All science is materialistic

[polymath257]

So physicalism is simply the scientific consensus at the time and not an overarching viewpoint?

How would we tell if there is another force? If we create a model with such a force and it is tested and verified by observation, does it then become physical? If supersymmetry is a thing, that would imply many other 'forces' in the form of bosons corresponding to known fermions. I would hate to say such speculation is un-scientific merely because it postulates more forces.

I'd also point out that this has a similar problem to materialism. Where materialism was focused on the fermions (matter), this seems to be too focused on the bosons (forces).

Once again, the relevant criterion seems to be testability.

Something like Dark Energy (or even Dark Matter) may not be testable (in the sense that the force can be manipulated in the LHC or its successors) but only observable, say, in its effects.

But that is enough to allow testing in the scientific sense. By looking at situations that vary, we can tell whether our models work or not and thereby test them.

For example, we used the Bullet cluster of galaxies to test our ideas concerning dark matter as comparted to modified gravity theories.

  It may be, say, in the realm of the Multiverse (if such exists) that additional forces beyond the Four or Five exist, and even though they will never be observed, perhaps, they could be described, say, by some String Theory model.

And, unless those theories give very good predictions that differ from other theories and are verified by observation, I would find them very un-scientific.

There *are* multiverse theories that can be tested because the different 'universes' show gravitational effects on ours that can be detected.

  But, alas, it may be impossible to distinguish one theoretical model from a competing one, as both may be mathematically coherent, yet where one is right but the other wrong.  We will just never know.

If the two theories predict the same observations in all cases, then they would be considered as simply re-wordings of the same theory (as is the case in many cases in physics today).

If they give different predictions for observations, but we don't have the technical ability to carry out the observation, then we would say both are reasonable possibilities. We would then use which ever one is easiest to calculate with.

A phenomenon that is non-physical is magical; such phenomenon, if they exist, can certainly be observed (e.g., the spontaneous healing of an adult amputee) but they cannot be modeled.

And why not? We can still observe patterns in the phenomena, determine when and where the phenomenon occurs, can figure out, potentially how to control the phenomenon, which would make it scientific and perhaps even technology.

Once again, I am not saying this is the actual case. I am saying that science could work with it if it was the case.