Methodological Naturalism

[RoadRunner79]

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.