(November 21, 2021 at 6:51 pm)Belacqua Wrote: Science has not superseded anyone on metaphysical issues, because science doesn't address metaphysical issues. By definition, science works within the boundaries of methodological naturalism. (This is why it's so good at what it does.) Some people, like "polymath," also hold naturalism as a metaphysical belief, but of course science can't prove this. It may be true, but it's not demonstrable by science.
I'm not sure i would say that I hold to meta[physical naturalism, at least partly because I have yet to see a good definition of what the word 'natural' means.
What I *do* hold to is the idea that any subject that claims to have knowledge about something has to have testing procedures that can reliably say when at least one of them is wrong.
Based on history, simple logical consistency is far from being enough to establish truth. Otherwise Ptolemy would have been correct.
In math. the test is whether the argument can be reduced to commonly accepted axioms (ZFC set theory is the default). If one person proposes a proof and another questions it, rhe process for resolution is to see whether the argument works step by step back to those axioms.
In the sciences, observation is the key to determining who is wrong. if two people disagree, the process is to formulate an experiment that gives different results based on the two viewpoints. Then conduct the experiment and see who was wrong. if no such experiment is possible, even in theory, then the decision is that the views are equivalent. No 'metaphysical naturalism' is required: only testability by observation.
I have yet to see a reliable method for determining who is wrong in theology.
