Talk:Methodological naturalism

{{twoversions|22742706}}

---

Because of their length, the previous discussions on this page have been archived. If further archiving is needed, see Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.

Previous discussions:

• Archive 1 (start to 22 July 2005):
• Archive 2 (22 July 2005 to 11 September 2005):

---

Redirecting

I would like to proceed with the redirect so I'm going to create a new discussion point about it here.

There are currently two users who seem convinced that the redirect should not occur. One of them posts a bit more than the other who usually justs posts "I agree" in a means of support without giving other arguments.

As I see it, the reasons for not redirecting are as follows:

1. There are too many terms in the new article which may be a source of confusion
2. There are a lot of links to the term MN itself and people who get directed to PN might be "astonished". (See principle of least astonishment)
3. PN=ON

I hope we can all agree that the third reason is based on incorrect definitions. So that leaves two reasons above.

The first one I really don't see as a guiding principle for wikipedia. If it were true that articles shouldn't introduce new terminology then we would have a lot of tiny stubs floating around the namespace of various subjects with different adjectives tacked on. For example, you would see articles on virtuous individualism, functional individualism, methodlogical individualism, ontological individualism, empirical individualism and so on. Instead we just see one article: individualism. I could garner a half dozen citations to each of the above terms but that doesn't mean that they deserve their own article.

The second reason is really one of proper linking. If someone is concerned that a person who clicks on a methodological naturalism link will be astonished when they arrive at PN we can fix that by making the links for methodology and naturalism separate. That way they won't be expecting to see both. However, the point remains that methodological naturalism is adequately explained on the PN page and there really should be no reason to repeat that information on its own page.

--Joshuaschroeder 12:42, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

What is it with this merge thing? The first bullet (too many terms in PN) is directly tied to the second bullet (many creationist articles link to "methodological naturalism"). When reading an article about ID, there is no need to click on MN and get an entire course in philosophy. This is a specific term used repeatedly in creation/evolution debates, and deserves its own entry. What is the problem here? It is one short little article about a bit of terminology that comes up repeatedly in the creation/evolution debates. There is no sense in directing readers to a philosophical indoctrination covering numerous unrelated topics. MN links to PN and if readers really, really, want to read about PN, then all they have to do is click on the link. You are basically saying readers should read what YOU want, rather than letting them choose what THEY want. Let them read an MN article, and if they want more, they can click on PN, and presto, there's your Philosophy 101 article. FuelWagon 13:43, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Naturalism is a course in philosophy in its own right. If they are interested in methodology distinctions, let them click on methodological separately. Joshuaschroeder 14:05, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Philosophical naturalism is also a specific term that is used, and the distinction is that MN is a part of PN. If someone wants a definition for natuarlism, MN does a poor job of it. Joshuaschroeder 14:05, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

The MN article as it now stands makes the incorrect claim that ontological naturalism = philosophical naturalism. This is false as has been put forward many times above. There is no sense in Balkanizing these articles and including wording that is misleading/incorrect. Joshuaschroeder 14:05, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Actually, you are saying that readers should read what YOU want, that is an article that inadequately explains naturalism with a bent toward an incomplete description and an emphasis on an ontological distinction that could just as well be (and is) made on the PN page. Joshuaschroeder 14:05, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't care if naturalism is a course in philosophy, I care if the reader is served. If someoen clicks on methodological naturalism, then they should get that term explained.

The term is explained in the PN article. Joshuaschroeder 18:57, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

They aren't clicking on MN to get an explanation of "naturalism", they're clicking on it to get an explanation of methodological naturalism.

In order to understand MN, one needs to understand naturalism itself. Joshuaschroeder 18:57, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. and Wrong. You don't need to read about materialism,pragmatism, teleology, functionalist, agnostic, metaphysics,epistemology to understand the idea of using natural/material methods in science. If you want to read about philosophy, then you'll need to read all of that. but if you're tryign to understand natural/material methods in science versus supernatural methods, then all you need to read is MN. FuelWagon 21:04, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

You can have a link to methodology if you think that you want to learn about the methods of science. Or even better link to the scientific method. But if you are interested in having a link that refers to naturalism whether it be ontological, methodological, etc. you better link appropriately. Joshuaschroeder 01:50, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

If they want to know how that fits into naturalism, then they can click on that.

Agreed, so the solution is to link separately from methodology and naturalism. Joshuaschroeder 18:57, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

As for your issue with ontological naturalism !== philosophical naturalism, what's your point? Is the only solution to merge the article?

The solution is to avoid this bifurcation of articles into different adjective realms. We can explain the ontological and methodological distinction fine in one article. Adding adjective articles is not appropriate. Joshuaschroeder 18:57, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that the MN article can't be fixed?

No. I suggest the fix is very simple: Redirect. Joshuaschroeder 18:57, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Is there no way to explain MN without requiring the reader get a full schooling in "naturalism" as a whole and all of its subsets, epistemologies, philosophies, ontologies, and other stuff?

No, there isn't. If a reader wants to know about MN, the reader should learn about naturalism and why the distinction is made. This is only for the reason that the distinction is easily made in a section on the PN page. Joshuaschroeder 18:57, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

If you have a problem with the MN article, fix it. Don't sit around and use it as justification for merging it. It doesn't need to be merged. FuelWagon 15:39, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

I did fix it. The fix is a redirect. That's a legitimate fix and so far I've seen no reason for why the redirect is illegitimate. The PN article includes all the information in this article and also includes more information. Readers who click on MN links are not going to be mislead into false information, so there really is no justification for this other than a preternatural desire to see an article you created, Fuel, remain in its own namespace. Joshuaschroeder 18:57, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

And I see no reason why a redirect IS legitimate. MN is a topic unto itself. It is a term bandied about in the creation/evolution debate. It is separate from naturalism adn it is separate from ontology and it is serparate from philosophy. Readers don't need your Philosophy of Naturalism 101 article to get the difference between naturalism in scientific methods and being an atheist. That is the main point ID proponents want to blur. they want to blur the distinction between using natural means in your science and being an atheist. They want to change the debate from evolution/creation to atheism/christianity. And directing readers to a page that starts out with Philosophical Naturalism (i.e. ATHEISM), going through half a dozen UNRELATED vocabulary terms, to finally get to the point that being natural scientist and supporting evolution doesnt mean you have to be an atheist who will burn in hell. For purposes of ID and other creation/evolution articles, a separate article for MN is needed. Balkanization is a sorry excuse when we're talking about ONE article. There is no justification for merging other than that you want it for whatever POV-pushing reason you have. Do you favor philosophical naturalims personally? Is that the reason? Are you "spreading the word" by linking people there instead of just going to the topic at hand? What's your game? FuelWagon 21:18, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

MN doesn't exist without PN. Period. Joshuaschroeder 01:50, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Precisely. Or in terms more important to an encyclopedia article, you can't learn about MN until you learn PN/ON. So to describe MN in an article without PN is futile. So either you put MN on the PN page where the topic is fully covered, or you copy/paste PN material to the MN page in order to be able to describe MN. This latter method seems like a superfluous redundancy. The principle of Ockham's Razor prods me toward Josh's side. David Bergan 05:09, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

I support a redirect. I couldn't tell if Josh had me in mind as the "I agree" stooge. I just think that wherever this ends up there should be at least a wikilink to the question of science being guided by MN or ME (probably on Johnson's, Dembski's, the ID or Empiricism page). David Bergan 15:03, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Methodological empiricism, in Dave's context, is using natural methods to find supernatural causes. It's a shell game use by ID to hide the supernatural component, and make them look scientific. FuelWagon 15:41, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Irrelevent. You'll note that when I redirected the page that Dave created he didn't object but asked where the information could be included. When articles are short like PN and MN and so closely related, it makes sense to merge them. Joshuaschroeder 18:57, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Methodological empiricism, in Dave's context, is using natural methods to find supernatural causes. - Obviously. Anyone claiming any supernatural intervention is going to use "natural methods" because it is simply impossible for us to use "supernatural methods". To witness anything we have to use our senses. But that doesn't mean the data (which is material) always has a material cause. David Bergan 21:16, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

I guess I'm a bit late, but I'll throw in my half cent or so. I think that the article should remain independent, since the term Methodological Naturalism is being used to distinguish a concept from the more inclusive term Naturalism. It makes no sense, for example, to state in an article that MN shouldn't be confused with Naturalism and then have users who click MN be redirected to Naturalism. The entire point is to make a distinction. I'm not entirely happy with the page as it stands, but I can't imagine how merging it into Naturalism would improve anything. MN is a notable concept and deserves its own page. As for all those concepts listed above, methodological individualism and so on, how many of those are as notable as MN is? How many are as likely to be looked up without regard to individualism itself? [/rant]. TheIncredibleEdibleOompaLoompa 04:16, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

philosophical naturalism

I take the following paragraph to be a good plain-language definition of philosophical naturalism. Please correct me if I am mistaken.

"naturalism is the philosophy that maintains that (1) nature is all there is and whatever exists or happens is natural; (2) nature (the universe or cosmos) consists only of natural elements (3) nature works by natural processes that follow natural laws and can, in principle, be explained and understood by science and philosophy; and (4) the supernatural does not exist, i.e., only nature is real, therefore, supernature is non-real. Naturalism is therefore a metaphysical philosophy opposed primarily by supernaturalism." [1]

I take the following paragraph to a good plain-language description of the different between ontological and methodological naturalism. Please correct me if I am mistaken.

"Philosophical naturalism itself exists in two forms: (1) ontological or metaphysical naturalism and (2) methodological naturalism. The former is philosophical naturalism as described above; the latter is the adoption or assumption of philosophical naturalism within scientific method" [2]

Given the above, the MN article can clarify that ON is synonymous with metaphysical naturalism and is sometimes mistakenly called PN. FuelWagon 15:58, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

I've changed the article in an attempt to fix this. Hopefully this is one less concern about the article. FuelWagon 16:18, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

This doesn't really address my concern which is basically that this is a redundant article. The clarification is contained in the PN article. The rest of the MN article is a creationist critique of naturalism and isn't specifically about MN, so naturally should be in the PN article. Since all of that is already done, the redirect should be reinstated. Joshuaschroeder 18:50, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

no, the redirect shouldn't be reinstated. you only say it should be so. The rest of the MN article is NOT a creationist critique of naturalism, it is specifically quotes that attack methodlogical naturalism. That is the point. They are different topics. Your argument to merge is nothing but an argument to merge. you provide no reasoning other than "because". FuelWagon 20:41, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

There's no other way to put it, Fuel, you are wrong on this point. Many of the quotes attack naturalism in general and not MN. Joshuaschroeder 21:46, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Hm, so I say "the MN article contains quotes that criticize methodological naturalism", and you reply "many of the quotes attack naturalism in general"? that's changing the topic. Creationists attack MN and they attack naturalism in general. The MN article is specifically for the criticisms of MN and the defense of it. And not ALL criticism is leveled just at naturalism. Creationists hold a special place in their heart for attacking MN specifically. This article [3], by Stephen Meyer, has it's own section titled "Methodological Naturalism", and includes this quote:

But "methodological naturalism" cannot be justified as a normative principle for all types of science--without doing violence to science as a truth-seeking enterprise.

this article [4], on the institute creation research website that has this quote:

Modern evolutionary scientists have defined science to include the origin of everything, without any contribution by God. They call this the (philosophical) "rule" of "methodological naturalism" (p. 58). It could just as well be called atheism, and is really a religion to be accepted on faith.

So, while creationists may criticize naturalism in general, they have created a special category just for methodological naturalism. And that is sufficient enough reason to have an article for MN explaining what it is, explaining the criticism, explaining the support, all without getting into a philosophy 101 course.

I can only assume that you simply want people to read about PN because you support PN. Readers aren't served by going to the PN article when they want to understand MN. It is overkill. PN is a philosophy 101 introduction, and MN can be explained and reported without worrying about half a dozen philosophical vocabulary terms. FuelWagon 15:14, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

As Fuel is obviously unable to understand the points being made, this discussion continues to circle round and round. There still remain only two people who have supported the idea of keeping the article and one of them checked out when I asked for them to enumerate what wasn't merged into the PN article. Joshuaschroeder 17:41, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Oh, it's obvious that I am unable to understand, is it? well, let's see, uhm, I see all of 3 who support merging it and 2 who support keeping it. That makes it 2 versus 3. I may be too thick in the head to get this, but I understand 2 to 3 is not a consensus. Do you understand it another way? And since you've devolved this conversation down to personal attacks of my intellectual capabilities, I think it is all the more reason that the decision needs to be made by AFD to bring in outside opinions and get a real consensus. I don't feel overly compelled to try and persuade someone who thinks I'm too stupid to get it. FuelWagon 13:56, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Lets be a bit more clear as to why Johnson made a distinction between PN and MN. Johnson wrote a number of treatises back before he was an ID theorist about why Christians shouldn't trust evolution. His reason for it was that scientists were materialists who refused to accept that God existed and acted in the world. This position was roundly criticized by many in the C-E debate as being naive toward what the actual practice of science was. Johnson was criticized as not understanding science because he himself was a lawyer and not a scientist. So to combat this, in later works he made the distinction between MN and ON in order to show that he really did understand how science works. However, his goal in making this distinction was to claim that methodology=ontology. In other words if one makes the assumption in a methodological sense one must also be a pragmatist. Clearly not true, but another level separated from his initial faux-pas. So MN became is criticism du jour and the word fell into the laps of creationists and IDers.

The point is that Johnson never admits to being wrong. Instead he modifies his opinions and terminology. So his critique of materialism is replaced by the same critique of MN without changing the content of the critique. It is a bait and switch method that has caused this subject to be something to which creationists "refer". However, the creationist is really refering to a long progression of arguments that have occurred over 15 years or so. This is why a redirect to PN is not confusing: any creationist argument is criticizing the lot of MN, PN, ON, materialism, empiricism, etc. Those that seek to understand the distinction between these terms will be intelligent enough to look for themselves across the page about naturalism. We don't need to reinvent the wheel. Joshuaschroeder 13:48, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

redirect vs merge

Quite a messy discussion. One point that doesn't seem to be appreciated. There is a difference between "merging" and merely redirecting. The former invovles moving the content, if not the exact material, from one article and incorportating it into another. The latter involves blanking the page and replacing it with a redirect. Which are you debating? --Rikurzhen 20:03, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

Since content has been moved, this is a merge. The merge has already been done, but the redirect part has been removed by both yourself and by Fuelwagon (I may add, without looking at how the merged page naturalism (philosophy) incorporated the material. Joshuaschroeder 21:36, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Please assume good faith. I did look at it, and I find it lacking. If that's the best treatment we can do of MN on a PN page, then MN truly needs to keep its own page. --Rikurzhen 22:02, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

Can you enumerate what was on this page that isn't on the PN page? Joshuaschroeder 22:29, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Maybe we should put up for AFD and get some outside opinions on the matter. You already attempted to delete the article, merge some of the content, and replace it with a redirect. That counts as an attempt to delete. FuelWagon 13:42, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Merging an article is not deleting it. I merged all the content of this article. It doesn't count as an attempt to delete. Ask around. Joshuaschroeder 17:38, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Joshuaschroeder, you asked for an enumeration. I'm a little busy, but item #1 on that list is that "methodological naturalism", the phrase, does not occur until the middle of the section on "methodology" and without any special emphasis to catch the eye. This article offers an explicit definition of MN, which can be read and immediately appreciated without further effort. The PN article does not offer the currently. --Rikurzhen 23:55, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

So your objection is that people won't know that a section titled "Methdological vs. ontological" is about methdological naturaism because they won't know that methodological is modifying naturalism -- the title of the article? Joshuaschroeder 13:29, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

You've made it difficult for the reader. Start the section with a defintion of MN and bold the phrase. --Rikurzhen 20:25, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

Okay, sounds good. Will this allow you to drop your objection? Joshuaschroeder 22:34, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

"This article offers an explicit definition of MN, which can be read and immediately appreciated without further effort." Agreed. no need to introduce half a dozen philosophical terms about unrelated subjects if the reader simply wants to understand MN. FuelWagon 13:59, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Those terms are not unrelated. They are unrelated by your reckoning. I am going to go through and redirect links to prove the point. Joshuaschroeder 20:00, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

AFD is an appropriate venue

Quoting Wikipedia:Articles for deletion [5], "AFD was created to provide a place where Wikipedians decide what should be done with problematic articles." There is nothing that says an editor must want to delete an article to nominate it for AFD. I see no reason that AFD isn't an appropriate way to decide what to do with this article. I can guess that Joshuaschroeder DELETED the AFD page because he knew the result would be "no consensus==>keep" and didn't like that outcome. This preceded by his other unilateral action to take it upon himself to delete the page and redirect it to philosophical naturalism without discussing it on the talk page at all. Since it seems clear that the editors involved are immovable in their opinions, and since it is a small number of editors that seemed fairly well split, no consensus will be reached on the talk page, and outside opinions are the only way I see to resolve this content dispute. A real consensus is the only real way to resolve this. FuelWagon 15:26, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

As no one has stated they want the article to be deleted there is really nothing for an AfD to discuss. The policy is, after all, that one can merge an article without posting it on AfD. Joshuaschroeder 17:39, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

The policy is, after all, quoted above. Since it is several inches further up, I will quote again for your convenience: "AFD was created to provide a place where Wikipedians decide what should be done with problematic articles." That would seem to describe this article. One can merge without posting to AFD assuming there is no dispute regarding the merge. There is. If you want to take unilateral action and merge without consensus, then by all means, an AFD would be a bad thing to do. FuelWagon 13:40, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

People can discuss articles at AfD vis-a-vis deletion. Since no one wants this article to be deleted, why discuss it there? Joshuaschroeder 19:58, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Scientific method

Regarding this piece of unsourced editing:

The scientific method is often presented as an example of methodological naturalism, but it is not clear why. Science does not know a distinction between the supernatural and the natural and, in fact, the scientific method can be and is used to study phenomenons and hypothesis, which are commonly considered supernatural [6]. Of course, an adherent of supernaturalism can limit himself and not apply the scientific method to phenomenons he considers supernatural.

The phrase "it is not clear why" is unsourced, POV, weasel words. The scientific method is focused on natural investigations. The CSICOP url talks about using "science" investigate paranormal activity. Science can only disprove that the activity was paranormal by finding a natural explanation or science must state "we can't explain it". There are no scientifically proven occurrences of ghosts. Science will either uncover a charlatan and show how they did it, or science will say it can't explain what witnessess describe. FuelWagon 14:10, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

There are currently no scientifically proven occurrences of ghosts, nor are there any scientifically proven occurences of Aristotelian abiogenesis, nor are there any scientifically proven occurences of wormholes, but in principle the scientific method can prove the existence of any of these, if they exist.

A agree that the section, as it is, presents the point of view, that the scientific method does not fit the definition, and explains this position. The article without the section on the other hand presents the point of view, that the scientific method fits the definition, but without explanation. The phrase "it is not clear why" was meant as an invitation to explain why. The NPOV policy requires to "write for the enemy", but unfortunatly I didn't know any explanation. When I read your explanation above, I considered adding it to the article, but it seemed a little bit too sloppy for that and still lacks why the scientific method cannot prove the existence of ghosts. So please add a polished up version of it to the section. Markus Schmaus 17:29, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Article RFC

I have filed an article RFC here [7]. FuelWagon 14:45, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

If you are coming here as a result of seeing the article RFC, there are two content disputes:

First Does the scientific method use supernatural methods.

Second should the MN article be merged into the PN article.

Article RFC: does the scientific method use supernatural methodologies

support supernatural scientific method

Markus Schmaus defines "scientific method" as being able to use supernatural methods. Provides URL to "Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal" [8] apparently as "proof" that the scientific method can use supernatural methods. [9]

I'm defining scientific method according to scientific method. When asked what a supernatural method is, FuelWagon defined it as being able to study the supernatural. The url provides a collection of scientifc studies of what is commonly considered supernatural. Putting together scientific method and FuelWagon's definition of a supernatural method, the scientific method is a supernatural method.

Uh, I said Intelligent Design is an example of "methodological supernaturalism", which attempts to "scientifically prove" that a supernatural designer MUST be the cause of life on earth. That's different than investigating claims of a haunted house and finding (1) it is a hoax or (2) it cannot be proven or disproven. If methodological naturalism encounters something that has a supernatural cause, then MN cannot comment on it other than to say "we don't know what happened". If you can show me one example of scientific proof of a ghost using the scientific method, then I'll change the article. But it would seem this is simply your personal POV attempting to qualify Intelligent Design to fit the scientific method. It does not. FuelWagon 17:14, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Intelligent Design cannot scientifically prove, that a supernatural designer MUST be the cause of life on earth, as it does not use scientific methodology. There is no scientific proof that a ghost exists, which is a very strong indication, that ghosts do not exist. But if they exist, why shouldn't the scientific method be capable of discovering a proof for this? Or are you arguing, that ghosts exist, and since the scientifc method does not find any evidence for this, the scientific method has to be flawed? But maybe we simply misunderstand each other. Markus Schmaus 18:36, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

If ghosts exist and the scientific method proved it, then ghosts would not be supernatural, they would be material/natural in some way. It would be like discovering radio waves, which seem supernatural before discovery, but are actually natural. Just because they can pass through walls and bodies doesn't make them supernatural. FuelWagon 22:53, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

So even if I could show you one example of scientific proof of a ghost using the scientific method, you will not change the article? Markus Schmaus 12:37, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

I tell you what, if you find scientific proof of a ghost using the scientific method, go put that proof in the scientific method article, get consensus that it really is scientific proof and it really was the scientific method, and then I'll change this article. Until then, there is nothing in the definition of the scientific method that allows for the truly supernatural. FuelWagon 17:58, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

If anybody can give a definition of methodological naturalism and carefully explains how the scientific method fits this definition, I will be happy. I will not be satisified with an unexplained and unfounded claim that the scientific method is the cononical example of methodological naturalism. Markus Schmaus 16:32, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Markus Schmaus defines Methodological Naturalism "from supernaturalism" [10]

I am not defining methodological naturalism, but the definition given depends on the distinction between natural and supernatural and hence on a supernaturalistic position. Markus Schmaus 16:32, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Wondering... doesn't the scientific method require repeatable results? If a "ghost" were observed once by a group of scientists with specific tools, could they do more than call it a ghost without ever seeing it again or without another group of scientists using similiar tools discovering another ghost? I'm just passing through this page but I have to wonder if there are certain things which we instinctively avoid investigating (or perhaps domestication by some supernatural force has caused us to stop questioning it). Cheers!

Ok, I'm puzzled by this debate. Looking at the scientific method, I see no reason to label it "supernatural". First, we make the assumption that observable events are only explained by natural causes, then we use natural means to carry out the method. If something is truly supernatural, then it is beyond the scope of the scientific method by definition. -- KarlHallowell 08:15, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

oppose supernatural scientific method

The definition of methodological naturalism is a method of investigation that uses only natural means and causes. This would fit the definition of the scientific method. The scientific method can be used to prove that claims of supernatural/paranormal experiences were rigged by exposing the charlatan who is doing it and showing how they did it. The Scientific method can NOT be used to investigate claims of supernatural/paranormal experiences and PROVE them to be legitimate paranormal experiences. The scientific method would end where the supernatural begins and the scientific method would at best say that the claims have not been disproven nor have they been proven.

If a paranormal/supernatural entity turns out to have natural/material effects and can be measured through natural/material means, then the scientific method can prove the existence of such a ghost, but the ghost would not actually qualify as "supernatural" in the philosophical sense of the word. If it can be measured and sensed materially, it is natural. If it is outside the material realm, it is supernatural.

outside comments supernatural scientific method

please provide you comments here.

What are we opposing or supporting? The question is poorly phrased. « ...a method of investigation that uses only natural means and causes », where the link to Nature vaguely defines it as "our Universe" (I paraphrase). Any method of investigation will be natural, because the investigators are natural.

« The Scientific method can NOT be used to investigate claims of supernatural/paranormal experiences and PROVE them to be legitimate paranormal experiences. » Bull. Of course the scientific method can fail to ascribe, within reasonable doubt, an account of a supernatural/paranormal experience to "natural", normal causes. That's not much of a proof, and is better thought as a preliminary investigation. Anyone winnning the Randi prize, if it ever happens, will have, to all intents and purposes, "proven" that something paranormal is going on. And five years later we'll have revised our body of scientific knowledge to incorporate it, and it will no longer be paranormal...

« If it is outside the material realm, it is supernatural. » I hope this is just a typo, because confusing nature and matter is a big boo-boo. In any case, supernatural is just another word for "so far unexplained". Quantum phenomena would have qualified as supernatural to anyone schooled in the classical ways, for example.

Urhixidur 03:11, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

oppose supernatural scientific method FuelWagon 17:55, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

oppose supernatural scientific method. It doesn't work. Ancheta Wis 19:14, 11 September 2005 (UTC). Note added in proof: Canute the Great is remembered as the king who unsuccessfully commanded the sea to retreat, in a lesson to his vassals, to demonstrate his lack of supernatural powers. This is a counter example to any methodology which depends on the supernatural. Therefore any supernatural scientific method must be taken as invalid. Note - Repeatable Observation is at the foundation of the scientific method. For example, Ghosts have undeniably been observed by quite reputable people (Kenneth Clark is one - he reported that it was an unpleasant experience.). However, Ghosts have not been repeatably observed. On the other hand, I can reliably command the sea to retreat, and predictably fail. You can put money on that. To repeat, methodological supernaturalism is doomed to failure for its lack of repeatable observations.

Support. Natural data does not necessitate natural cause. If the supernatural does exist, we would never know it unless it intervened in some natural way so that our senses could perceive it. Disciple Thomas was the "scientist" of the group when he asked to see and touch Jesus's pierced hands. I'm not convinced that "Methodological supernaturalism" is a legitimate term... but as FW defines it, it appears to be identical to "Methodological empiricism" - the term that seems to best describe the scientific method. Empirical data doesn't often suggest a supernatural entity, but if it does, science should not a priori rule it out. David Bergan 06:20, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

oppose as per Hume on miracles and the bulk of philosophy of science that followed. --Rikurzhen 06:43, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

oppose "Supernatural" and "science" are are words that don't go together.--David R. Ingham 18:56, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Article RFC: should the MN article be merged into the Naturalism (philosophy) article

support merge MN with PN

Methodological naturalism can only be understood by explaining philosophical naturalism. Ockham's Razor suggests putting it all in one article rather than being redundant by copying/pasting material from the super-concept into the sub-concept.

Methodological naturalism is a term invented by Intelligent Design (ID) proponents, when ID talks about MN, they're often really talking about Philosophical naturalism. There are mistaken conflations of the terms even within the MN article.

All links have been changed to the type so that readers can find the links to methdology and naturalism as separate. As such, this page is redundant and since its information is on the naturalism page, the page should simply redirect there.

The merge to naturalism (philosophy) has already taken place. All the information contained here is adequately addressed on that page. Since MN is often paired with other terms such as the materialism or pragmatism, it makes sense to deal with MN from a clearinghouse perspective. The MN article is too narrow and doesn't provide enough context for the idea. There is no indication in the article that naturalism is a larger idea than that encompassed by the CE debate.

More than this, keeping only a page for MN and ignoring its counterpart ON is POV by proxy.

oppose merge MN with PN

the term Methodologican naturalism is a concept unto itself. It is distinct from philosophical naturalism. This essay talks about the differences between MN and PN. [11]. This article [12], by Stephen Meyer, has it's own section titled "Methodological Naturalism".

And the concept of methodological naturalism can be explained far easier than the concept of philosophical naturalism. The Naturalism (philosophy) article introduces the following terms to define naturalism: philosophy, naturalism, materialism, pragmatism, teleology, functionalist, metaphysics, epistemology, and now methodology. The Methodological naturalism article introduces methodology, naturalism, and ontology, and sufficiently explains these three terms to readers to define what MN is and is not.

Philosophical naturalism introduces six other terms to define and describe what philosophical naturalism is. Methodological naturalism introduces one other term to define and describe what MN is. Because it is a much simpler topic, and because it is a distinct topic, MN should be described in it's own article.

The MN article links to philosophical naturalism, and readers who wish to be schooled in the many various categories of philosophical naturalism can do so. readers who simply want to understand MN should be able to read the MN article.

wikified [13]. That wasn't hard, now was it? FuelWagon 17:44, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

This link is so out-of-the-way as to be useless to a reader. It is in a sentence that is about ON not MN and is only stated as to say that it is not ON. Joshuaschroeder 17:51, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Wikified [14], in the first sentence of teh intro. That wasn't so hard, was it? FuelWagon 18:25, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Incorrectly wikified. A natural explanation of a phenomenon is not the same as philosophical naturalism. Joshuaschroeder 22:07, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Comment: The article that talks about the differences between MN and PN is a bad resource. Conflation of philosophy and ontology as the article suggest is incorrect. Meyer's article is an attempt to combine MN and PN in some sense. Meyer's article supports a merge.

conflation of philosophy and ontology has been fixed.

Comment: since when is terminology a standard by which article's legitimacy is to be judged?

MN is a much more straightforward topic than PN. there is no reason to give readers an introduction to philosophy and half a dozen subcategories if all they need is an explanation of MN.

Comment: right now the MN article doesn't link to philosophical naturalism because the link that was in place falsely conflated PN with ON. This is a representation of the problems associated with this article in general which treats MN as a separate subject from PN rather than a subset example.

The article links to PN, but you don't like the location of the link. It would take you a handful of keystrokes to fix the problem and instead you type reams and reams of text complaining about. I tried to add a link to the intro, but you reverted it. You've created the problem you're complaining about.

outside comments merge MN with PN

Please put your comments here.

oppose merging MN with PN. keep separate articles. FuelWagon 17:56, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

oppose. Different concepts. Ancheta Wis 19:34, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Care to elaborate? I understand your inclusionist impluses, Ancheta, but there is no indication given that even Fuel thinks their independence is inviolable. This seems to be a throwaway rationale. Any article with a new title could be said to be a "different concept" without support. Joshuaschroeder 13:16, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Support. No need to regurgitate material here that is already in PN. Ockham's Razor. David Bergan 06:07, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

support. The arguments for keeping MN are that the PN article is somehow flawed because it introduces too many "terms". It is claimed that this alone affects readability. It is an outrageous accusation given that philosophy articles are necessarily involved with disambiguation of terminology by the very definition of philosophy. This tangential article is misleading because it indicates a more prominent position for MN than is deserved. That people use the term MN is not being debated. That MN is subject to definitional problems is not being debated. But the author of the article does no seem to want to see his article disappear though it may be more appropriately and easily covered in the PN article. The advocate FuelWagon has a very short fuse when it comes to criticism of his work and seems to take the merge as a personal affront. Joshuaschroeder 13:16, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

TheIncredibleEdibleOompaLoompa voted here. "I think that the article should remain independent," Posting diff under vote tally. FuelWagon 15:04, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Comment: Obviously the RfC process is not generating the feedback required to proceed here. Right now we are deadlocked with only one outside opinion. Are there any objections to reinstating the redirect and continuing the discussion on naturalism (philosophy)? These issues can be dealt with on that page just as well. Joshuaschroeder 22:10, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

More unilateral action I see. I think an AFD gets 5 days before a decision is made. How about giving poeple who don't spend 24 hours a day on wikipedia some time to see the article RFC and comment. Oh, and the answer to your question "Are there any objections?", yes, you're looking at two support and two oppose. AFD rules say if no consensus is reached then the result is "keep", that should apply here as well. If there is consensus to merge, then merge, but 2-2 is no consensus. FuelWagon 22:35, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

This is not an AfD. Wikipedia is also not a democracy. 2-2 is not how consensus is decided but rather by the quality and consideration of the comments made. Ancheta Wis has made an opinion known but has subsequently not supported it. You have made a lot of accusations but have little to show in the way of actually considering the criticisms being made. Consensus seems to be on the side of the two people who are on either side of the ID-debate and see that the article is redundant. You haven't been able to show how the article isn't redundant and you have claimed that this article is "simpler" but have failed to justify why your opinion of "simpler" should be the reigning editorialization. Therefore I can only assume that this RfC -- stymied as it is -- will deserve a kick start if no one comes up with a better argument in 7 days. Perhaps by switching the twoversion tag to indicate the redirect as the top version. Joshuaschroeder 18:07, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

"This is not an AfD. Wikipedia is also not a democracy. 2-2 is not how consensus is decided" You certainly know wikipedia policy when it serves you. "consensus is decided but rather by the quality and consideration of the comments made." Ah, well, there you go. Since you are the only one who really knows "quality" here, then you obviously should decide consensus. Yeah, that's what that means. sure. FuelWagon 18:40, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

table

I would love to have a conversation with you where both options are on the table: keeping the article and merging it. However, you have made it clear you will block any attempt to merge the article to the other namespace but the only argument I seem to hear from you is because the other article is too complicated. Would it be possible to modify the other article so that it is "simple" enough to suffice? If not, why not? Joshuaschroeder 21:18, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

PN would need a section titled "methodological naturalism" and it would explain the term, differentiate it from ontological naturalism/atheism, contain the history of the term, and report the various points of view about the term. if someone clicks on methodological naturalism, they go to naturalism (philosophy), which contains a section called methodological naturalism that is entirely self contained. i.e. that section would be all the reader would have to read and would be easy to find in the PN article. Then I might support a merge. Whether anyone else would is up to them. Now, to pose the same question to you, what would it take to fix the MN article such that you would be willing to keep it separate? FuelWagon 06:32, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Why does the section need to be titled "methodological naturalism"? Can't the section that's in PN right now work (methodology vs. ontology)? The history of the term isn't very well addressed in this article. I think it is conflated with naturalism itself when it's written that the idea extends to the 4th century BCE. The idea that Johnson "stole" the term is marred by the fact that he didn't use the term MN itself when he made the cited quote. So I think it is problematic to include that material in the PN article, it may have to be expunged altogether. In terms of various points of view on the term, since creationists/IDers make criticisms of both MN/ON in the same way why can't we include their criticisms in another section? Joshuaschroeder 14:33, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

You asked me how to modify the PN article. I told you several points that would need to be changed. And you appear unwilling to concede a single point. If you won't change PN, then I vote to keep MN a separate article. FuelWagon 16:21, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

I am more than willing to address the changes you requested, but I had specific and well-defined questions regarding your requests. Do you have answers to these concerns? Joshuaschroeder 21:47, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Why does the section need to be titled "methodological naturalism"?

Because that is the term.

Fine, but the section could be titled "methodology vs. ontology" and still define the term? Are you refering to some part of wikipedia policy for this or do you have an editorial reason? Joshuaschroeder 22:13, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Can't the section that's in PN right now work (methodology vs. ontology)?

No. Someone clicking on "methodological naturalism" should be able to be able to find a specific subsection to explain what they went looking for in the first place, rather than read an entire article hunting for an explanation of the term.

Why should it be a subsection? Couldn't we refer to the term in bold like this: "Methodological naturalism refers to the application..." Is that not good enough? Joshuaschroeder 22:13, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Are you telling me that an average reader of Wikipedia won't understand that methodology vs. ontology is about methodological naturalism? We can also bold the entry if that makes it easier. Does that address your concerns? Joshuaschroeder 14:17, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Did you ignore this question for a reason? Joshuaschroeder 22:13, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

I've been a little busy. I don't think a day or two without a response is sufficient cause for assuming I haven't answered and therefore have withdrawn. But, that appears to by your M.O. FuelWagon 05:59, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

The history of the term isn't very well addressed in this article. I think it is conflated with naturalism itself when it's written that the idea extends to the 4th century BCE.

The history section needs work.

The idea that Johnson "stole" the term is marred by the fact that he didn't use the term MN itself when he made the cited quote.

I'm fairly sure Johnson was the first to use the term. A sourced quote would be best. haven't had time.

I'd like to find a quote that illustrates this, and then I think it is more than appropriate to include. As it stands, what should be in the article is a confirmed fact, not the nearly certain speculation. Joshuaschroeder 14:17, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

What was there was there before I started editing the article.

So I think it is problematic to include that material in the PN article, it may have to be expunged altogether.

Uhm, there's a concept or guideline at wikipedia to fix rather than revert. I'd rather the history section of the term be made better rather than deleted in entirety.

That's fine, but the "history" of methodological naturalism may not be easily definable as independent of naturalism in general. That's all I'm saying. Joshuaschroeder 17:49, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

In terms of various points of view on the term, since creationists/IDers make criticisms of both MN/ON in the same way why can't we include their criticisms in another section?

Well, first of all, any criticism that uses the phrase MN should be put in the MN subsection, not PN as a whole.

Why? Can you find any criticism of MN that does not attempt to conflate it with naturalism in general or derivatives thereof? If so, point them out. Joshuaschroeder 17:49, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

See, this is the problem. Just because you say someone is conflating MN with PN is irrelevant and qualifies as original research. If you find some ID proponent who says something about MN, then you MUST report it as commenting on MN, even if you think he really means PN. The only way you can say he conflated MN with PN is by finding someone you can quote who says the ID guy conflated them. That's it. It doesn't matter whatyou think as an editor. The best your thinking can get you is direction as to the sorts of quotes to look for. FuelWagon 05:59, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Just because some source talks about MN doesn't mean that a) the sourced quote is worthy of inclusion or b) the sourced quote is relevant to a discussion on the distinction between MN and ON. All the quotes provided act as a critique of naturalism in general. Just because something is a quote doesn't mean we assume a stance of lobotomized inquiry with regards to what the source is communicating. Joshuaschroeder 11:36, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Second of all, the topic of "MN" needs to be reported from both points of view, not just the critics. To that end, there are a number of quotes taht specifically support MN as well as quotes that support it and distinguish it from ON, which means that these supporting quotes would need to be in the MN section, not PN as a whole.

That goes without saying. Supporting arguments go in the section on methodology. Criticism can come at the end. Joshuaschroeder 22:13, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

These would all need to be reported in teh MN subsection.

Why? You've made no case for this requirement. Joshuaschroeder 22:13, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Because the MN section should be standalone. Because a reader should be able to get both sides of the story regarding MN in one spot. Because the reader shouldn't have to wade through sections on epistomology and other topics that are not needed to understand MN as a concept.

Both sides? As though there are only two sides? This false dichotomy needs to be avoided. MN is used in science and criticisms are usually leveled against it from a naturalistic bent. In fact, I haven't seen a criticism of MN that wasn't about the N. Most of the time the argument goes "M is a silly distinction. MN is really ON because if you need to M then you have already given up the ghost." Criticism doesn't need to be in the same section as the definition of the term for that reason. Joshuaschroeder 11:36, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

The comment that the MN section should be standalone is also meaningless. A section in an article needs to be about what it purports to be about. There is no reason it needs to "standalone". It just needs to be illustrative of the subject. As it now stands the section in question on the PN page describes the distinction rather well, does it not? Joshuaschroeder 17:49, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Thirdly, the point is that a reader click on "methodological naturalism" and if they go to "Naturalism (philosophy)", they can easily find the subsection with the information they're looking for that is a self-contained description of MN.

Is it hard to figure out that the section that is entitled "methodology vs. ontology" is about methodological naturalism in the naturalism article? Joshuaschroeder 22:13, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

I have changed the title of the section to include "methodological naturalism" to satisfy title purists. Joshuaschroeder 17:49, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

If a groups uses MN when the mean PN should we still include it in the MN criticism section? If so, why?

What part of the description of MN needs to be included in the PN article that isn't there already? Can you give me a quote? Joshuaschroeder 14:17, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Is this question ignored because you don't have an answer? Joshuaschroeder 22:13, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

I've been freaking busy, OK? If they use MN, then you report it in MN. If you think they conflated it with PN, then you still put it in the MN section and then quote someone who says they're conflating the terms. FuelWagon 05:59, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

If you've been busy then fine. Let someone who is less busy than you edit the article. Joshuaschroeder 11:36, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Out of sheer laziness I've failed to make that same suggestion. I would be fine with a well constructed MN subsection of the PN article: sort of the opposite of Wikipedia:Summary Style. --Rikurzhen 06:42, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

MN would need to have statements of substance vis-a-vis how it is applied specifically in cases where it is applied. It would need to relegate the creationist/ID critiques to a minor part of the article since it is applied fairly broadly and include more on the history of science progression from supernaturalism. The article would have to make a case for independence of this type of naturalism from other types of philosophical naturalism, and I don't just mean ON, but also materialism, pragmatism, functionalism, etc. It needs to be a stand-alone article, not just one that makes sense when you click on MN in a creationist/ID article. Joshuaschroeder 14:28, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

editor point of view

Joshuaschroeder wrote: "All the quotes provided act as a critique of naturalism in general." [15]

Absolutely not. That isn't how NPOV works, or sourced quotes work, or anywikipedia policy works.

If Alice comes out and says "ID is creationism", then we report her quote. We do NOT apply some editors point of view that Alice is wrong, that ID is NOT creationism and therefore NOT put her quote in the ID article, nor do we "correct" her quote, nor do we do any other modification of Alice's point of view. We report waht she said.

Now, Bob might be an ID supporter and he might come out and say "ID is not creationism, ID is scientific", then we as editors can get Bob's quote and put it in the ID article as a counter to Alice's quote.

Now, I know that one of your favorite phrases around this topic is "false bifurcation", but that's your point of view as an editor. If Alice says "ID is creationism", then we can report Bob who says "ID is science". That doesn't mean we've covered ALL the views. NPOV doesn't require that you insert ALL the views, just insert them in proportion to those who hold them. It also doesn't require you to do that in a single edit, which means you can add Alice's quote, then go dig around and find Bob's quote and insert that later. A week after, you might find a quote from Charlie that says "evolution and ID are both whacked" and insert that as well, assuming it was a view held by a large enough group to be in proportion.

But this is how NPOV policy works. If Alice says "Methodological Naturalism is blah", then you report that as Alice's point of view of MN. If you as an editor do believe Alice is wrong, then you'll have to find a notable point of view that matches yours. You cannot simply rewrite someone's point of view saying "well, she said MN, but she meant PN". No, that isn't how any wikipedia policy works.

It's actually violating several existing policies. NPOV and No Original Research being two that come to mind immediately.

In supernaturalism

The last time "In supernaturalism" was removed from the lead section, I was asked to "Please check the URL's provided that define MN. None say MN is defined from the pov of supernaturalism". But according to the urls methodological naturalism is

is the adoption or assumption of philosophical naturalism within scientific method with or without fully accepting or believing it. [16]

is the principle that science and history should presume that all causes are natural causes solely for the purpose of promoting successful investigation. [17]

not a "doctrine" but an essential aspect of the methodology of science, the study of the natural universe. If one believes that natural laws and theories based on them will not suffice to solve the problems attacked by scientists - that supernatural and thus nonscientific principles must be invoked from time to time - then one cannot have the confidence in scientific methodology that is prerequisite to doing science. [18] We have to either add "In supernaturalism" to the lead section or mention their position. Markus Schmaus 13:29, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

The definition of MN is that it assumes only natural/material causes and methods in its scientific investigations. Yes, if there really is a God who is mucking about with the universe on a daily basis, then MN will be unable to explain it. This limitation is already described in the criticism section that acknowledges that MN is unable to investigate truly non-material/non-natural intrusions of supernatural deities. Your added paragraph [19] is actually more confusing than clarifying. The limitation is already explained in the criticism section. And that section is actually based off of quoted URL's, whereas your paragraph on the scientific method is based off of my radio wave comment above, and is therefore ultimately unsourced. FuelWagon 13:36, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Also, your use of the term "supernatural" does not follow the philosophical definition being used in MN. supernatural means non-natural, non-material, not of this world. Radio waves are natural. That peopel who don't understand them might consider them to be "magic" does not make them "supernatural". A thing doesn't go from supernatural to natural because people suddenly understand it. Radio waves have always been natural. A ghost will always be supernatural. God is supernatural. Your use of the term supernatural is causing some of this misunderstanding about the definition of MN. FuelWagon 13:43, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

supernatural scientific method

This has become a moronic waste of time. I have removed any mention of teh scientific method until reality can sink into the article and ghostbusters only exist in movies. I can only hope that the article RFC will attract enough comments that a consensus can be reached and the scientific method can be recognized as a natural method, but until then, anyone can pretty much have an article say whatever they want, no matter what reality says, and no matter what complete lack of training they may have. Next we'll have to consider dancing around a fire with dead chickens as a legitimate approach to meteorology. Unbelievable. FuelWagon 18:18, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

unilateral action

[20] 15:31, 6 September 2005 Joshuaschroeder (rv -- take it to talk, Fuelwagon... don't just mindlessly revert.)

[21] 15:15, 6 September 2005 Joshuaschroeder (merging with the other naturalism article.)

[22] 02:19, 7 September 2005 Joshuaschroeder (please state where the policy is that you need a VfD to merge an article (hint, it doesn't exist).)

[23] 17:48, 7 September 2005 Joshuaschroeder (twoversions. There is no VfD)

[24] 17:43, 12 September 2005 Joshuaschroeder (revert to the NPOV version. Since the methodological naturalism article is under consideration for a redirect, no sense in linking to it.)

Joshuaschroeder, given that the Methodological naturalism article has not been deleted yet, there is no need to remove all the links to the article from other articles. Anyone who wants to click on "What links here" will be unable to find the articles that should link to methodological naturalism. There is currently a dispute as to whetehr the MN article should be merged and until some consensus emerges, links to MN should remain. FuelWagon 19:01, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Deleted? Who wants to do that? Joshuaschroeder 02:39, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Deleted/merged, whatever. Go play your word games somewhere else. Your actions speak for you. As long as the MN article is around, other articles should link to methodological naturalism, not methodological naturalism, which is really more of your word games. FuelWagon 13:51, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Are you claiming I'm not acting in good faith? Because we can take this to dispute resolution if you are so inclined. Joshuaschroeder 13:58, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Did you hear me say anything about "good faith"? Don't put words in my mouth. This is currently a content issue, and the first thing wikipedia says to do around content disputes is file an article RFC. I'll give that some time to see if a consensus emerges. FuelWagon 14:10, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

discussion from opposing supernatural scientfic method

But any evidence for supernatural intervention (if the supernatural exists) would require some kind of data that could be perceived by the senses. A natural effect could have a supernatural cause. Thus, the scientific method, which studies natural effects, could indeed conclude that there was a supernatural cause. For example, pretend your best friend died. Gather all kinds of empirical data about his corpse to prove he's dead. Then two days later he walks into your house. Gather all kinds of empirical data that he's alive. All the naturalistic data you gathered points to a supernatural cause. David Bergan 05:57, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Are you sure? IMHO, "divine revelation" is the only plausible justification for belief in the supernatural. --Rikurzhen 06:04, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

Ok, what if starting tomorrow, from each day forward every human in the world levitated from 3PM to 4PM (UTC) and everyone lived forever? Empirical. Repeatable. And the data is natural, but the cause obviously isn't. David Bergan 06:12, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

David Hume on miracles comes to mind. Now if God literally manifest himself and performed miracles on demand for scientists to observe, then that might be evidence. ... But all that is mostly beside the point that is being debated. --Rikurzhen 06:42, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

Precisely. And Hume's reasoning is circular, such that supernatural evidence could never break into the circle. (Full explanation here: [25]) Moreover, when you say "if God literally manifest himself" you are acknowledging that the evidence/data for supernatural causes comes to us as material/natural... and tacitly agreeing that empiricism could accurately judge the evidence. David Bergan 14:30, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, that's an interesting argument. basically you're saying that the supernatural is actually natural and therefore completely scientific. The only problem with that is that it sort completely conflicts with ID's obsession to call science "Methodological Naturalism" as an insult. If god manifests himself naturally, science would have no problem acknowledging he exists. The thing is that he does NOT, and therefore any "science" that says god is proven to exist is methodological supernaturalism. It's funny how naturalism works as an insult agianst evolution and in the same argument you find people saying that the supernatural is really natural and therefore scientific. Sorry. I don't buy this shell game for a second. FuelWagon 17:54, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

basically you're saying that the supernatural is actually natural and therefore completely scientific - FW, I think you are confusing causes and effects. A supernatural cause can have a natural effect. A supernatural cause can have a supernatural effect, too, but we can't detect those ones. Anyone claiming to give evidence for the supernatural would present evidence of natural effects that necessitate supernatural causes.

MN means that science rules out potential supernatural causes to natural data a priori. David Bergan 18:33, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

No, you are confusing teh difference between science coming up with theories to explain and predict something and science saying "we don't know how it happened". If God parted the sea today, then the scientific method would say "We have no clue what happened, how it happened, or when it might happen again." That is what the scientific method is all about, being able to create theories that model and predict. If a supernatural agent is involved and it can think and operate on its own outside the restrictions of nature, then any natural effects will be outside the predictive capability of teh scientific method. If you cannot model what happened and make predictions, then it isn't the scientific method you are applying. You cannot model or predict the natural incursions by a deity, so the scientific method would be useless. FuelWagon 18:44, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

If God parted the sea today, then the scientific method would say "We have no clue what happened, how it happened, or when it might happen again." - This is precisely the question of the debate. Empirical data is a parted sea. After all the invesigation is done and no definitive natural solution is found either science (a) stamps it with a question mark or (b) infers a supernatural cause. You apparently believe pretty strongly that every scientists agrees with the question mark approach. I don't. I think that science not only describes nature, but also understands the limitations of nature. When something comes along that is beyond nature's limitations, an honest person does more than just cover it up with a question mark and move on.

Repeatable is an issue only insofar as a parted sea is not repeatable. If it were repeatable, then it would be natural. Part of being outside the scope of nature's limitations necessarily means being unrepeatable. David Bergan 19:13, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

"You apparently believe pretty strongly that every scientists agrees with the question mark approach." Yeah, that's how we're trained. If you look at ANY OTHER FIELD other than evolution, you will NEVER see any scientist saying "We don't get it, it must be god". Science has at least two categories of knowledge. Stuff we know. Stuff we don't know. A lot of a scientist's training is to learn where various bits of information, hypothesis, and ideas belong in these two categories. We know that if you put electricity through water, you get hydrogen and oxygen. We DON'T know how to perform cold fusion. The mistake is to attempt to take something that belongs in the "don't know" category and creating some mythology so we can push it over to the "know" category. i.e. Cold Fusion will never work because God doesn't want mankind to have that kind of energy. The entire purpose of the scientific method is to keep stuff out of the "know" category unless it actually belongs.

You will find NO scientist in any other field outside of evolution-critics that would take somethign we DONT KNOW and attempt to jam it into some MYTHOLOGY of supernatural explanation in a vain attempt to be able to say "we know how this works". If the sea parted tomorrow, that would be the limit of natural evidence. You DONT KNOW THAT GOD DID IT. It could have been alien space craft with powerful technology. It could have been humans with secret technology. It could be some black pentagon project gone haywire. YOU DON"T KNOW. Science cannot take the natural evidence such as that and KNOW anything other than that some event happened and we don't know how, why, or when it will happen again.

So, I don't "believe" the scientific method would agree with the question mark. I KNOW it because I've been TRAINED in it. This is the entire POINT of the scientific method. To keep scientists from saying we "know" something when we really don't.

This is different from BELIEVING in something, from BELIEVING in God, from BELIEVING in religion, from BELIEVING in spirituality. The scientific method is about separating what we KNOW from what must be left as a question mark. But a QUESTION MARK does NOT mean that we know something NEGATIVELY. It doesn't DISPROVE. It only says "this is not yet known". FuelWagon 19:38, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Does the body of scientific knowledge show us that there is any limit to what nature can do on its own? Can you name one thing that is absolutely impossible for nature to do by the definition of scientific laws? David Bergan 22:56, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

No, because absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. There's always the possibility of revision of a scientfic theory. I mentioned a physically manifest, coorporative God because it would be a form of divine revelation that is also empirically verifiable. A mere mystery or appearance of a violation of physical law would be interpreted as evidence against our current physical theories, not as evidence for the supernatural. But if God told us he was going to violate physical law by supernatural means and then did it, then we'd have reason to retain or physics and suppose the supernatural did exist. But still, revelation is the only reason to hypothesize a supernatural cause. --Rikurzhen 23:05, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

No - No? What good is a natural law, as a thesis of knowledge, if it doesn't rule out its antithesis? The Newtonian law of gravity says that apples in my backyard are going to fall to the Earth. Sure, in some circumstances Newtonian laws don't apply. But in my backyard on a warm calm sunny day with opaque fruit of standard fruit density and consistency, those babies are going to fall to the Earth. That's a law, and as such it is a statement of knowledge that I can rely on. By the law of contradiction, the antithesis is necessarily false: apples in my backyard are going to hover. (Again, I'm talking about standard apples... no magnetic or otherwise trick apples. Nor am I talking about apples in outer space or ones traveling at the speed of light or anything else.) You can't have truth without the logically opposite condition being necessarily false.

Can we agree that it is impossible for nature to suspend a standard 8 ounce apple in a vaccuum (shielded from all forms of electromagnetic radiation) 3 feet above the ground and 3 feet from all other matter for a time period of one hour? David Bergan 00:37, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Ack! Good grief. This is the point of the known/unknown separation. there is nothing that is KNOWN to be absolutely impossible for nature to do, because we don't know ALL of what nature CAN do. That's what it would take. You would somehow have to KNOW that once you know newtonian mechanics that there is no possibility for relativity. It is impossible to know what you don't know. So the best you can do is figure out what you CAN know and be prepared to update it at any time. That is the point of the scientific method, to separate the known from the unknown, to keep a scientist from saying something is known when it really isn't. And since you can never KNOW that you've eliminated everything UNKNOWN, you can never know all the limits of what nature can do. Even a "theory of everything" could be subject to updates. There is simply no way to know. FuelWagon 01:38, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm not talking about knowing everything. I'm talking about knowing one thing and applying basic principles of logic. Take the scientific statement "If there is fire here, then there is oxygen here." An empirically verifiable statement. Whenever a conditional statement is true, the contrapositive of that statement is also true: "If there is no oxygen here, then there is no fire here." These are logically equivalent statements.

Thus, if the first statement is a natural law, then the contrapositive's negation is necessarily not a natural law: "If there is no oxygen here, there can still be fire here." Nature cannot both conditionally link fire to the presence of oxygen and link fire to the absence of oxygen. That's a contradiction. And all I am saying is that these sorts of contradictions define logical limits to what nature can do based on knowledge acquired by the scientific method.

However, you also said that scientific knowledge is tenative and subject to continual updates. Newton could never have predicted relativity. This is true... but it is important to emphasize that the updates don't refute the old laws. They merely expand the frame of reference. Newton's predictions about apples in your yard isn't different because Einstein came along. Einstein didn't make the apples float, he just gave the laws of motion a broader scope so that they may apply to different kinds of objects in different kinds of mediums. Your generalization that "we can't know any limits of nature until we know everything" is inaccurate. It suggests that the scientific method gives us no knowledge whatsoever until we can fill in all the details... because any knowledge logically entails that the negation of that knowledge is false. Your fear of committing to any antithesis thus means you aren't willing to commit to any thesis. As such you make the scientific method absolutely worthless. David Bergan 17:05, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

"I'm talking about knowing one thing and applying basic principles of logic." That is a priori. You cannot "apply logic" to nature and KNOW anything with any certainty. And not all new knowledge "expands the frame of reference", that's just oversimplification. The scientific method requires any a priori "application of logic" to be tested repeatably under observation before it can be treated as anything other than an interesting linguistical exercise.

Does the body of scientific knowledge show us that there is any limit to what nature can do on its own? Can you name one thing that is absolutely impossible for nature to do by the definition of scientific laws?

No. Because to answer in the affirmative would require that nature MUST follow the logic system that you invented, and you don't KNOW that it does. You can know nature does something in the positive, you can know that oxygen feeds fire, but that doesn't mean that "all exothermic reactions producing "fire" must involve oxygen". You don't KNOW that if all you know is "oxygen feeds fire". You cannot rule OUT something using logic because you cannot KNOW that nature will follow your logic. Logic and math and other such systems are INVENTED by humans and they do a good job of MODELING NATURE, but you have no clue as to what boundary conditions exist such that those models will will FAIL. Therefore, exercising logic on nature reveals nothing you can KNOW about nature. It must be observed repeatedly to be known. FuelWagon 17:34, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Wow. FuelWagon, you seem to be willing to say anything to avoid agreeing on some pretty basic stuff here. Answer this one: Can you have your cake and eat it too? Is that question expecting cake-nature to follow logic? Because this is precisely what you are making science out to be. Science can assert that apples will fall and not rule out the possibility that the same apples will float. Pick one, does science assert nature causes them to fall or float? (Again, no trick apples or environments...)

nature MUST follow the logic system that you invented - Logic isn't invented. Mousetraps are invented. Logic is omnipresent, unchangeable, and objective. (Further reading you won't click on: here) We discover principles of logic just like we discover mathematical proofs. The proof was there before Archimedes put it in writing, he was just the first guy to recognize it. And I'm not asking nature to conform to logic... I'm asking knowledge to conform to it. Our knowledge obtained by the scientific method is just as subject to the laws of non-contradiction and contrapositives as any other knowledge. David Bergan 18:35, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

FW's response was correct. Logic can tell you that something must necessarily be true given something else, but there's nothing given that's absolutely certain wrt nature. It is a mistake to confuse the certainty of the method of logic/math with the certainty of any inference. --Rikurzhen 18:56, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Ahh... Rikurzhen! You're one of my favorite editors. Glad to hear from you again. I agree completely that science doesn't reach absolute certainty and as such the knowledge there is tenative when compared to math. (This is even one of the planks in my creed.) As such, the natural law which states fire requires oxygen could be mistaken. A new repeatable experiment of a fire some other gas would require us to revise that law. I'm not arguing with that.

My argument was that some thing are impossible for nature to do. Hmmm... now that I think about it, my problem was in my choice of words. "Impossible" implies certainty. That's not what I mean. What I mean is that there are some things that nature has never been observed to do, and in many cases repeatable experiments confirm that claim. Wood does not burn in a vacuum. I'm not as certain of that as I am of the square root of 81, but my first reaction to seeing a burning hunk of wood in a vacuum would be disbelief. If I could repeat the experiment, I would slowly start to accept it. But if it was a one-time well-documented affair, what can we do? Watch the videotapes over and over. Check all of the equipment for some kind of malfunction. Try, in vain, to reproduce an encore. And when it's all said and done, when all of the known natural universe that applies to that one outstanding abberation has been sifted through a dozen times with the proverbial fine-toothed comb, when all the data shows that the original was genuine and holding all the same variables constant fails to reproduce it, what are our options? FuelWagon wants to leave it as a question mark and move on. Apparently he doesn't have any trouble falling asleep after that. Blame that on my overly curious religious mind, but I would be compelled to probe for deeper meaning.

I've been thinking about your comment that revelation is a necessary part of believing in the supernatural. You might be right. Out of curiosity, do you think there was revelatory content behind this miracle that Pascal testified to? [26] David Bergan 20:52, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

"there are some things that nature has never been observed to do" Yes, and as the scientist trying to understand the rules of chess by observing two players, there are things that a piece has never been observed to do. That doesn't mean it can't do it. You may observe many games but never see a king move more than one space. That doesn't mean a king can't castle. This is the difference between known and unknown. FuelWagon 21:14, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Dave, there are systems of language and then there are systems of nature.

With systems of language, you get to invent all the premises, and any valid logical argument you make must necessarily give you a valid conclusion. TRUE OR FALSE YIELDS TRUE. 1 + 1 = 2. Boolean logic and mathematics are invented systems of language, the same way that "chess" is an invented system of pieces and rules.

With systems of nature, you start out knowing NONE of the premises, none of the rules that regulate how the pieces relate, not even a playlist that defines what the pieces are. We observe nature, we distinguish the pieces, and we try to extract the rules that define how they interact. We then attempt to write a "rule book" about nature, similar to the rule book for how to play chess.

But the rules for an invented system such as boolean logic or math are NOT required to apply to nature. Chess was used in part to train military commanders in strategy, but war is a whole lot messier than the rules of chess. Boolean logic can be used to design, model, and describe digital systems built out of semiconductors, vacuum tubes, and even hydraulic control systems, but the reality is that all those natural systems have more than just TRUE/FALSE states.

The "rule book" for nature is created by scientists observing nature, trying to figure out what the pieces are and what the rules are that control their interactions. It's sort of like being a silent observer at a silent chess game and trying to figure out what the rules for chess are. After a while, you'll be able to figure out some of the basic pieces and how they move. But then one player castles their rook, and the scientist trying to extract the rules is going to be scratching his head for a while.

Science is like trying to understand chess by watching two otehr people play it. You will never know if you've seen all the special moves. You will never know if there is some "castle" move, some exception to all the rules you've seen so far, that neither player has yet used. You are limited to only observing a finite number of games for a finite period of time.

But if you are the guy who DEFINES the game of chess, you get to make the pieces, you get to make the rules for how they move, you get to make all the "special" rules like castling, and you will know that you have a complete set of rules... BECAUSE YOU CREATED THE GAME. FuelWagon 19:15, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

So, back to this question Does the body of scientific knowledge show us that there is any limit to what nature can do on its own? Can you name one thing that is absolutely impossible for nature to do by the definition of scientific laws? Look at it in terms of being a scientist trying to understand the pieces and rules of chess by observing to people play it. after watching many, many games, most would probably come to the conclusion that kings can only move one space. This would be considered your "absolute limit". But there is no way for your scientist to know that there is some as-yet-unobserved behaviour called "castling" that allows the king to move several spaces. There is no way to know that, therefore there is no way to say a-king-can-only-move-one-space is an "absolute limit" to what nature can do. This is the fundamental difference between being able to design a game, define all the pieces, and define all teh rules, and declaring that set of rules to be complete, versus trying to figure out the complete set of pieces and rules of a game by watching two people play it repeatedly. FuelWagon 20:18, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I think we're coming to a meeting ground. In my last post up by Rik's comment, it occurred to me that "absolutely impossible" was a terribly wrong choice of words, since I myself don't believe that science brings about certain knowledge. I don't agree with you that math and logic are invented, but I think it is a purely academic argument in light of MN, since I do agree that the rules of chess were invented and we are like guys trying to infer them from observation with respect to natural laws.

Here's the question, though. What would it take for us to see something empirical and believe that the cause was indeed supernatural? How do we distinguish a bona fide physical phenomenon between "natural, but beyond our grasp of explanation" and "supernatural"? I mean if Jesus Himself woke you up in the night with scarred human hands, shaking you to the point of dizzyness, and proving His power by giving you any miracle you asked for on demand, would that empirical experience still be classified "natural, but beyond our grasp of explanation"? Rik suggested that revelation has something to do with it. David Bergan 21:14, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

So, the situation is 'Jesus grants you three wishes'. Or, conversely, our scientist friend is observing a thousand chess games and sees someone "castle" for the first time. Both are miracles of sorts. Your question is "is it natural or supernatural"? The answer depends on how the result was achieved. Did the "castling" miracle occur because some supernatural entity momentarily changed the rules and allowed a player to castle? Or is it a rule that has always been there but simply never observed before. When Jesus grants you three wishes, did he momentarily suspend the rules of nature to grant them, or is he following rules that simply have never been observed before.

If our chess observer stops the chess game, resets the board to just before the castling move occurred, and the castling move occurs again, then it is natural. If after many many board resets the castling move is never observed, then it is unexplainable. If some supernatural entity caused a momentarily change in rules that one single time, how will our scientist know it was supernatural versus "unexplained"? Players don't have to follow the same sequence. different players use different strategies at different times given the same situation. there is no way in the chess-observing analogy to force a player to make a certain move to see if he can do it. you can only recreate teh conditions and see if he will. Because he does not recreate teh move doesn't mean he can't, it only means he won't. what you then have is an observed move that cannot be explained.

This chess-observer is the scientific method in a closed analogy. There is no way for the scientific method to separate an unexplained move from a supernatural incident. If you only one situation of a king castling, you can not tell if it was supernatural or natural, and therefore you cannot put it in your rule book, other than to say, "when the players make the following sequence of moves, the king may do this" and no generic rule may be extractable.

So, the answer to your question is that for the scientific method, a one time miracle is "inexplicable", not "supernatural".

If you want to take the methodological-supernatuarl approach and find the answer to "is it natural or supernatural?" here's what you need to figure out: If Jesus grants me three wishes, will I be able to reproduce those miracles? Will his powers be like the "miracle" of radio waves, that appear to be magical, but when analyzed, rules can be understood and extracted, and reproduced at will? Could I monitor the entire EM spectrum while Jesus performs these miracles and figure out how he does it so that I can reproduce those same miracles myself? Can I build a radio and transmit waves? Can I build a miracle machine and put up a sign that says "Miracle Max" outside my door? Or does Jesus operate his miracles outside the natural world, outside the EM spectrum, outside the boundaries of Space, Time, Distance, to the point that it is impossible for me to ever reproduce those miracles? To "know" that Jesus' miracles are supernatural requires "knowing" beyond what our chess-observer can "know". Our chess-observer can only know that he saw moves that he cannot explain, he saw actions that he can find no general rule for, and cannot reproduce in any deterministic way. To "know" something is supernatural is beyond the limit of what the scientific method can know. FuelWagon 21:51, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

This is getting quite deep into epistemology, and so is probably beyond the scope of writing this article. However, I would note just for the fun of the discussion that if our manifest cooporative god -- Jesus we seem to be calling him now -- if he were to demonstrate his reliability as a source of knowledge (by appearing to be all knowing) and he claimed to have (limitless?) supernatural powers and was able to produce miracles on request and even to participate in scientific experiments (e.g. with a team of physicists) and he could produce effects at will that were seemingly incompatible with quantum mechanics **or*** cause the appearnce of cosmological events that would have to have been initiated in the distant past and require amounts of power greater than any technology could conceivably accomplish... then that would not be *proof* of the supernatural, but the supernatural hypothesis would seem to be the best one. Notice that the supernatural explanation was suggested by Jesus and he willingly participated in experiments of our choosing to demonstrate his supernatural powers. This is a kind of divine revelation with the added benefit of repeatability. A formal alternative is that this Jesus charater is an alien mind-controller with subtle technologies to trick our senses. We wouldn't be able to decide between those alternatives and both being so aboslutely strange they might seem equally plausible. But as I think my example makes clear, the kind of circumstance that would drive a person applying the scientific method to think there was plausible evidence for the supernatural is also the kind that would cause him to question his own mind. -- just for fun --Rikurzhen 23:20, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

FW, just wanted to tell you that the chess-observer analogy was beautiful. The more I think about it, the more I like it. That is absolutely the best description of a priori vs a posteriori knowledge. Ever. David Bergan 20:03, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Hey, cool, at least I did one thing right lately. FuelWagon 20:16, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

"Method" or "area of study"

First, let me thank FuelWagon for his recent edits. Does "methodological naturalism" refer to methods or to areas of study? Markus Schmaus 13:16, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

MN is a category. Any method that uses naturalist approaches fits in MN. Chemistry fits in the category of MN. FuelWagon 13:56, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it is a category, but a category of what? A categroy of areas of study or a category of methods? Chemistry uses the scientific method, it is not a method on its own. Markus Schmaus 14:12, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that chemistry should go in the category of methodological supernaturalism instead? Do you have any training at all in either the scientific method or philosophy of science? Just how basic of questions need to be answered before this is settled? "it is not a method of its own" What does that even mean? Unless you're suggesting that chemistry attempts to account for supernatural ghosts and deities mucking up the chemical reactions, then chemistry is methodological naturalism. FuelWagon 14:26, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

The current lead reads like

Xyzzy refers to any political party in the USA. Texas and California are examples of states that fit into the category of xyzzy.

I'm not suggesting that Texas (Chemistry) should go in the category of abcd (methodological supernaturalism), but I'm pointing out, that Texas (Chemistry) is not a political party (method), but a state (area of study). One possible solution is, that xyzzy (methodological naturalism), does not refer to politcal parties (methods), but states (areas of study), another is, that Texas (Chemistry) is not an example for xyzzy (methdological naturalism). Markus Schmaus 14:50, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

I have no clue what you're trying to say here. It seems like you've collapsed several basic concepts together. Are we miscommunicating or does someone need to explain some basic philosophical concepts? Have you had training in the philosophy of science? Do you work in a field of science? FuelWagon 15:17, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't know wheather you noticed the inconsistency in the lead section yourself or you did understand me after all. Maybe I should continue to talk in analogies.

P.S.:Let me assure you I know enough about science and philosophy. Markus Schmaus 22:33, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

This seems to be completely unrelated to science and philosophy and seems to be a religious supernatural POV getting pushed into the article. Anyone who argues that chemistry would use supernatural methods doesn't know anything about chemistry. FuelWagon 14:10, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

I consider calling me religous an insult. You are completly missing the point I am not arguing that chemistry uses any supernatural methods, as I have no idea what such a method would be. But if you give a definition of supernatural methods and according to your definition, chemistry uses supernatural methods, I will point that out. Markus Schmaus 18:41, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

The MN article defines natural methods for investigation. Chemistry is an example of a natural method of investigation. If you don't think chemistry is an example, you must, by definition, be arguing that chemistry is a supernatural method. Whether you know what a supernatural method would be, if you're disputing chemistry is a natural method, the only alternative is a supernatural method. I don't ahve to give you a definition of a supernatural method for you to figure this out. chemistry is either natural or supernatural. if you say it isn't natural, then you must be saying that it is supernatural. FuelWagon 19:47, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Unsupported claims in lead section

From the field of Natural science, astronomy, biology, chemistry, geology, and physics are all examples of fields of study using methods that fit in the category of methodological naturalism.

Please explain, which methods and how they fit the definition. If nobody can explain this, I will remove the unsupported claims. Markus Schmaus 22:45, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Please explain how chemistry uses supernatural methods or your claim to remove them are unsupported. FuelWagon 14:07, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Chemistry employs numbers, numbers neither come into existence nor cease to exist, and thus are not part of "natura" the realm of birth and death, and thus chemistry employs supernatural methods. The total mass-energy of the universe likewise is supernatural, as are the laws of physics if they too are unchanging, as are the canons of logic, if those are employed in chemistry. As argued below, unless you know what "nature" is supposed to mean, we can't get this fight started.

Unless you can explain how driving a car uses supernatural methods, I will include it as an example of methodological naturalism. Markus Schmaus 17:52, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

• Allow me to input a few thoughts... I think that both sides have valid arguments in this discussion. I also think that both sides are wasting their time here, because the topic is contraversial in many points, and liable to subjectivity in some aspects (two POVs can be found here). Since the role of Wikipedia is to eliminate original research and POV, we should include only generally accepted information in the article, best by starting from a neutral, and sure minimum. However, by definition methodoligical naturalism concerns science and scientists, therefore also the scientific method. This does not mean that scientific methodology is naturalistic - which is an interesting and difficult question in itself. It is doubtfull that there can be a final answer, since only the assumption that no supernatural phenomena influence the scientific method can guaranty that its results will be purely naturalistic - and this is not a happy situation. Nonetheless, methodological naturalism is an attempt to descrbe the way science works, or should work, of which physics and chemistry are undeniably examples. Maybe this would be a good starting point, which both sides in this debate could accept? Karol 21:55, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Perfectly acceptable for me. But your statement is currently not in accordance with the article. According to you (and the sources cited by FuelWagon below) methodological naturalism is the name of a philosophy about science and the scientific method. According to the current lead section, methodological naturalism is a name of a method. Markus Schmaus 21:14, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Good point. Better? Karol 07:10, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Much better! I think there are still a lot of issues with this article and the lead section could be polished up so the cleanup tag is appropriate, but I will remove the NPOV and disputed tags. Markus Schmaus 21:41, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

• Two important points: 1) methodological neturalism describes the POV that science can and is independent of supernatural phenomena (if they exist). One may or may not agree, but that is the definition. 2) Everyday actions also may or not include supernatural elements, but "driving a car" is not, I presume, directly related to science or the scientific method, so it should not be used ad hoc in such a discussion. Karol 22:02, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

I thought if FuelWagon, does not understand the argument when applied to the scientific method, he might understand the argument when applied to driving a car. I understand that, if anybody would look at the article the moment after I added driving a car, he would be very confused, and I will not do something like this again. Markus Schmaus 21:14, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Actually methodological naturalism is an even stronger POV, that science should strive to refrain from employing methods which are not independent supernatural phenomena. Just like with methodological finitism in math, something can fit Langer's weak definition while still failing to meet the stronger definition. A criminologist who used a supernatural means to find natural evidence, and then based their case in court on the natural evidence would be a methodological naturalist in Langer's sense but not in the stronger sense. Bmorton3 21:36, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

scientific method is natural method

Methodological naturalism, by contrast, is the principle that science and history should presume that all causes are natural causes solely for the purpose of promoting successful investigation. [preceding sentence cited by Markus Schmaus 21:20, 15 September 2005 (UTC)]

"The idea behind this principle is that natural causes can be investigated directly through scientific method, whereas supernatural causes cannot, and hence presuming that an event has a supernatural cause for methodological purposes halts further investigation." [27]

This source has a different definition of methodological naturalism, hence it comes to a different conclusion. Markus Schmaus

"My answer to the question, "Does the scientific method exclude appeals to supernatural causation?" has to be yes, since I consider naturalism to be a corollary to the assumption that the universe is comprehensible by humans." [28]

"Rea does challenge the naturalist rejection of first philosophy by arguing that "it is still quite obvious that we would need some justification for believing that only empirical methods issue in justified belief" (64, sic). Therefore, supposedly, a naturalist cannot abandon first philosophy without contradicting himself. But Rea's error here lies, again, in wrongly presuming that naturalists treat scientific methods as basic sources of evidence. In reality, we treat them as derivative and a posteriori, which means we do have justifications for our rejection of other methods: for we observe other methods to fail, or to be inconclusive."[29]

Johnson quotes involving MN

A biologist may believe in God on Sundays, but he or she had better not bring that belief to the laboratory on Monday with the idea that it has any bearing on the nature or origin of living organisms. For professional purposes, atheistic and theistic biologists alike must assume that nature is all there is.

Natural science is thus based on naturalism. What a science based on naturalism tells us, not surprisingly, is that naturalism is true. Because of the authority of science, the assumption that naturalism is true dominates all the disciplines of the university.

p. 8 Reason in the Balance, Introduction, by Phillip E. Johnson (1995)

The countering view to this could be "wrongly presuming that naturalists treat scientific methods as basic sources of evidence. In reality, we treat them as derivative and a posteriori, which means we do have justifications for our rejection of other methods: for we observe other methods to fail, or to be inconclusive." [30]

---

These Christian professors insisted that their belief in "evolution" was based on evidence. I told them that they were deceiving themselves and that they had accepted the current scientific orthodoxy only because they were looking at the evidence through naturalistic spectacles. They understandably resented this and much debate ensued. Sometimes it was acrimonious, but in my opinion it was because the issues under debate are fundamental and everyone has a lot at stake in their resolution, not because the debaters really disliked each other.

One of the central issues was an asserted difference between "metaphysical" and "methodological" naturalism. There was general agreement that Christian theism and metaphysical naturalism are contradictory, but some of the Christian professors argued that a methodological naturalism in science is appropriate even for metaphysical theists.

The immediate occasion for this paper was a remark by a Christian college professor who had argued that my "creationist bias" was affecting my assessment of the scientific evidence for evolution. I include the paper here as an appendix instead of trying to fit it into the text, because the issues that fascinate persons who devote a professional interest to this subject may be overly complex for general readers who have other matters to occupy their attention. On the other hand, I want to preserve this statement as a starting point for further discussion among professional academics in particular.

p. 206 Reason in the Balance, Appendix: Naturalism, Methodological and Otherwise, by Phillip E. Johnson (1995)

Again, difference between "metaphysical" and "methodological" is trying to cast doubt on the decision of methodological naturalists for choosing their approach, and trying to inject atheism (which is irrelevant) into the debate by introducing "metaphysical naturalism". FuelWagon 21:51, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

---

Why do the leading voices of official science teach that science and naturalism are inserparable? The reason is that they assume that the scientific method is inherently characterized by a thoroughgoing methodological naturalism (hereafter MN), and MN strictly limits the alternatives that may be taken seriously. MN is by far the dominant position in contemporary science, endorsed almost without exception by atheistic materialists, agnostic naturalists, and theistic evolutionists. MN in science is only superficially reconcilable with theism in religion. When MN is understood profoundly, theism become intellectually untenable.

p. 207-208 Reason in the Balance, Appendix: Naturalism, Methodological and Otherwise, by Phillip E. Johnson (1995)

wooh. That pretty much sums up what ID is trying to do around science: "When MN is understood profoundly, theism become intellectually untenable." i.e. Johnson wants the argument to be atheists versus christians, not science versus religion, and not even evolution versus creationism. FuelWagon 21:42, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

---

First here is a definition of MN, followed by a contrasting of my own position, which I label "theistic realism" (TR). Following that are some illustrations and commentary.

1. A metodological naturalist defines science as the research for the best naturalistic theories. A theory would not be naturalistic if it let something (such as the existence of genetic information or consciousness) to be explained by a supernatural cause. Hence all events in evolution (before the evolution of intelligence) are assumed to be attributable to unintelligent causes. The question is not whether life (genetic information) arose by some combination of chance and chemical laws, to pick one example, but merely how it did so.

Methodological naturalists concede that some problems are not yet solved, but they are confident that science will solve them by proposing natural mechanisms because science has so often been successful in the past. Bringing God or intelligent design into the picture is giving up on science by turning to religion (miracle) and invoking a "God of the gaps." The Creator belongs to the realm of religion, not scientific investigation. Some methodological naturalists are theists. Their theism affects how they interpret the overall results of science (whatever happened was under God's governance), but it has no effect on how they reason to scientific conclusions.

2. A theistic realist assumes that the universe and all its creature were brought into existence for a purpose by God. Theistic realists expect this "fact" of creation to have empirical, observable consequences that are different from the consequences one would observe if the universe were the product of nonrational causes (such as Jacques Monod's "chance and necessity"). Since God is rational and created our minds in his image, we would expect the universe to be on the whole orderly, and therefore the success of science in determining many regular processes and mechanisms is entirely consistent with TR. God always has the option of working through regular secondary mechanisms, and we observe such mechanisms frequently. On the other hand, many important questions–including the origin of genetic information and human consciousness–may not be explicable in terms of unintelligent causes, just as a computer or a book cannot be explained that way.

A naturalistic science that assumes it can explain everything is likely to offer explanations that are not true. It may imagine a nonexistent reducing atmosphere and prebiotic soup, for example, and a nonexistent process of complexity building through random mutation and natural selection. It may assume falsely that the mind can be completely understood as the product of material mechanisms produced by naturalistic evolution.

p. 208-209 Reason in the Balance, Appendix: Naturalism, Methodological and Otherwise, by Phillip E. Johnson (1995)

Reinstating redirect

Please consider the fact that this redirect has been in place for some months now. The merge was conducted and talked about on both pages. --ScienceApologist 16:36, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

specific term used repeatedly in creation/evolution debates

FW said (way above)

This is a specific term used repeatedly in creation/evolution debates, and deserves its own entry.

I agree. Uncle Ed 16:37, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

FW couldn't provide research enough to back up his assertion that MN was independent enough of PN to deserve this article. Perhaps you'd like to try. --ScienceApologist 16:41, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Collaboration

If you're stalking me, I wish you would wait a few minutes after any particular action of mine you disagree with. I usually make a comment on the relevant talk page. I actually wrote my 16:37 comment before I saw your comment above. Uncle Ed 16:40, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm not stalking you. I happen to have this page on my watchlist. --ScienceApologist 16:41, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Difference from ontological naturalism

Methodological naturalism relates to the accepted procedures by which naturalism is applied. Such application does not address the ontological question of the existence or nonexistence of the supernatural. Ontological naturalism, in contrast, makes a metaphysical assumption that the natural world is all that exists. Atheism relies on ontological naturalism as a fundamental assumption.

A quick visit to naturalism contradicts this paragraph. Let's work on fixing it. Uncle Ed 17:48, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Naturalism is any of several philosophical stances, typically those descended from materialism and pragmatism, that do not distinguish between the supernatural and the natural. Naturalism does not claim that phenomena or hypotheses commonly labeled as supernatural necessarily do not exist or are wrong, but insists that they are not inherently different from natural phenomena or hypotheses, and that both supernatural and natural phenomena and hypotheses can be studied by the same methods. (copied from Naturalism)

I don't see, then, how methodological naturalism is an application of naturalism. I thought scientists specifically avoid applying the scientific method to supernatural phenomena. Uncle Ed 17:52, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

In the sense of empiricism, there is no such thing as a "supernatural" phenomenon. --ScienceApologist 17:55, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Ignoring comments on the talkpage

Ed, you have ignored the comments placed above on the rationale for reverting the redirect. Why do you insist on not talking about your changes? --ScienceApologist 17:57, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

have we seen http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/barbara_forrest/naturalism.html ? — Dunc|☺ 19:51, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Definitely worthy of inclusion. --ScienceApologist 23:45, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

What would it mean to apply science to "the supernatural" anyway?

I see some discussion above of the idea of extending science to include "the supernatural", rather than making the methodological assumption of naturalism. It isn't really clear to me what people mean by this, and I'd like to invite contributors to clarify what is meant. I'll start with some of my own impressions.

The big trouble is, what do we mean by "the supernatural"? People use this word often to mean all sorts of things:

• telepathy
• clairvoyance
• prophecy
• ritual magick
• Acts of God
• Acts of Goddess
• angelic visitation
• demonic possession
• alien abduction
• spirits / ghosts / fairies / dragons / otherkin

This is tough! Some of these subjects should, if they exist, be eminently susceptible to scientific research. Clairvoyance and telepathy are among the classic subjects of what's sometimes been called (rather unfortunately, in my view) parapsychology. Likewise, one of the best-known practitioners of ritual magick in the early 20th century, Aleister Crowley, attempted to render that practice scientific -- making his motto "The Method of Science, the Aim of Religion". Nonetheless it is far from clear that either the parapsychologists or the Crowley followers come up with results that are as doggone reliable as the results of natural science.

One philosophic problem seems to me to be that anything that we manage to successfully do science upon, thereby gets classified as "natural", not "supernatural". For instance, it was once believed that breath is life; that a being that ceases to breathe, ceases to live; and thereby, that to restore breath to a person who has stopped breathing would be a supernatural act. Nowadays, we call that CPR and the Red Cross will train you on it. It's not 100% reliable, but it's a hell of a lot more so than (say) praying the patient will start breathing again on his own. And CPR is based on solid methodologically naturalistic science.

It seems to me that creationists wish to criticize science for rejecting "supernatural explanations". However, it's hard to tell what it would mean for science to accept supernatural explanations. From a scientific standpoint, how are we to tell which supernatural explanations should be accepted, and which rejected? We cannot accept all supernatural explanations, since they contradict each other: the claims of Christianity and Hinduism, for instance, cannot be reconciled, so how is Prof. John to work with Prof. Suresh?

When I hear creationists asking for science to accept supernatural explanations, what I hear is special pleading. They're asking for science to accept their supernaturalism, but not anyone else's. Christian creationists likely don't want science investigating ritual magick and the invocation of demons. This special pleading isn't just bad science; it's bad logic, bad argumentation, and for that matter bad apologetics, too. --FOo 11:24, 11 December 2005 (UTC)