural god with naturalism.

1. I've already said in the other thread that induction is a powerful tool.

2. From my perspective, you are using word games to avoid questions. You want to use the word sufficient, fine. By what measure is it sufficient, and who decided that was the measure by which we were going go measure sufficient?

From my perspective, without some sort of rigorous definition, you have substituted one subjective term for another.

You can jump from subjective term to subjective term. The point does not change.

3. You are trying to separate things that there is no reason to separate, and even declaring they must be separate ("the central dogma of Christianity appears to be an explicit rejection of naturalism"). This isn't true, isn't consistent with history, and not consistent with every day life for many people.

Now, you can (and have) defined naturalism in a manner that is it true, but the general concepts of naturalism were supported by Christian thinkers that pre-date modern science and naturalism and extended to scientists through out history.

To suggest that early scientists that were studying science in the context of understanding God and creation were not naturalists because they don't meet the definition of the word naturalists you want to use isn't a real argument.

4. You are generally talking about finding patterns. I'm talking about explaining our existence/universe/creation. Are you looking for better performing systems or only better performing systems that can only find patterns even if no real patterns exist? Your posts before (even into the other thread) was more general (e.g. making predictions), now you've limited it to finding patterns.

You've had to change your argument.

(i hope this perturbs no one and i am not here to really participate at length; but for folks other than the "usual suspects" who may find some of this stuff in some of these threads a bit out of their wheelhouse, i am putting up a relevant link with other relevant links on that page, that i think/hope might useful to anyone so interested, and for once it's not the philosophy site at Stanford ) 

 

http://www.diffen.com/difference/Objective_vs_Subjective

 

(if you click, be patient for a moment as you read/explore the page---it's not just about grammar )

Even objective terms are subjective in nature at some level. I take two sets of measurements (e.g. heights of women and men). I want to say that they are different. I do some test (e.g. a t-test). I generate a p-value.

That's all objective for the most part.

At what p-value do I get to say they are different 0.2, 0.1, 0.05, 0.01, 0.001?

At what value do I get to say that the heights of men are different at a population level.

That is a subjective judgement.

Generally, people have agreed on common subjective judgments (for a p-value people use either 0.01 or 0.05 and even there, you see subjectiveness (some people use 0.01 while some favor 0.05)), but that agreed upon value is still subjective in nature.

[alexey]

1. I've already said in the other thread that induction is a powerful tool.

Yes, especially when used in combination with methodological naturalism.

Note that belief in induction is not required in order to use it.

2. From my perspective, you are using word games to avoid questions. You want to use the word sufficient, find. By what measure is it sufficient, and who decided that was the measure by which we were going go measure sufficient?

From my perspective, without some sort of rigorous definition, you have substituted one subjective term for another.

You can jump from subjective term to subjective term. The point does not change.

Yes I am trying different ways to explain the same thing.

Details aside, it looks like I was able to communicate the distinction between believing in naturalism (philosophical naturalism) and using naturalism (methodological naturalism).

3. You are trying to separate things that there is no reason to separate, and even declaring they must be separate ("the central dogma of Christianity appears to be an explicit rejection of naturalism"). This isn't true, isn't consistent with history, and not consistent with every day life for many people.

Central dogmas of Christianity that are incompatible with naturalism include god that does things, supernatural creation, resurrection, sin, sacrifice, salvation.

Now, you can (and have) defined naturalism in a manner that is it true, but the general concepts of naturalism were supported by Christian thinkers that pre-date modern science and naturalism and extended to scientists through out history.

This is why it is important to distinguish philosophical and methodological naturalism. Christian scientists can engage in methodological naturalism when they do science. Philosophical naturalism, however, is not compatible with central dogmas of Christianity.

(talking about believers in Christianity, not cultural Christians)

To suggest that early scientists that were studying science in the context of understanding God and creation were not naturalists because they don't meet the definition of the word naturalists you want to use isn't a real argument.

I understand that early scientists made progress when they acted as methodological naturalists.

I also remember hearing several examples of early scientists making important discoveries, but then saying "god did it" when faced with the next level of the unknown. That is very unfortunate.

4. You are generally talking about finding patterns. I'm talking about explaining our existence/universe/creation. Are you looking for better performing systems or only better performing systems that can only find patterns even if no real patterns exist? Your posts before (even into the other thread) was more general (e.g. making predictions), now you've limited it to finding patterns.

You've had to change your argument.

Here is my understanding:

You highlighted issues with naturalism without making a distinction between philosophical and methodological naturalism.

I argued that your concerns are a valid criticism of philosophical naturalism, but do not apply to methodological naturalism.

[endzone_dave]

I'm not good with philosophy but to me, science answers how and what but it doesn't even come close to answering why.  Why was the universe created, why are there self aware being walking around with hopes, dreams, and desires?  At most, science can say we exist to propagate the species, and that is pretty weak (and boring).  That to me is why religion exists, because people desperately want to understand the why of it all, and science doesn't help with that.

[PeterMP]

Here is my understanding:

You highlighted issues with naturalism without making a distinction between philosophical and methodological naturalism.

I argued that your concerns are a valid criticism of philosophical naturalism, but do not apply to methodological naturalism.

 

Methodological naturalism is a method to gain knowledge.  It in of to itself does not claim to be a good or sufficient (or whatever other term you want to use) method to gain knowledge.

 

It does not make claims that the knowledge will be true elsewhere or at other times.

 

It does not claim that the knowledge is reasonable, sufficient, or good reasons/beliefs/evidence/justification (or whatever other combination of terms you want to use) for actions.

 

That's it.

 

It is a tool.

 

The same things are true for induction.

 

I'm happy to end the thread there.

 

You normally seem like you want to make further claims.

[alexey]

Methodological naturalism is a method to gain knowledge. It in of to itself does not claim to be a good or sufficient (or whatever other term you want to use) method to gain knowledge.

It does not make claims that the knowledge will be true elsewhere or at other times.

It does not claim that the knowledge is reasonable, sufficient, or good reasons/beliefs/evidence/justification (or whatever other combination of terms you want to use) for actions.

That's it.

It is a tool.

The same things are true for induction.

I'm happy to end the thread there.

You normally seem like you want to make further claims.

In your view, what (if any) philosophical frameworks are required to utilize knowledge obtained via methodological naturalism?

[alexey]

I'm not good with philosophy but to me, science answers how and what but it doesn't even come close to answering why. Why was the universe created, why are there self aware being walking around with hopes, dreams, and desires? At most, science can say we exist to propagate the species, and that is pretty weak (and boring). That to me is why religion exists, because people desperately want to understand the why of it all, and science doesn't help with that.

Science is not the only way to explore these topics... But it does explain why humans desire to find reasons and intentionality behind everything.

I would caution against asserting that the universe must satisfy our desires.

[MartinC]

I'm not good with philosophy but to me, science answers how and what but it doesn't even come close to answering why.  Why was the universe created, why are there self aware being walking around with hopes, dreams, and desires?  At most, science can say we exist to propagate the species, and that is pretty weak (and boring).  That to me is why religion exists, because people desperately want to understand the why of it all, and science doesn't help with that.

 

The thing is there does not need to be a why. The answer could be it just did. 

 

I totally agree with you that that religion is the result of mans desire for there to be a 'why' and therefore something bigger than what we see and experience. But that does not mean there IS something bigger.

[PeterMP]

 

The thing is there does not need to be a why. The answer could be it just did. 

 

I totally agree with you that that religion is the result of mans desire for there to be a 'why' and therefore something bigger than what we see and experience. But that does not mean there IS something bigger.

 

I think there are several good points in the few posts above.  I think generally endzone_dave makes the best point, but he does not articulate it in the best possible manner.

 

The relevant question is why do naturalism and science seem to work so well.  Why does the system seem so naturalistic and scientific in nature?  (One answer is that it actually isn't, and it just seems to be because the human brain is evolved to detect patterns, and there is no clear metric to measure how well they explain the system, which is where alexey runs into problems generally.)

 

These are questions that science/naturalism can't answer (they, including naturalism in all its forms, can't even conclude that they do a good job much less explain why they should do a good job if they do a good job).

 

Now, we can simply say because or that's the way it is, but that doesn't seem to be very satisfying to me, and I doubt it is to many other people.  And in my opinion such ideas should be compared to people before science that said that natural events are just because they are or some other vague non-explanatory reasons.

 

The fact of the matter is that the system can be random.  All of the other "scientific" explanations that we have could be wrong.  All of the why's that we have uncovered might not be real (i.e. MartinC's answer actually applies to everything including science/naturalism).  But that hasn't stopped us from trying to ask why given the best methods we have, hasn't caused the creation of new methods, and to generally "advance" because of it.

 

In our experience, things tend to seem to have a why and while we cannot address this why using science/naturalism does not mean that we should not try.  We should try using the best methods we can and doing so might even lead us to develop new methods to study problems.  Which is how science itself came to be.

 

In this case, it didn't make sense to ask the why before knowing the system was highly natural (e.g. it doesn't make sense to ask why naturalism works without knowing the system appears to be highly natural).

 

In these cases, doing thought experiments makes sense, and I'm not opposed to it (and in fact did it in the thread 2 threads ago) so arguments based on those types of things are reasonable to me (if they are good arguments).

 

But, people generally favor explanations that make prior predictions.  If we start looking for systems where people used them to predict that the system would be highly naturalistic and that studying would reveal information about the system before the advent of science as a formalized system and before it was believed that the system was highly natural, then Christianity and Christian thinkers like St. Augustine fit the bill.

 

If we want to start asking why the system appears highly natural and we are going to favor systems that made that as a prior prediction, then Christianity is one of those systems (and to my knowledge one a handful that hasn't been rejected for other reasons).

 

We can work from there and start to think of other ways to test those systems and validate them and/or uncover new ones.

 

Or we can simply throw our hands up in the air and say that's just the way it is, and there is not have to be a why.

 

But despite the limits of science and naturalism (e.g. the inability to say the system is not random), we do not do that for seemingly naturalistic events, and I don't see a reason to do it for other things that science/naturalism can't address.

 

It is possible that the result will be wrong (e.g. a false positive), but that's a possibility with every case and in any case including scientific results.

 

 

**EDIT**

In the case of the naturalism/science, we don't stop asking why.  Nobody suggests that we shut down the queries and assume it is that way just because it is.  That people would suggest that in other situations makes no sense to me.

 

Yes, the result might be wrong (e.g. a false positive), but the same is true for naturalism/science.

[MartinC]

In the case of the naturalism/science, we don't stop asking why.  Nobody suggests that we shut down the queries and assume it is that way just because it is.  That people would suggest that in other situations makes no sense to me.

 

Yes, the result might be wrong (e.g. a false positive), but the same is true for naturalism/science.

 

 

I am not suggesting that people should not ask the why question about how the Universe and we were created - I am simply saying that you can not discount the possibility (as many with religious beliefs do) that the answer to that question is that the creation of the Universe and the conditions that brought about life on Earth were simply random or chance and there is no 'why'.

 

There is nothing about the creation of the Universe or life as we know it which requires a God or God like being or for its creation to have a purpose. There is nothing which provides proof that creation was not the act of a God like being either of course or that we are not just part of some cosmic computer game. It comes down to belief - which is at least partially why these threads and the wider debate go round and round .....

[Zguy28]

The thing is there does not need to be a why. The answer could be it just did. 

 

I totally agree with you that that religion is the result of mans desire for there to be a 'why' and therefore something bigger than what we see and experience. But that does not mean there IS something bigger.

I would say that the fact that we are determined as a species to ask why and seek an answer might mean that there is an answer to be found. And if there is a purpose/answer, there must be a purpose-giver.

[alexey]

I think there are several good points in the few posts above. I think generally endzone_dave makes the best point, but he does not articulate it in the best possible manner.

Best according to what standard? I kid, I kid.

The relevant question is why do naturalism and science seem to work so well. Why does the system seem so naturalistic and scientific in nature? (One answer is that it actually isn't, and it just seems to be because the human brain is evolved to detect patterns, and there is no clear metric to measure how well they explain the system, which is where alexey runs into problems generally.)

Please feel free to address me directly if are unclear why this is not a problem for methodological naturalism.

These are questions that science/naturalism can't answer (they, including naturalism in all its forms, can't even conclude that they do a good job much less explain why they should do a good job if they do a good job).

"good job" according to what criteria?

Now, we can simply say because or that's the way it is, but that doesn't seem to be very satisfying to me, and I doubt it is to many other people. And in my opinion such ideas should be compared to people before science that said that natural events are just because they are or some other vague non-explanatory reasons.

What should we do when satisfying supernaturalistic explanations come in conflict with unsatisfying naturalistic explanations?

The fact of the matter is that the system can be random. All of the other "scientific" explanations that we have could be wrong. All of the why's that we have uncovered might not be real (i.e. MartinC's answer actually applies to everything including science/naturalism). But that hasn't stopped us from trying to ask why given the best methods we have, hasn't caused the creation of new methods, and to generally "advance" because of it.

Yes, possibility of being wrong is not a problem for methodological naturalism. Rather, it is embraced.

In our experience, things tend to seem to have a why and while we cannot address this why using science/naturalism does not mean that we should not try. We should try using the best methods we can and doing so might even lead us to develop new methods to study problems. Which is how science itself came to be.

Yes, there is an explanation why humans evolved to over-detect agency and purpose.

In this case, it didn't make sense to ask the why before knowing the system was highly natural (e.g. it doesn't make sense to ask why naturalism works without knowing the system appears to be highly natural).

I agree... Questions "why" methodological naturalism works are different from an undeniable fact that it does work.

In these cases, doing thought experiments makes sense, and I'm not opposed to it (and in fact did it in the thread 2 threads ago) so arguments based on those types of things are reasonable to me (if they are good arguments).

Thoughts experiments are great as long as they are not mishandled.

But, people generally favor explanations that make prior predictions. If we start looking for systems where people used them to predict that the system would be highly naturalistic and that studying would reveal information about the system before the advent of science as a formalized system and before it was believed that the system was highly natural, then Christianity and Christian thinkers like St. Augustine fit the bill.

Organisms have been using methodological neturalism for millions of years.

If we want to start asking why the system appears highly natural and we are going to favor systems that made that as a prior prediction, then Christianity is one of those systems (and to my knowledge one a handful that hasn't been rejected for other reasons).

You are thinking of Deism. Christianity explicitly rejects naturalism.

btw here is another system that predicts naturalism: "**** happens"

We can work from there and start to think of other ways to test those systems and validate them and/or uncover new ones.

Please let us know if you think of something.

Or we can simply throw our hands up in the air and say that's just the way it is, and there is not have to be a why.

Or we can do what scientists do and say "why is not always a good question"

**EDIT**

In the case of the naturalism/science, we don't stop asking why. Nobody suggests that we shut down the queries and assume it is that way just because it is. That people would suggest that in other situations makes no sense to me.

Yes, the result might be wrong (e.g. a false positive), but the same is true for naturalism/science.

Many very smart people wasted a lot of their time on (what was later discovered to be) silly questions.

Good luck trying to figure out which questions are worth your time.

I would say that the fact that we are determined as a species to ask why and seek an answer might mean that there is an answer to be found. And if there is a purpose/answer, there must be a purpose-giver.

It might.

Evolution explains why we are eager to over detect purpose and intent.

[Jumbo]

said it many times...bright as the people here are, this venue will no more settle such matters than the circles where the dialogue advances much deeper and more broadly (and with much more diversity of informed input) than it will here...and it still remains inconclusive in final effect...but for me that's just an observation that lends perspective, not one that persuades changes in cognitive habits...these kinds of "religious" conversations at any "level" (IMO), when productive at all, can help individuals on their personal explorations....admittedly, I think the vast majority of the time it's mainly used to simply "get yours out and show it" or to hone/polish arguments and support/reaffirm what's already deeply and firmly held as a vital core belief by the individual...we all have our existential wonderings and once we've settled on something that gives us something of what we seek, some view of existence that resonates more with us, works better for us, and does so deeply and "better" than other options, it's not easily dislodged.

 

...the only thing that may be more stubbornly resistant to dislodging (no matter what) in our panoply of views is our allegiance to the Redskins (no matter what)...

[MartinC]

I would say that the fact that we are determined as a species to ask why and seek an answer might mean that there is an answer to be found. And if there is a purpose/answer, there must be a purpose-giver.

 

The desire to find an answer does not mean there IS an answer. You can believe there is an answer, you can believe there is a higher purpose and therefore a purpose giver but those are beliefs and you are as likely to be wrong as I am in my belief there is no higher purpose or 'why' answer. 

[PeterMP]

Please feel free to address me directly if are unclear why this is not a problem for methodological naturalism.

I have addressed it to you multiple time, including essentially in the post above this one. Your response was to ask me a question. As I've told you multiple times in multiple threads, if you have a point, make it.

As I explained in the other thread, I don't think when you actually ask such questions, you actually have a point, and you making your point doesn't require me to answer questions.

I write long detailed posts that lay out my positions. You are free to do the same.

I'm done answering posts that are just questions because you can't make a relevant point on your own.

You think that you can make a relevant point, do it. 

 

"good job" according to what criteria?

Whatever criteria the person wants to use, and if it does not meet that criteria, that's fine with me.

I'm not running around telling people this is what they should believe or that this way is better than another.

If people want to apply a criteria that results in them concluding, it is not good, it doesn't bother me.

 

Yes, there is an explanation why humans evolved to over-detect agency and purpose.

The same issue apply to naturalistic explanations, but we don't use that as an excuse to dismiss them.

 

You are thinking of Deism. Christianity explicitly rejects naturalism.

This is only true if you accept an extreme definition of naturalism, and it clearly isn't true in a general sense and history shows this when you look at the early growth of naturalism is western cultures and even early science and scientists (and even science and scientists since then).

And I've already pointed this out to you. Repeating it doesn't make it so.

 

btw here is another system that predicts naturalism: "**** happens"

That system predicts every and anything.

 

Or we can do what scientists do and say "why is not always a good question"

I don't think most scientists ever do that. They might say I'm not quite sure how to answer why at this time based on the tools that I have, but that's different than saying it isn't a good, relevant, or question worth thinking about.

 

Evolution explains why we are eager to over detect purpose and intent.

But evolution doesn't explain why evolution happened. It doesn't explain why evolution happened in that way.

And that same logic can be applied to everything science has uncovered.

But we don't use that argument to dismiss evidence for the Higgs Boson.

[alexey]

Peter,

Philosophical naturalism could be true or false. Methodological naturalism is different, it is a tool, a method. Words true/false do not apply to it.

It would be a category error to say that methodological naturalism is true or false. Do you agree?

[PeterMP]

Peter,

Philosophical naturalism could be true or false. Methodological naturalism is different, it is a tool, a method. Words true/false do not apply to it.

It would be a category error to say that methodological naturalism is true or false. Do you agree?

Methodological naturalism is a method to gain knowledge.  It in of to itself does not claim to be a good or sufficient (or whatever other term you want to use) method to gain knowledge.

 

It does not make claims that the knowledge will be true elsewhere or at other times.

 

It does not claim that the knowledge is reasonable, sufficient, or good reasons/beliefs/evidence/justification (or whatever other combination of terms you want to use) for actions.

 

That's it.

 

It is a tool.

 

The same things are true for induction.

 

I'm happy to end the thread there.

 

You normally seem like you want to make further claims.

[alexey]

Then we agree that such concerns are only applicable to philosophical naturalism:

The fact of the matter is that the system can be random. All of the other "scientific" explanations that we have could be wrong. All of the why's that we have uncovered might not be real

[PeterMP]

Then we agree that such concerns are only applicable to philosophical naturalism:

The part you quoted doesn't say anything about naturalism at all.

 

It is talking about explanations.

 

Methodological naturalism is not an explanation.

 

What I wrote is relevant to explanations not tools.

[alexey]

The part you quoted doesn't say anything about naturalism at all.

It is talking about explanations.

Methodological naturalism is not an explanation.

What I wrote is relevant to explanations not tools.

Methodological naturalism itself is not an explanation... but it does provide explanations.

Granted it provides limited and fallible explanations, and it does not provide an explanation for every question you may pose.

However, as problematic as methodological naturalism may appear to be, it is (as far as I am aware) the only game in town in terms of explaining the hows, increasing our capabilities through technology, making predictions, and so on.

In your view, what (if any) philosophical frameworks are required to utilize knowledge obtained via methodological naturalism?

[PeterMP]

However, as problematic as methodological naturalism may appear to be, it is (as far as I am aware) the only game in town in terms of explaining the hows, increasing our capabilities through technology, making predictions, and so on.

 

This isn't true and should be abundantly evident from this thread and our other threads, and I've already specifically pointed this out to you in the other thread.

 

The prediction that methodological naturalism is a good way to find information is a prediction not made by methodological naturalism.

 

But it is a prediction I can make.

 

(In fact, I'd say methodological naturalism itself makes no predictions.  We can make predictions based on information uncovered by methodological naturalism and then use methodological naturalism to test those predictions.)

 

But the predictions themselves are independent of the tool/method.  I can predict that rain will come up from the ground and go into the sky tomorrow.  Then I can test that prediction using methodological naturalism.

 

What philosophical frameworks use knoweldge derived from any source?

 

Which ever ones want to by the people that whose philosophical framework it is.  If a person wishes to leave the knowledge derived from methodological naturalism out of their philosophical framework, they can.

 

If you think you have a relevant point, make it.

[alexey]

This isn't true and should be abundantly evident from this thread and our other threads, and I've already specifically pointed this out to you in the other thread.

Such comments bring unnecessary negativity while obscuring your points.

The prediction that methodological naturalism is a good way to find information is a prediction not made by methodological naturalism.

But it is a prediction I can make.

(In fact, I'd say methodological naturalism itself makes no predictions. We can make predictions based on information uncovered by methodological naturalism and then use methodological naturalism to test those predictions.)

But the predictions themselves are independent of the tool/method. I can predict that rain will come up from the ground and go into the sky tomorrow. Then I can test that prediction using methodological naturalism.

What philosophical frameworks use knowledge derived from any source?

Which ever ones want to by the people that whose philosophical framework it is. If a person wishes to leave the knowledge derived from methodological naturalism out of their philosophical framework, they can.

If you think you have a relevant point, make it.

Methodological naturalism makes predictions. For example, it predicts the exact time when the sun will come up tomorrow.