Siteadmin, Check users, nsTeam1RO, nsTeam1RW, nsTeam1_talkRO, nsTeam1_talkRW, oversight, Administrators
30,650
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Talk:Methodological naturalism (view source)
Revision as of 18:30, July 13, 2007
, 18:30, July 13, 2007my last word today - must go do some errands
Circular definition comes into play here:
:Many scientists of faith nevertheless adopt naturalism in their studies. This is because there is simply no way for an experiment to investigate forces which by their nature cannot be investigated scientifically.
The definition of [[scientific investigation]] is "study of the natural (material) world". Science thus ''limits itself'' to investigation of the [[material world]]. By this definition, studying anything beyord the material world is "not scientific". Therefore (by this definition), studying supernatural phenomena is not scientific, and any experiment which investigates the supernatural is not a scientific investigation.
What then is the rationale for limiting investigation to the material world, i.e. natural phenomena. Is it because there is no way at all to study it? Or simply that we have defined "scientific investigation" as "study of the material world only".
This is like defining geography so that it is limited to [[physical geography]] and excluding human culture, trade, etc. So ''National Geographic]] has gone way beyond its bounds, if [[geography]] is limited only to physical aspects such as geology, ecology, wildlife, etc.
It's really a confounding of method and scope. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 14:30, 13 July 2007 (EDT)
:Many scientists of faith nevertheless adopt naturalism in their studies. This is because there is simply no way for an experiment to investigate forces which by their nature cannot be investigated scientifically.
The definition of [[scientific investigation]] is "study of the natural (material) world". Science thus ''limits itself'' to investigation of the [[material world]]. By this definition, studying anything beyord the material world is "not scientific". Therefore (by this definition), studying supernatural phenomena is not scientific, and any experiment which investigates the supernatural is not a scientific investigation.
What then is the rationale for limiting investigation to the material world, i.e. natural phenomena. Is it because there is no way at all to study it? Or simply that we have defined "scientific investigation" as "study of the material world only".
This is like defining geography so that it is limited to [[physical geography]] and excluding human culture, trade, etc. So ''National Geographic]] has gone way beyond its bounds, if [[geography]] is limited only to physical aspects such as geology, ecology, wildlife, etc.
It's really a confounding of method and scope. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 14:30, 13 July 2007 (EDT)