Scientific Naturalism: let's lose the attitude

[Jayhawker Soule]

The current description states:

• For those who recognise and accept science as a naturalistic methodology and see the supernatural as an explanation which is based on ignorance and counter-productive to scientific inquiry.

This is wholly inappropriate. While many naturalists may characterize the supernatural as above, naturalism, and in particular methodological naturalism, simply asserts that the supernatural is out of scope. So, for example, Strahler states:

• In contrasting the Western religions with science, the most important criterion of distinction is that the supernatural or spiritual realm is unknowable in response to human attempts to gain knowledge of it in the same manner that humans gain knowledge of the natural realm (by experience)....
  
  Given this fiat by the theistic believers, science simply ignores the supernatural as being outside the scope of scientific inquiry. Scientists in effect are saying: “You religious believers set up your postulates as truths, and we take you at your word. By definition, you render your beliefs unassailable and unavailable.” This attitude is not one of surrender, but simply an expression of the logical impossibility of proving the existence of something about which nothing can possibly be known through scientific investigation.
  
  - Arthur N. Strahler, Understanding Science: An Introduction to Concepts and Issues

A far better definition of naturalism can be found in Barbara Forrest's Methodological and Philosophical Naturalism: Clarifying the Connection:

• I shall use “methodological naturalism” and “philosophical naturalism” to mean what Paul Kurtz defines them to mean in the first and second senses, respectively:
  

  • First, naturalism is committed to a methodological principle within the context of scientific inquiry; i.e., all hypotheses and events are to be explained and tested by reference to natural causes and events. To introduce a supernatural or transcendental cause within science is to depart from naturalistic explanations. On this ground, to invoke an intelligent designer or creator is inadmissible . . .
    
    There is a second meaning of naturalism, which is as a generalized description of the universe. According to the naturalists, nature is best accounted for by reference to material principles, i.e., by mass and energy and physical-chemical properties as encountered in diverse contexts of inquiry. This is a non-reductive naturalism, for although nature is physical chemical at root, we need to deal with natural processes on various levels of observation and complexity: electrons and molecules, cells and organisms, flowers and trees, psychological cognition and perception, social institutions, and culture ...

  Methodological naturalism and philosophical naturalism are distinguished by the fact that methodological naturalism is an epistemologyas well as a procedural protocol, while philosophical naturalism is a metaphysical position. Although there is variation in the views of modern naturalists, Kurtz’s definition captures these two most important aspects of modern naturalism: (1) the reliance on scientific method, grounded in empiricism, as the only reliable method of acquiring knowledge about the natural world, and (2) the inadmissibility of the supernatural or transcendent into its metaphysical scheme.

I suggest that we rename the group "naturalist" and lose the attitude.

[Undertow]

Jayhawker Soule:

You quoted my description of the group I created. I can honestly assure you no attitude was intended in making it.

Let me try and analyse my description and see where it falls short:

"For those who recognise and accept science as a naturalistic methodology and see the supernatural as an explanation which is based on ignorance and counter-productive to scientific inquiry."

Red - I suppose this is the obvious part -- a scientific naturalist would be one who recognises that science is limited to methodological naturalism.

Blue - I suppose this is where you could perceive me as having attitude. I don't think that has to be the case if we understand that ignorance is the lack of knowledge and therefore the claim is merely that supernatural explanations are unknowable (hence why science, being rooted in methodological naturalism, leaves the supernatural be, perhaps?). Also, I would have thought it obvious that trying to explain things scientifically with explanations we can't come to know or understand in a strict scientific sense is indeed counter productive to a scientific based method of inquiry.

Perhaps, to erase the negative connotations, I could replace "based on ignorance" with "unknowable", which would therefore see the explanation as:

"For those who recognise and accept science as a naturalistic methodology and see the supernatural as an explanation which is unknowable and counter-productive to scientific inquiry."

I just don't really see too much of an issue here to be honest. I'm willing to hear suggestions from you or others as to how you'd prefer the group named and/or explained.

[Jayhawker Soule]

Jayhawker Soule:

You quoted my description of the group I created. I can honestly assure you no attitude was intended in making it.

Let me try and analyse my description and see where it falls short:

"For those who recognise and accept science as a naturalistic methodology and see the supernatural as an explanation which is based on ignorance and counter-productive to scientific inquiry."

Red - I suppose this is the obvious part -- a scientific naturalist would be one who recognises that science is limited to methodological naturalism.

Blue - I suppose this is where you could perceive me as having attitude. I don't think that has to be the case if we understand that ignorance is the lack of knowledge and therefore the claim is merely that supernatural explanations are unknowable (hence why science, being rooted in methodological naturalism, leaves the supernatural be, perhaps?). Also, I would have thought it obvious that trying to explain things scientifically with explanations we can't come to know or understand in a strict scientific sense is indeed counter productive to a scientific based method of inquiry.

Perhaps, to erase the negative connotations, I could replace "based on ignorance" with "unknowable", which would therefore see the explanation as:

"For those who recognise and accept science as a naturalistic methodology and see the supernatural as an explanation which is unknowable and counter-productive to scientific inquiry."

I just don't really see too much of an issue here to be honest. I'm willing to hear suggestions from you or others as to how you'd prefer the group named and/or explained.

Thank you, Undertow. That was helpful.

I have two problems with "based on ignorance":

1. Irrespective of your intent, it does not convey the sense of the preternatural being unknowable but, rather, the sense that the religionist holds an ignorant view, i.e,. one that suffers from and is attributable to the lack of specific knowledge.
2. To assert something as 'unknowable' is to make an epistemological claim.

It seems to me that the result comes unnecessarily close to ad hominem and circular argumentation.

[Undertow]

Jayhawker Soule:

You quoted my description of the group I created. I can honestly assure you no attitude was intended in making it.

Let me try and analyse my description and see where it falls short:

"For those who recognise and accept science as a naturalistic methodology and see the supernatural as an explanation which is based on ignorance and counter-productive to scientific inquiry."

Red - I suppose this is the obvious part -- a scientific naturalist would be one who recognises that science is limited to methodological naturalism.

Blue - I suppose this is where you could perceive me as having attitude. I don't think that has to be the case if we understand that ignorance is the lack of knowledge and therefore the claim is merely that supernatural explanations are unknowable (hence why science, being rooted in methodological naturalism, leaves the supernatural be, perhaps?). Also, I would have thought it obvious that trying to explain things scientifically with explanations we can't come to know or understand in a strict scientific sense is indeed counter productive to a scientific based method of inquiry.

Perhaps, to erase the negative connotations, I could replace "based on ignorance" with "unknowable", which would therefore see the explanation as:

"For those who recognise and accept science as a naturalistic methodology and see the supernatural as an explanation which is unknowable and counter-productive to scientific inquiry."

I just don't really see too much of an issue here to be honest. I'm willing to hear suggestions from you or others as to how you'd prefer the group named and/or explained.

Thank you, Undertow. That was helpful.

I have two problems with "based on ignorance":

1. Irrespective of your intent, it does not convey the sense of the preternatural being unknowable but, rather, the sense that the religionist holds an ignorant view, i.e,. one that suffers from and is attributable to the lack of specific knowledge.
2. To assert something as 'unknowable' is to make an epistemological claim.

It seems to me that the result comes unnecessarily close to ad hominem and circular argumentation.

I'm just a touch confused with (b) - do you think making the epistemological claim that the supernatural is unknowable is problematic? Sorry if I got that wrong.

[Jayhawker Soule]

I have two problems with "based on ignorance":

1. Irrespective of your intent, it does not convey the sense of the preternatural being unknowable but, rather, the sense that the religionist holds an ignorant view, i.e,. one that suffers from and is attributable to the lack of specific knowledge.
2. To assert something as 'unknowable' is to make an epistemological claim.

It seems to me that the result comes unnecessarily close to ad hominem and circular argumentation.

I'm just a touch confused with (b) - do you think making the epistemological claim that the supernatural is unknowable is problematic? Sorry if I got that wrong.

Of course it's problematic, i.e., debatable, which is why it is a 'claim' rather than a 'given'.

[Undertow]

I have two problems with "based on ignorance":

1. Irrespective of your intent, it does not convey the sense of the preternatural being unknowable but, rather, the sense that the religionist holds an ignorant view, i.e,. one that suffers from and is attributable to the lack of specific knowledge.
2. To assert something as 'unknowable' is to make an epistemological claim.

It seems to me that the result comes unnecessarily close to ad hominem and circular argumentation.

I'm just a touch confused with (b) - do you think making the epistemological claim that the supernatural is unknowable is problematic? Sorry if I got that wrong.

Of course it's problematic, i.e., debatable, which is why it is a 'claim' rather than a 'given'.

I'm thinking the only way to resolve this would be to keep the red portion of the descritpion and ditch the blue.

[Jayhawker Soule]

I have two problems with "based on ignorance":

1. Irrespective of your intent, it does not convey the sense of the preternatural being unknowable but, rather, the sense that the religionist holds an ignorant view, i.e,. one that suffers from and is attributable to the lack of specific knowledge.
2. To assert something as 'unknowable' is to make an epistemological claim.

It seems to me that the result comes unnecessarily close to ad hominem and circular argumentation.

I'm just a touch confused with (b) - do you think making the epistemological claim that the supernatural is unknowable is problematic? Sorry if I got that wrong.

Of course it's problematic, i.e., debatable, which is why it is a 'claim' rather than a 'given'.

I'm thinking the only way to resolve this would be to keep the red portion of the descritpion and ditch the blue.

Actually, the part in blue might reasonably be seen as tautological, while the part in red might be profitably reworked. I'm not much of a wordsmith, but let me give it some thought.

[ShadowRishi]

"Scientific naturalism" is rather repetitive, imo. But, with that said:

The current description states:

• For those who recognise and accept science as a naturalistic methodology and see the supernatural as an explanation which is based on ignorance and counter-productive to scientific inquiry.

This is wholly inappropriate. While many naturalists may characterize the supernatural as above, naturalism, and in particular methodological naturalism, simply asserts that the supernatural is out of scope. So, for example, Strahler states:

• In contrasting the Western religions with science, the most important criterion of distinction is that the supernatural or spiritual realm is unknowable in response to human attempts to gain knowledge of it in the same manner that humans gain knowledge of the natural realm (by experience)....
  
  Given this fiat by the theistic believers, science simply ignores the supernatural as being outside the scope of scientific inquiry. Scientists in effect are saying: “You religious believers set up your postulates as truths, and we take you at your word. By definition, you render your beliefs unassailable and unavailable.” This attitude is not one of surrender, but simply an expression of the logical impossibility of proving the existence of something about which nothing can possibly be known through scientific investigation.

  
  This isn't understating the scientific position from a philosophical context.
  
  I agree that religion is based off of axioms and postulates. The only reason the scientific method (Which is nothing more than the empiricism mixed with methodological naturalism) not only ignores religion but furthermore assumes it is wrong, is because of Occam's Razor.
  
  Science employs Occam's Razor on every fundamental level. We throw out unnecessary axioms and postulates, because, as the statement goes "All things being equal, the simplest answer is most often the best".
  
  
  Which means that until something can substantiated or inferred logically to exist, we must assume it's not true.
  
  
  
  Take God's intervention, for example. To assume that God intervenes is to assume that God can change the outcome of any research; no scientist believes, however, that the data they've spent years on is wrong or tainted by god. And yet, they believe that God intervenes in the universe, they just don't know how.
  
  Science stops this by assuming atheism or deism. We can quibble all day over methodologies vs. philosophies, but at the end of the day, all scientists assume there's no God when they do their work.
  
  
  So if you believe in science, you are forced to accept that it is unlikely that God intervenes in the universe, and thus you're confined to Deist or non-theist philosophies or religions.

[Jayhawker Soule]

Science employs Occam's Razor on every fundamental level.

That is a cognitively meaningless sentence.

We throw out unnecessary axioms and postulates, because, as the statement goes "All things being equal, the simplest answer is most often the best".

Why? How often is "most often"? What is meant by "best"?

People who talk about "the simplest answer" are quite often "the simplest people" who have never come withing 10 feet of a physics book.

[Goat]

Science employs Occam's Razor on every fundamental level.

That is a cognitively meaningless sentence.

We throw out unnecessary axioms and postulates, because, as the statement goes "All things being equal, the simplest answer is most often the best".

Why? How often is "most often"? What is meant by "best"?

People who talk about "the simplest answer" are quite often "the simplest people" who have never come withing 10 feet of a physics book.

You are missing one half of the statement. .. that is 'all things being equal'

Or, things are only as complicated as they need to be. That doesn't mean they are LESS complicated.

[Jayhawker Soule]

Science employs Occam's Razor on every fundamental level.

That is a cognitively meaningless sentence.

We throw out unnecessary axioms and postulates, because, as the statement goes "All things being equal, the simplest answer is most often the best".

Why? How often is "most often"? What is meant by "best"?

People who talk about "the simplest answer" are quite often "the simplest people" who have never come withing 10 feet of a physics book.

You are missing one half of the statement. .. that is 'all things being equal'

Or, things are only as complicated as they need to be. That doesn't mean they are LESS complicated.

I fully understand the mantra. Now, show me that you do as well.

Demonstrate that "all things being equal, the simplest answer is most often the best".