(May 31, 2020 at 5:35 pm)Belacqua Wrote:(May 31, 2020 at 5:18 pm)polymath257 Wrote: What you seem to miss is that it follows from *your* definition of natural.
You *defined* the 'nature' of something to be 'what it is or does'. So, *whatever* it does is, by *your* definition, natural.
If you *don't* mean that as your definition, then be more clear about your definition.
I see what you mean.
You are saying that anything a frog does must be part of its nature. I see how you would say that this follows from my definition.
I think that we know a great deal about what a frog's nature is, and we are reasonable to rule out a lot. If we see something that contradicts everything we know about a frog's nature, then some people will see this as evidence of something that is not part of a frog's nature.
If you see something that contradicts what we thought of as a frog's nature, you will assume a priori that it is natural and that science hasn't yet discovered the explanation. In this way you rule out the supernatural and beg the question.
So yes, I might need to state my definition more carefully. But my meaning is clear.
I disagree since I actually agree with your definition as stated. If we observe something that contradicts all we have learned about its nature, all that means is that the observation told us something new about its nature.
There are two options at that point. Either that observation can be explained about what we already know about the universe OR we just learned something new about the universe. Either way, the scientific method can be used to link it to other phenomena, and get an 'explanation' of how the different phenomena interrelate.
I'll give an example from science. We have the phenomenon of magnetism. We learned about it from observation, testing, experimentation, etc. From those observations, we derived 'laws' of how magnetism works. It thereby became a topic of scientific study. But *not* because of 'methodological naturalism', but because we found consistent patterns of how magnetism works and came up with a model for how it works (NOT a 'physical' model, but a mathematical one). And, some people thought of magnetism as a 'supernatural force'. But yet, science can and did, and does study it.
Currently dark matter and dark energy are under study in the same way: we look for patterns and we construct mathematical models for the behavior we observe. We test those models by having them make predictions of what we can observe in new studies. Again, no 'methodological naturalism' is assumed. We use the patterns in the observations themselves to come up with the models and then test those models. Of course, we first test against what we already (think we) understand. But that can mean that things can be *very* different once we have a good model.
Now, suppose we found a new phenomenon. Say we observe frogs singing duets. What would we do? Well, we would first try to determine where the sound comes from. We understand the dynamics of sound, so we would trace the sound waves and see where they originate. If there doesn't appear to be anything there, then things get *really* interesting and we continue the observations and testing. The most interesting times for science is when we don't understand something. It means we have a chance to learn something new.
Do the frogs only sing at night? Do they only sing duets? What patterns can we find to their singing? Can they change the pitch or tempo of the songs? Can they change where the apparent source of the sound is? What predictions can we make based on those observed patterns? And do those predictions hold up under further observation? ANY pattern at all is a potential source for new understanding, potentially leading to an 'explanatory model' (which just means it can make accurate predictions).
Again, no assumption of 'methodological naturalism' is required: only observation to see if there are any patterns and how those patterns are related to each other and to other things we think we know.
Now, this may well lead to an overturning in how we understand the universe. It has happened before (quantum mechanics and relativity are good examples). We might find that the patterns we have discovered so far are only approximations, or of limited applicability, etc.
And, maybe, will we invoke 'fairies', small intelligent beings that throw their voices making the frogs appear to sing duets. And that would lead to a study of these fairies. What are *their* properties? What patterns can we find in what *they* do, etc?
But, ultimately, the core is observation, hypothesis formation (pattern detection), testing of hypotheses, and modification/elimination of failed hypotheses (perceived patterns). And that core would work whether or not the study leads to things that were previously labeled 'supernatural'. The scientific method doesn't change. That work to find patterns doesn't change. The work to test those patterns and find their limits doesn't change.
In all cases, the 'nature' is determined *by observation*, not by preset conceptions of how things 'must be'.
So, yes, I agree with your definition as stated: the nature of something consists of what it 'is and does'. Nothing more. Nothing less. So, by this very definition, anything that happens *is* in the nature of things. And, furthermore, anything that happens and shows patterns is subject to the scientific method, even if something previously thought it was 'supernatural'.
