Methodological Naturalism

[RoadRunner79]

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.

No....I wouldn't say that "as determined by science" is necessarily true.  We have been and could be incorrect.  And as I said in the original post, I think that the descriptor of science is more about the premises or the how and why you came to a particular conclusion, rather than an account of the conclusion itself.

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.  

That is my understanding and how I have seen the term methodological naturalism being used.  That it is not science, if it does not lead to a naturalistic conclusion.   I believe that we agree here.   If your premises are based on philosophical or metaphysical grounds, then it is not science (that descriptor does not apply).  And as you said, it doesn't mean that it is not true, it is describing how one came to that conclusion.  And as I said; similarly, just because you come to the conclusion of a naturalistic explanation, does not mean that you came to that conclusion through science.  Would you agree?  There are certainly other methods to knowing, but whatever method is used, the conclusion needs to be supported.

Being unable to support a conclusion based on the science does justify ruling out that conclusion.

I would say that it means that science does not support that conclusion then, not that it rules it out.   If it is ruling out a particular conclusion, then that conclusion needs to be supported by whatever means that you came to that position as well.

---

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.

No....I wouldn't say that "as determined by science" is necessarily true.  We have been and could be incorrect.  And as I said in the original post, I think that the descriptor of science is more about the premises or the how and why you came to a particular conclusion, rather than an account of the conclusion itself.

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.  

That is my understanding and how I have seen the term methodological naturalism being used.  That it is not science, if it does not lead to a naturalistic conclusion.   I believe that we agree here.   If your premises are based on philosophical or metaphysical grounds, then it is not science (that descriptor does not apply).  And as you said, it doesn't mean that it is not true, it is describing how one came to that conclusion.  And as I said; similarly, just because you come to the conclusion of a naturalistic explanation, does not mean that you came to that conclusion through science.  Would you agree?  There are certainly other methods to knowing, but whatever method is used, the conclusion needs to be supported.

Being unable to support a conclusion based on the science does justify ruling out that conclusion.

I would say that it means that science does not support that conclusion then, not that it rules it out.   If it is ruling out a particular conclusion, then that conclusion needs to be supported by whatever means that you came to that position as well.

[Whateverist]

Being unable to support a conclusion based on the science does NOT justify ruling out that conclusion.

I would say that it means that science does not support that conclusion then, not that it rules it out.   If it is ruling out a particular conclusion, then that conclusion needs to be supported by whatever means that you came to that position as well.

Then we agree on that. I guess you didn't notice that I had fixed my omission. There needed to be a NOT there where I bolded in your quote of me. I hope that was an obvious omission given what else I said.

[Astreja]

The underlying problem, IMO, is that the word "science" has a cachet that is coveted by people who are not doing science as we currently understand it. There's an implication that something science-based has a higher truth value than something "unscientific" (which itself is a pejorative, suggesting anything from careless methodology to just making up crap).

The role of the visionary is important in science. Someone has to venture off the beaten path and suggest new hypotheses. In the end, though, it comes down to whether something can actually be tested and verified.

[The Grand Nudger]

Similarly, there is a compulsion to attempt to remove the inconvenient bits of science -as- science, when those things come into contradiction with religious beliefs, due to the esteem of scientific knowledge and the conceptual implausibility of beliefs which make claims to the contrary.

[Whateverist]

Similarly, there is a compulsion to attempt to remove the inconvenient bits of science -as- science, when those things come into contradiction with religious beliefs, due to the esteem of scientific knowledge and the conceptual implausibility of beliefs which make claims to the contrary.

Right.  We all try to make the world fit our categories but for some of us that is harder task than for others.