Philosophy Versus Science

[Belacqua]

You don't offer a criteria of what you think such evidence would be, that exists entirely outside of the remit of science or the natural realm I mean.

Here are you claiming that "science" and the "natural realm" are contiguous? That is, in your view anything in the "natural realm" is something science can have evidence for? 

I'm not sure if that's true or not. 

I wouldn't want to be in the position of begging the question: "everything that science has found is natural, therefore everything that's natural is found by science. Therefore only natural things exist." 

 Could you give me an example, so I can understand what you mean by "evidence" in that context?

Evidence is any observation (whether taken through scientific experiment or not), or subjective experience, or testimony, or tradition, which increases the credibility of a proposition. 

As I recall you insist on Objective Evidence. I have a broader view of what may increase the credibility of a proposition. 

One does not need to be committed (solely) to scientific naturalism, to recognise it is exponentially more successful at understanding reality than any other method. 

OK, here you've changed the subject. What we consider to be more successful is not necessarily the only type of evidence there is. Also, if you feel you know in advance what reality is, and then claim that scientific naturalism is the only thing that gives us evidence of that, then you're begging the question. 

"More successful" at what, exactly? For technology, sure. 

FYI magic by definition is outside of the remit of science, but then so are all non-existent things of course.

So you know for sure that magic is non-existent, because it is outside the remit of the kind of inquiry you approve of? More begging the question.