Talk:Methodological naturalism/Archive 2

message: Alright FuelWagon... let's hear some justifications
*Why do you feel a need to use the word "ontology" at all in this article?  It's a confusing word.  And even though I am sure you and I both know what it means, it's unnecessary.   David Bergan 15:55, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: google "ontological naturalism". here is one of the top hits:  "As a substantial view about the nature of reality, it is often called metaphysical naturalism, philosophical naturalism, or ontological naturalism to distinguish it from a related methodological principle. 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" FuelWagon 16:24, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Because "ontology" is the study of "being" and "existence" and whether something "exists" or not is different from "method for promoting successful investigation". So, it's rather important to distinguish whether something exists from methodology. ID proponents like to lump MN in with atheism, and that is a bald faced misrepresentation of facts. FuelWagon 16:24, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

text: That ontology and methodology are orthoganal, rather than mutually exclusive. FuelWagon 16:24, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Also a problem solved by my two-sentence clarification without adding peripheral information.  David Bergan 17:48, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see "size" of a 2x2 table to be that problematic. FuelWagon 18:19, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

text: no, it MS would be methods that investigate for natural and supernatural causes. ghostbusters using their "ghostdetector" would be MS. FuelWagon 16:24, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Where did you get the term?  David Bergan 17:48, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I got it from google. "we take for granted the dominance of critical thinking in all areas of intellectual inquiry, which is why today supernaturalism finds itself increasingly irrelevant, attacked, and unsustainable, and is therefore undergoing a reactionary resurgence to save itself. The specific reason is not because people claim to not believe in supernaturalism any more (they don't claim this), or because it is untrue (this has never been demonstrated), but because methodological naturalism is so effective, powerful, and successful, while methodological supernaturalism is not effective and is, in fact, positively ineffective and counter-productive, especially in attempts to understand the natural world." -- Steven D. Schafersman, in a paper presented at the "Conference on Naturalism, Theism and the Scientific Enterprise", sponsered by the Department of Philosophy, The University of Texas, Austin,  FuelWagon 18:19, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

text: No, the category is naturalism/supernaturalism. if someone's methodology investigates supernatural causes, then they have a methodological supernaturalism approach. FuelWagon 16:24, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Peripheral concepts

message: Dave, regarding this edit.
before
::Methodological naturalism (MN) refers to a method of inquiry (a procedure for gaining knowlege) that limits itself to natural (i.e. physical or material) approaches and explanations solely for the purpose of promoting successful investigation. MN is considered the basis for the natural sciences.
after
::Methodological naturalism (MN) refers to a popular 20th century paradigm stating that science should limit itself to solely natural explanations. Some consider MN to be the basis for the natural sciences, while others ascribe to methodological empiricism. Both terms were coined by design theorists.
problem: MN doesn't start out by saying "Science should limit itself". MN is ANY methodology for investigating and inquiring into what can be known. The only requirement is that it limit itself to natural approaches and explanations. people then developed the scientific method which is one possible implementation of methodological naturalism. There are others. Science doesn't give MN. MN gives one version of science. You've made teh definiton tautological.
You're insertion of "while others ascribe to methodologial empiricism" is just plain weird. If your definiton of ME is correct, then it is the one possible version of methodological supernaturalism and it doesn't  belong in this article. MN gives one flavor of science called the "scientific method". MS gives your version of ME and ID.
I am reverting your version of the intro. FuelWagon 20:52, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: MN gives one version of science

message: I've moved the quotes to the talk page. The incredible oompa loompa pointed out they were unencyclopedic in their format. I've rewritten the criticism to roll all the quotes into that section as a narative. And I'm moving all the quotes here for reference material. FuelWagon 20:02, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: quotes

message: actually, looking at it again, I think the current version of the article appears to have a second coat of polish after I rewrote the criticism using all the quotes. i.e. I'm really liking it now. comments? FuelWagon 20:05, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: cool. FuelWagon 20:39, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: second coat of polish

message: There was not enough material to justify two different articles on subjects that are different only in their discussion of metaphysics. The distinction between ontology and methodology is an important one that is now made on the redirected page, but the distinction should not be two separate articles because there is often confusion between the two naturalisms -- especially by creationists. The quotes included on this page for the most part don't name "methodological naturalism" by name and arguably were about both assumptions.
As for Philip Johnson's terminology, he is notorious for introducing more and more obfuscated terminology into his works in the hopes of redefining science to his means. That's perfectly his right, but the tacit endorsement by Wikipeida of his appropriated terms is too much. We already have an article on naturalism -- we don't need to splinter the concept in order to adequately explain it. Joshuaschroeder 15:21, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Please review the process for "Votes for deletion", which includes merging articles, before taking it upon yourself to do something like this again. methodological naturalism is a specific concept that is different from philosophical naturalism. also, methodological naturalism is a term used numerous times by the ID folks to criticize the evolution types. Given that, there is absolutely NO justification to require people read a massive article that covers philosophical and methodological naturalism just to get an introduction to this one concept. FuelWagon 15:25, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You yourself should look at the votes for deletion rules. Merges can and should take place by means of any editor's actions. I understand the distinction between ontology and methodology. It is discussed on the new page and there is no reason that it shouldn't be. I understand that ID folks enjoy adopting neologism, but the readers of Wikipedia can figure it out for themselves on the new page. More than that, we can even talk about how ID prefers to use obfuscating terms on the ID page if we are so incluined. The article is not massive in the least, well below any size limitations for wikipedia. I understand you have a vested interest in the article, but I preserved the information in the article during the merger. Surely you must have seen that there was considerable overlap between the two articles including a lot of redundant and repeated information. Joshuaschroeder 15:34, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: "I understand you have a vested interest in the article" And I understand you like to beg the question. I have no more "vested" interest than you do. It's just that I see methodology as distinct enough from ontology that they should be separate articles. FuelWagon 17:04, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

text: No, it isn't the same. a naturalist methodology means you approach science without using the supernatural. a naturalist philosophy means you don't believe in god. They are different distinctions. And they are orthogonal to each other. You can believe in god and still be a naturalist in your science. FuelWagon 17:02, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Only a naturalistic metaphysics means you don't believe in God. You are very wrong on this point. Joshuaschroeder 02:18, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Article merged with [[naturalism (philosophy)]]

message: Joshua, I appreciate the comment on your diff here that beseaches me to "don't just mindlessly revert". How silly of me. I forgot I just had my brain removed prior to making that edit. FuelWagon 17:10, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Depending on one's opinion of the mind-brain connection this may or may not be an indication of whether you were mindless in your reversion. Joshuaschroeder 12:56, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: keep it up. FuelWagon 14:50, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: mindlessly reverting

message: The Naturalism (philosophy) article introduces many, many new vocabulary terms, many of which are not explained and are left with links to outside articles for the reader to figure out what they mean. 
::Naturalism is any of several philosophical stances, typically those descended from materialism and pragmatism
::naturalism rejects teleology, the idea that natural phenomenom and events have an innate purpose.
::to distinguish it from the purely functionalist usage of the concept
::Methodological naturalism implies to most philosophers of science that the endeavor of science is strictly agnostic 
::there is neither any need nor any place for a "first philosophy", such as (abstract) metaphysics or epistemology, that could stand behind and justify science or the scientific method.
The Methodological naturalism article introduces ONE term, "ontology" and describes how it is different from "methodology" so that readers do not have to go to another article. 
philosophical naturalism is far above and beyond methodological naturalism. I also disagree with the idea of it being "agnostic". philosophical naturalism is more like atheism. 
And there is no need to get into metaphysics or epistemology for methodological naturalism. it isn't needed for that article. It may be needed for philosophical naturalism, since you're now talking about a more encompassing approach. 
Merging these two articles would be a disservice to readers. FuelWagon 18:47, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Fuel -- I have studied the philosophy of science extensively. Nowhere have I ever seen distinctions such as you are making. Naturalism in the context of philosophy is simply a statement about the comprehensibility of the natural world. If you have a text citation the contrary let me know. Using IDers as a resource is not a good idea, though (especially Johnson who is fond of making up his own distinctions). Joshuaschroeder 02:33, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've included URL's for a number of ID critics above. That they make the distinction means we report the distinction. FuelWagon 02:55, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Irrelevent. A common tactic of creationists is to make up an idea (such as baraminology) and then when a legit scientist criticized it claim that the idea is a distinct discipline. Whether the person is a supporter or a detractor of ID isn't the point. The point is that Johnson is the one who forced the distinction in the first place. Others are respondents. Joshuaschroeder 18:01, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Besides, no one has made the claim that we shold make a distinction between methodology and ontology, only that such a distinction in the realm of naturalism need not be covered in two articles. Joshuaschroeder 18:02, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: vocabulary

message: i started a vote for deletion with a vote of oppose. i think this article should not simply be redirected to philosophical naturalism because there is a strong demand for a discussion of methodological naturalism without getting too deep into the details of philsophy and the naturalism movement therein (which I -- coincidently -- personally support). --Rikurzhen 03:03, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
:Since nobody here has asked for a deletion of this article the VfD has been removed. An RfC should be started. Joshuaschroeder 18:10, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow. I'm impressed. FuelWagon 18:15, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  vfd 

message: Methodological naturalism is also a term used in creationists circles as an insult to mainstream science. There are something like a dozen or more creation-related articles on wikipedia and a number of them mention methodological naturalism. For that reason, those articles should point to a single article that explains methodological naturalism and how it differs from atheism. Creationists generally make the MN accusation to mean that to follow MN means you must be an atheist. The MN article specifically uncollapses this accusation withtout getting into all the various philosophical conversations that would come out of pointing to philosophical naturalism. The MN article is simple, straightforward, and only introduces one term (ontology) to explain what MN is and is not. The PN article introduces half a dozen terms doesn't explain many of them, and for a reader coming from a creationist-related article, PN doesn't help them. MN does. That is another reason for keeping MN separate from PN.
:If you are interested in only defining the term, why not simply link to methodology and make the distinction with ontology? Most people who click on the link I would wager and not interested in the adjective but rather the noun. Since naturalism as a philosophy is not just ontological vs. methodological, it is disingenuous for us to link to a article that is only hung up on the adjective. Joshuaschroeder 18:09, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: "I would wager". Please review "No Original Research". I keep talking about notable sources using the term and how THEY distinguish it as different from ON/PN. All you keep talking about is what YOU think it should be. If you have no sources, this is one-hundred percent original research, and what YOU think it should be. FuelWagon 18:20, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: "I would wager" was a question of editorial convenience and not about scholarship or research. As such, a more appropriate response might be to poll the Wikipedians and see if they really are that astonished when methodological natuarlism links to naturalism (philosophy). No one has ever claimed that there isn't a distinction between ON/PN. I don't know why you think otherwise. Joshuaschroeder 18:28, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: terms are used in creation/evolution debate

message: Either every creationist-related article explains the term, what it means and doesn't mean, and the points of view of the people who use the term, OR, all of that is put in the MN article, and all the creationist-related articles link to it. That is another reason for keeping MN separate from PN. FuelWagon 15:02, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Nonsense. If that were true every time we linked to God we'd have to clarify what kind we were interested in. Disambiguation occurs in articles that the subject is about not in the article that is talking about the subject. Joshuaschroeder 18:09, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

text: But is philosophical naturalism = ontological naturalism? Joshuaschroeder 18:09, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Barbara Forrest claims that PN and ON are synonymous without providing any rationale for this claim. I think that this link is problematic and is not a reliable resource. Joshuaschroeder 18:09, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: On who's authority? You've got nothing to support your arguments but... your arguments. Countless links have been provided to outside sources to show that this is a point of view that needs to be reported and your reply thus far has been "no" and your reasons given are "because". FuelWagon 18:20, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: These aren't arguments, Fuel, these are simple facts. Barbara Forrest is effectively stating that philosophy = ontology --> something that can be seen to be incorrect from their simple definitions. That is unless suddenly the words mean something else when you attach naturalism to them. I'm not sure what you want me to find a resource for. Are you asking me to find a citation that says "Philosophy and ontology are not the same thing"? Joshuaschroeder 18:33, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: multiple creation-related articles link to this term

message: But is philosophical naturalism = ontological naturalism? - Well, let's see.  The question of ontological naturalism is the question of whether or not nature is all that there really is.  I'm guessing by "Philosophical naturalism" or "the philosophy of naturalism" you mean to include other questions as well, such as "Should we operate by naturalistic principles in only certain respects (ie. science)?"  I see your point.
Since the concept of methodological naturalism probably doesn't take more than a paragraph to explain, merging does make sense.  Now, in the philosophy of science there is the question of whether or not science should be methodologically naturalistic or methodologically empirical.  Where does that question fit in?  Can we merge that into the paragraph on MN? David Bergan 19:08, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Egads! I can't believe such an article exists. I'm half tempted to VfD that article or merge it with empiricism. What is it with adding methodological as an adjective to terms and suddently having a new article? Thanks for the support, Dbergan. Joshuaschroeder 19:16, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Methodological naturalism is a phrased used by notable sources many times in the creation/evolution debate. It is not the same as PN or ON and is best explained by its own article. FuelWagon 19:50, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Why is the distinction worthy of its own article? How is it confusing to have the PN article with "methodological vs. ontological" being the first section? Isn't it clear then? Joshuaschroeder 19:55, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

text: False dichotomy. The only place this discussion occurs is in the context of Intelligent Design. No one else thinks that there is a discussion. Joshuaschroeder 15:44, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I realize that there could be other methodological principles guiding science, but those seem to be the two dominant ones and the discussion is real.  So should it go in the Intelligent Design article?  What do you suggest?  David Bergan 15:53, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it definitely belongs in either the Intelligent Design article or the Philip Johnson article since the distinction seems to be his hangup. My feeling is the latter article may be more appropriate. If you have a citation to some recognized philosophy of science (outside of the ID community) work that states that those are the two "dominant" methodological principles I'd like to see it. It would go a long way to your contention that the "discussion is real". Joshuaschroeder 21:59, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Fixed. Joshuaschroeder 15:44, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: methodological empiricism