Even the bolded bit is anachronistic.  Logical deduction is the operation of a natural organ..and it's notoriously unreliable.  The whole enterprise of science was constructed to reduce the gravity of that fact.

(November 17, 2018 at 4:43 pm)Whateverist Wrote:

(November 17, 2018 at 4:07 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: So we cannot make inferences from the data that we do have?    Are you saying that only directly measured data, and not logical induction are to be included under the category of science?  It sounds like you are going to quickly get into the problems of philosophical modernism if so.

I think the answer to my bolded is an unqualified yes.  Science is restricted to the measurable world.  The inferences you want to avoid -as do I- will also prevent you from using science to establish God's existence.  Some people do draw conclusions from science which go too far, but it isn't the science part which is to blame.  Rather it is the smuggled in premise that nothing but what science can verify should ever be believed.  That is scientism no more real science than is creationist science.  

Gae guy's point is valid, you're never going to establish the supernatural by way of the natural; and science only does apply to the natural world.  But at least you're never going to read a real science story disproving the supernatural either.

I think that it is up to the the facts and reasoning presented for the inductive argument.  And yes, some may be good; while others are bad (in any case).  If you are determining the label of science just based on the conclusion being natural, rather than the methodology and how you got there, then it would be science, as long as it is a natural explanation, even if the way that you got there is just a "just so" story, with no science or bad science involved. 

You answered, that " Science is restricted to the measurable world".   My question is why?   Why limit the conclusion if there is a better explanation, if that conclusion leads to something outside of science.  This seems to have little usefulness to me, unless the goal is to maintain an a priori world view of philosophical naturalism.  And through scientism one is seeking to deny something once it gets out of the realm of science.  To me, the value science is about the methodology and how you came to a particular conclusion.  What is the difference that is being made, if you all of the sudden quit call something science?  All you are saying is that it is no longer concerning the natural world and natural forces, but something else.   The results of a homicide detective conclusions are no less valid, if he decides that the best explanation is natural causes.  I don't think that his work has to have homicide as an answer because of some label or that is the end of his job as a homicide detective.

Why limit science to what our instrumentation can detect?  Is that the question, ultimately?

(November 17, 2018 at 4:49 pm)Gae Bolga Wrote: Even the bolded bit is anachronistic.  Logical deduction is the operation of a natural organ..and it's notoriously unreliable.  The whole enterprise of science was constructed to reduce the gravity of that fact.

While I agree that a particular conclusion may stray far from the original facts, this is a matter of a particular arrangement (whether it's conclusion is natural or other than). And requires addressing those particulars.  It's not a reason for a philosophy of methodological naturalism   I think you will find difficulty in removing that natural organ from the equation however.    And again, logical inferences do seem to be a part of what is considered science, as well as deductive arguments.  If not; you are only left with the data.

The reason for methodological naturalism has already been described.  Limits of instrumentation.

(November 17, 2018 at 5:11 pm)Gae Bolga Wrote: The reason for methodological naturalism has already been described.  Limits of instrumentation.

So remove the label of science from anything that is not directly measured then? All methodologist naturalism is describing is what is measured? This doesn’t seem to be what is normally being said by this term to me.

---

You may note, that physics at the quantum realm are not directly observed or measured, but inferred by there effects. Are you saying that quantum physics is not science?

I'm not sure I understand the objection, quantum effects -have- been observed and measured?

(November 17, 2018 at 5:02 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote:

(November 17, 2018 at 4:43 pm)Whateverist Wrote: I think the answer to my bolded is an unqualified yes.  Science is restricted to the measurable world.  The inferences you want to avoid -as do I- will also prevent you from using science to establish God's existence.  Some people do draw conclusions from science which go too far, but it isn't the science part which is to blame.  Rather it is the smuggled in premise that nothing but what science can verify should ever be believed.  That is scientism no more real science than is creationist science.  

Gae guy's point is valid, you're never going to establish the supernatural by way of the natural; and science only does apply to the natural world.  But at least you're never going to read a real science story disproving the supernatural either.

If you are determining the label of science just based on the conclusion being natural, rather than the methodology and how you got there, then it would be science, as long as it is a natural explanation, even if the way that you got there is just a "just so" story, with no science or bad science involved. 

You answered, that " Science is restricted to the measurable world".   My question is why?   

Are you conflating "as determined by science" with "is true"?  I don't think science is that powerful.  But yes that is actually the way science is conducted, and "methodological naturalism" is a good descriptor for the method.  If you are complaining that the good reputation of science shouldn't go exclusively to science conducted by way of that method I have to ask why?  It is science conducted in exactly that way which has earned science its good name.  You can't borrow that name and apply willy nilly and expect that good reputation to follow.

(November 17, 2018 at 5:02 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: Why limit the conclusion if there is a better explanation, if that conclusion leads to something outside of science.  This seems to have little usefulness to me, unless the goal is to maintain an a priori world view of philosophical naturalism.  And through scientism one is seeking to deny something once it gets out of the realm of science.  To me, the value  science is about the methodology and how you came to a particular conclusion.  What is the difference that is being made, if you all of the sudden quit call something science?  All you are saying is that it is no longer concerning the natural world and natural forces, but something else.   The results of a homicide detective conclusions are no less valid, if he decides that the best explanation is natural causes.  I don't think that his work has to have homicide as an answer because of some label or that is the end of his job as a homicide detective.

Now you've lost me.  I've already said I don't believe you have to apply methodological naturalism to the conclusions drawn from the results of the science conducted using that method.  Of course you can do so if you're being very cautious in your claims.  But, if anyone claims that the science rules out a conclusion because science can't support it, they've gone too far.  Being unable to support a conclusion based on the science does NOT justify ruling out that conclusion.

(November 17, 2018 at 5:39 pm)Whateverist Wrote: Are you conflating "as determined by science" with "is true"?  I don't think science is that powerful. 

Right?  At best, it provides us with sound propositions.  It's been the most productive method yet on that count, and I suppose that's pretty powerful.

(November 17, 2018 at 5:47 pm)Gae Bolga Wrote:

(November 17, 2018 at 5:39 pm)Whateverist Wrote: Are you conflating "as determined by science" with "is true"?  I don't think science is that powerful. 

Right?  At best, it provides us with sound propositions.  It's been the most productive method yet on that count, and I suppose that's pretty powerful.

Agreed.  That's why I don't think the name should be misappropriated and attached to thinks like creationism or nothing-but-ism.