Here is a pro-con discussion from my overview-endnote,
abbreviations: A problem is that 3 of the 4 terms begin with m. One
possible solution, based on a comparison of the theological importance of
the prefixes, is to use "M" for metaphysical and "m" for methodological; if
capital letters are used for the conclusions, we have MM and mN. Logically
this makes sense, but linguistically it is awkward to have so many m's, so
perhaps a compromise -- by changing MM (metaphysical M) to pM
(philosophical M) -- would be helpful. In doing this there is a loss of
precision, since "metaphysical" is more specific than the broad
"philosophical" which includes metaphysics and much more, including
epistemological methodology --- the term being contrasted with metaphysics!
But using pM and mN, instead of PM and MN, does provide a reminder of the
distinction between the type of claim (non-capitalized) and the claim
(capitalized). Or pM could simply be called Materialism (M), but "M and
mN" would not highlight the difference between type-of-claim and claim.
Other possibilities would be wM (worldview M) or rM (religious M). All
things considered, I suggest using pM (or maybe wM) and mN, but I'm
open-minded about reasons for using other abbreviations. p247
Craig