>I continue to be confused in the way that several use the term
>methodological naturalism. Can anyone point to some references
>wherein this term is defined? My understanding is that methodological
>naturalism does not require the scientist to assume that nature
>is all there is when doing science. Rather, it is a recognition that
>the methods of science are limitted. Further, these limitations are
>inherent, not arbitrarily specified. Methodological naturalism in
>my view is the recognition that science is limitted. I promote it
>because it is very useful for weeding out metaphysical naturalism
>from science. Another error is to say that if the methods of science
>cannot detect something then that something is not real, or to
>say that if something is real then it can be detected by the methods
>of science. This I would call scientism.
I too have problems with the term, "methodological naturalism." It seems to
me that the term literally defines science. The realm of science knowldege
is naturalism, and a distinguishing feature of scientific knowledge is that
it is tested by empirical methods.
In order to more precisely describe "scientism," I suggest that we use the
term "metaphysical naturalism.."
Comments?
____________________________________________________________
Steven S. Clark, Ph.D . Phone: 608/263-9137
Associate Professor FAX: 608/263-4226
Dept. of Human Oncology and Email: ssclark@facstaff.wisc.edu
UW Comprehensive Cancer Center
CSC K4-432
600 Highland Ave.
Madison, WI 53792
____________________________________________________________