Siteadmin, Check users, nsTeam1RO, nsTeam1RW, nsTeam1_talkRO, nsTeam1_talkRW, oversight, Administrators
30,650
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 16:
Line 16: + + + + + + + + + + + +
Talk:Methodological naturalism (view source)
Revision as of 19:30, April 13, 2008
, 19:30, April 13, 2008Serious criticism about the approach this article had taken
::Liberals and conservatives agree (1) that science should test the testable and that (2) science properly limits itself to investigating the possible. Agreed? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 14:15, 19 March 2008 (EDT)
::Liberals and conservatives agree (1) that science should test the testable and that (2) science properly limits itself to investigating the possible. Agreed? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 14:15, 19 March 2008 (EDT)
==New start==
I had to delete the article, because it simply did not make any sense. Moreover, it completely obscures the main thing that people want to know about science and naturalism:
:Do scientists assume that the material world is all there is?
Now, I've heard it said that "methodological naturalism" is only a self-imposed restriction. That scientists aren't really endorsing materialism but have chosen to look only for physical causes, when studying matters of [[physical science]].
However, the only context in which I've heard this term is in the [[origins debate]], where it's used as the chief pretext for dismissing [[intelligent design]]. Then it starts becoming [[intellectually dishonest]], by using [[circular reasoning]].
They say that ID can't be "scientific" because [[science]] only examines physical causes. But ID says that the decision to confine one's research and study to physical causes is itself the problem! --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 15:30, 13 April 2008 (EDT)