Does Science Presume Naturalism?

[LalalaTabby]

I think science ties in everything in a very natural, observable, physical way. Naturalism makes me happy--the existence of the soul is thrown out the window; we are all perfectly, naturally occurring human beings, and there is no "ghost in the machine". We are whole, exactly as we are, and that's beautiful.

[LostLocke]

Basically, do you think science has a commitment to metaphysical naturalism, or at least methodological naturalism?

For me, I would say, technically no it does not.

Under ideal conditions, if you start your investigation into something and automatically either...
A) assume there must be a 'natural' explanation for it and it can not involve anything supernatural or extranatural or divine, etc or
B) assume that there is no 'natural' explanation for it and therefore it must be supernatural or extranatural or divine, etc
...you are technically not doing science.
Science simply starts with "What is this?" and goes wherever the path takes it.

[Anomalocaris]

Since I'm not very familiar with the philosophy of science, I'd figure I'd leave this question for those who are. Basically, do you think science has a commitment to metaphysical naturalism, or at least methodological naturalism?

No, naturalism is an characterization of the outcome of science, it is not an a priori assumption or commitment of science.

The only a priori commitment of science is to verifiability.

[FreeTony]

Anyone who believes in the supernatural must be able to answer this question:

How can you determine something is supernatural, and not something that is just beyond current understanding yet still obeys natural laws that we don't know about?

[Zen Badger]

In answer to the OP.

No, it's the conclusion that science has arrived at.

And until evidence to the contrary is found, that is the only rational conclusion.