Talk:Methodological naturalism

message: Quoting Wikipedia:Articles for deletion , "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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: AFD is an appropriate venue

message: I have filed an article RFC here . FuelWagon 14:45, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Article RFC

message: 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"  apparently as "proof" that the scientific method can use supernatural methods. 
: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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: support supernatural scientific method

message: 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)
thread_title: outside comments supernatural scientific method 

message: Please put your comments here.
oppose merging MN with PN. keep separate articles. FuelWagon 17:56, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: "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)
thread_title: outside comments merge MN with PN

message: 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. 
:is the principle that science and history should presume that all causes are natural causes solely for the purpose of promoting successful investigation. 
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. 
We have to either add "In supernaturalism" to the lead section or mention their position. Markus Schmaus 13:29, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 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  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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  In supernaturalism 

message: 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)
thread_title: supernatural scientific method

message: 15:31, 6 September 2005 Joshuaschroeder (rv -- take it to talk, Fuelwagon... don't just mindlessly revert.) 
 15:15, 6 September 2005 Joshuaschroeder (merging with the other naturalism article.) 
  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).) 
  17:48, 7 September 2005 Joshuaschroeder (twoversions. There is no VfD) 
 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)
replies: text: Deleted? Who wants to do that? Joshuaschroeder 02:39, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: unilateral action

message: 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)
thread_title: scientific method is natural method

message: 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." 
----
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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Johnson quotes involving MN

message: 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)
thread_title: Reinstating redirect

message: 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)
thread_title:  specific term used repeatedly in creation/evolution debates 

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

message: :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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: In the sense of empiricism, there is no such thing as a "supernatural" phenomenon. --ScienceApologist 17:55, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Difference from ontological naturalism

message: 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)
replies: text: have we seen http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/barbara_forrest/naturalism.html ? — Dunc|☺ 19:51, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Definitely worthy of inclusion. --ScienceApologist 23:45, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Ignoring comments on the talkpage

message: 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)
thread_title:  What would it mean to apply science to "the supernatural" anyway?