Philosophical versus Methodological Naturalism

A video about philosophical and methodological naturalism. These very different concepts are often mixed up, and I wanted to emphasize their difference.

Category:

People & Blogs

Tags:

• Philosophy
• of
• Science
• evolution
• creation
• Intelligent
• Design
• Methodological
• Naturalism
• Materialism
• God
• Spirits
• demons
• forensic
• Atheism
• Theism
• Agnostic

[BarryLeder]

Nice video.

Hope you will do more on the philosophy of science.

[LithodidMan]

Thanks, I just might. It is an area of interest of mine. I appreciate your comment, and will think about more philo of science concepts to talk about.

[et00et]

I think you need to separate forensics with theory of evolution. These too are far different. Forensics i natural process. TOE is fairy tales. Can you give me one proof of evolution theory?

[LithodidMan]

One proof? No proofs in science, that is for mathematics. One piece of solid, irrefutable evidence? ERV's. the fossil record, biogeography, genetics, homology, molecular (non genetic) biology, nested hierarchies....

[blazereef]

@LithodidMan what is that skull behind you with the massive teeth? a croc?

[LithodidMan]

@blazereef The one right behind me is an American alligator, the one on the same shelf to the far left is an African lion.

[blazereef]

@LithodidMan thanks, are they real or replicas?

[insidetrip101]

Sorry for so many comments <.< I hope you don't mind reading. ^.^

[insidetrip101]

KNOWABLE. If there is something that IS and it is not KNOWABLE then how can Science begin to function as a system of knowledge? I don't think Science would be able to deny that much and still function as a source of knowledge.

I understand you don't need to be strictly a materialist to practice science, but you do need to work within the framework of materialism.

[insidetrip101]

why you would make a distinction that science is methodological rather than philosophical. However, at that point there is no way Science can have a position other than materialism, because as you said, "You assume that no super natural agencies are at work . . . There could be deities. There could be spirits and everything out there, but they don't enter into the realm we are looking at."

This is a position of Materialism, because I think you would probably also agree that what IS, is . . .

[insidetrip101]

does science not presuppose materialism? It seems to me that every time you said, "assume a natural explanation", you were admitting to that presupposition of materialism.

Of course, I understand that Science has no statement of whether or not that the Super Natural actually exists. However, if two worlds do not interact you may as well be a materialist, because at this point there is something that IS that cannot be KNOWN. And that does not make very much sense.

In short, I understand . . .

[insidetrip101]

Materialism if that is alright with you.

Second, let me reiterate your points about methodological Materialism and Philosophic Materialism so that I am also sure I understand you know what you mean.

(philosophical) materialism - belief that exists is the material (methodological) materialism - there could be super natural/dualist agents, but they are completely separate from the material world.

Now, if this is true, and Science holds the belief of Methodological Materialism, then why . . .

[insidetrip101]

I think we can probably continue our discussion here. Before we go on, I would like to make sure our vocabulary is relatively similar.

In the video you use the word "Naturalism". I am honestly not extremely familiar with the term, every philosophy class I have taken so far has used the word Materialism. (I have only taken one intro, Metaphysics, and Epistemology, so I probably just have not been exposed.) I assume both these words have about the same meaning, but I would prefer to use . . .