(November 17, 2018 at 3:39 pm)Gae Bolga Wrote: What do you think the utility of some other position would be, and how would something other than methodological naturalism apply to the sciences? What instruments do we possess that could certify or quantify a non-natural x?
I agree that methodological naturalism is limiting, this is an intentional state of affairs. That limitation safeguards against at least some unintentional (or even inevitable) errency.
As I said, I think that this applies more to the inductive sciences. Where one is making an inference. In that case, then you are not measuring anything directly as to the cause, but reasoning to the best explanation. In this case, there is room for error, which is true if you are reasoning to a natural cause/force or a non-natural one. There was times in the past, where the philosophy of the day (modernism) would not have included anything that couldn't be absolutely verified. But this ideology isn't held as much anymore, and would eliminate sciences such as theoretical science, evolution, cosmology. Anything that cannot be verified directly (if held consistently).
It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. - Alexander Vilenkin
If I am shown my error, I will be the first to throw my books into the fire. - Martin Luther
If I am shown my error, I will be the first to throw my books into the fire. - Martin Luther
