Methodological Naturalism Necessary in Empiriological Sciences?

[Matthias123]

Methodological naturalism is the studying of the natural world with the exclusion of considering things non-physical having any effect on it.

I hold to the notion that science should work under naturalism, and then philosophy can critique it later, as long as they do not call it science.

Ths is why I am very much against the attempts to shut the ID people up, even though I do not accept their position.

 

[hecd2]

We’re operating in a historical context in which science has fared extremely well, but it didn’t have to be that way. Just because naturalistic explanations have fared so well up to this point and there is no reason to think that won’t continue in the future doesn’t mean that it is logically necessary that strictly natural explanations always work, if one admits the logical possibility of supernatural entities.

I agree with this - I would go so far as to say that one can envisage universes in which the scientific method would fail abysmally. In fact, science gains its validation not from some logical necessity, but from its efficacy - it demonstrably works.

And in fact, many atheists try to make the case that there is no (physical) evidence for supernatural entities. This assumes that if there were a supernatural entity messing around in the physical world we could detect evidence of it and infer its existence, otherwise the atheists’ claim is meaningless.

Well to say that there is no evidence for a supernatural entity messing around with the world is 1) to claim the metaphysical bootstrapping foundation for science and 2) to deny the existence of cases which are inexplicable in principle by the application of known or yet–to-be-discovered scientific theories. A definite case or cases negating 2) are the only grounds for accepting the existence of evidence for and inferring the existence of a supernatural entity.

And there are such hypothetical cases, sharp discontinuities from the regularity we normally see in nature which make it impossible (or virtually) so to obtain a parsimonious explanation. So I’ll be hypothetical, and assume a case where a supernatural entity is affecting the natural order and show how your questions will be answered, with of course the caveat we don’t get “proof” but only inference to the best explanation. If the stars followed general relativity except for, say, December 25, and then inexplicably everywhere on earth you looked they spelled out “God is Great” in the sky (in many different languages), and then mysteriously resumed their normal courses on December 26, what would you think? Moreover, the message has been documented in history, as occurring in the extant languages at the time.

We could postulate some strange ad hoc “December 25 exception” to GR which has all stars (or starlight, to be exact) moving where they go. But this is no explanation at all - the explanation is just as complex as what is explained, and has no explanatory power - any motion of the stars could be explained by such a device.

We could postulate a very strange space-time curvature which cause the starlight to bend in just the right manner to see “God is great” every December 25. But would cause that? You’d have to have almost as many entities (or maybe more, who knows, I’m not an expert in GR) to cause the right curvature. Again, no explanation.

We could postulate some new physics. But again, where’s the parsimony? Yes, new physical theories have been made to explain things previously unexplainable (e.g. blackbody radiation, Michelson-Morley, etc.) but these things were repeatable and predictable.

We could give up on any explanation, like we do for random events in quantum mechanics. Yet that’s unsatisfying too, because there are messages in various languages read by the inhabitants of the earth.

Clearly the most parsimonious explanation is that some supernatural entity wishes to communicate with us, has the power to move the stars (or at least starlight), and is using it to do so.

I can think of other parsimonious explanations. For example, the explanation that an agent is implicated is tempting, given the character of the phenomenon, but that agent need not be supernatural - a natural agent might be generating what we observe in some to-be-discovered way; the agent might be an ordinary earthbound person or group of people who manipulate our perception by optical, hypnotic or pharmacological means. Despite your ready dismissal, new physics or bizarre confluences of known physics would have to be considered. Scientists would explore every aspect of the phenomenon that they could for evidence - was it the stars moving or the light from them being affected? How quickly did they appear to move - instantaneously or at finite speed? Were their emission and absorption spectra affected? Did the apparent movement influence other effects such as gravitational lensing? Were there unique electromagnetic or plasma emissions associated with the phenomenon? Were the stars that appeared to move bounded by particular distances from us, and so on?

At what stage should scientists give up the search for natural explanations and infer the existence of a supernatural causea? After a week of study - a month, a year, a lifetime? When?

Science is a pragmatic tool in a universe which appears to be amenable to its methods, one of which is methodological naturalism. Even in the bizarre hypothetical case that you put forward, my answer to a) and b) is that we cannot be confident the cause is supernatural nor can we protect the potency of science if we abandon methodological naturalism.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[grannymh]

So when you study some matter a) how do you decide that it has been affected by a spiritual agent diddling about with the natural order? b) if supernatural explanations are acceptable in science, how do we avoid falling back on them every time we have difficulty in coming to a natural explanation of a phenomenon and c) if such supernaturally affected matter does exist, just what can we learn by studying it?

Alec
evolutionpages.com

Because of my research into extraordinary phenonomen involving the Catholic Eucharist, I begin with the first part of “point c) if such supernaturally affected matter does exist…”

According to tradition, in 750, at Lanciano, Italy, during the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, the natural characteristics of the consecrated bread and wine became flesh and blood which were set aside as relics. At the time of the miracle, the flesh was living . It then submitted to the natural law of rigor mortis. The blood coagulated into five unequal globules. These relics are retained under the protection of local Catholic authority. In 1970, the Archbishop of Lanciano requested that the relics be examined in accord with scientific methods.

Dr. Edward (Odoardo) Linoli, director of the Laboratory of Pathological Anatomy, Hospital of Arezzo, Italy, and eminent professor of anatomy and pathological histology, chemistry and clinical microscopy, did the study. He was assisted by Dr. Ruggero Bertelli, retired professor of human anatomy at the University of Siena, Italy. The published report concluded that the flesh and blood were cardiac tissue and blood type AB of human origin. Histological dissection did not reveal any trace of salt infiltrations or preservative substances used in antiquity for the purpose of embalming. Clearly, the matter of bread and wine had been acted upon supernaturally so that the change was observable and the existing results of flesh and blood could be submitted to rigorous testing in the realm of science.

In response to **“**So when you study some matter a) how do you decide that it has been affected by a spiritual agent diddling about with the natural order?” First, God with a capital G is far more than some spiritual agent who diddles and dabbles. Now, if the change in matter is unexplainable and if both the result and purpose were in keeping with theology, it would be reasonable to explore the possibility of Divine intervention. Nonetheless, extreme caution would be exercised.

Catholic teaching is that modern miracles, even though worthy of belief, do not have to be believed. This is not to be confused with the Miracle of the Eucharist which must be believed.

In answer to “point b) if supernatural explanations are acceptable in science, how do we avoid falling back on them every time we have difficulty in coming to a natural explanation of a phenomenon.” As to an explanation for the Lanciano miracle, all the scientists could say was that what was before them was extraordinary phenonomen. I have noticed that Italian scientists carefully sidestep the temptation to attribute difficult explanations to supernatural intervention. In 1973, additional tests were made on the Lanciano relics. These corroborated Dr. Linoli’s conclusions. According to Zenit news, the 1976 report’s extract [sic] confirmed science’s inability to explain the phenomenon. No falling back on the supernatural. The door to future scientific study remained open.

As for Alec’s last question ….just what can we learn?

The Eucharist is the heartbeat of Catholicism. Yet, it is a most difficult belief. The Lanciano miracle came about because the monk who was celebrating the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass in the 8th century doubted that Jesus had the power to be truly present under the signs of bread and wine. In 750, to demonstrate that the change of the bread’s substance can happen unseen, Jesus changed the natural characteristics or signs of bread in such a way that they had the characteristics of flesh which could be seen by those present. These are the same natural characteristics which were examined by scientists centuries later.

The doubt in Lanciano is the same in our century. We doubt the unseen because it cannot be scientifically proven. But, when we are faced with the amazing Lanciano miracle, we are drawn to the “Divine Who” of the Eucharist. From the Lanciano miracle, we learn to look beyond the limits of the sensory realm as bread became flesh and to admit the existence of God. Humbly, we learn that the incomprehensible Eucharist is comprehensible because the Divine Jesus Christ, in all His power and glory, is truly present.

Blessings,
granny

All human life is sacred.

 

[geometer]

I knew a very accomplished scientist, who was a theoretical physicist. He privately practiced a supernatural art, which is described in Hindu teaching. When his son demonstrated an example to me, I said that they, he and his father should study that scientifically. He was completely against any such study.

He and his father think of science as the study of material. His father said physical mass is the reason that space exists. The gravitation of massive bodies gives space a shape. If there were no gravitational fields the space vectors would go in all directions, and would not produce a shape. That which does not have a shape does not exist.

But, what they do spiritually, they did not what entered into scientific study. I think that they believe that the service that science does is simply to expand the knowledge of material behaviors. And, a science of spiritual effects, would lead to some very evil things. A theory of love, for instance, might be used like all other kinds of science, for making advanced weapons…

 

[Geremia]

And, a science of spiritual effects, would lead to some very evil things.

Really?

Also, for the record, the Catholic Church does not at all oppose science conducted with methodological naturalism. In fact the Church supports it.

 

[Geremia]

Also, for the record, the Catholic Church does not at all oppose science conducted with methodological naturalism. In fact the Church supports it.

See, for example, the Vatican Observatory’s 2008 annual report.