Methodological Naturalism

[Whateverist]

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.

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.