On Wed, 12 Feb 1997 22:00:47 -0500, Brian D Harper wrote:
[...]
>BH>why the switch from MN to N mid-sentence?
>SJ>I had already explained it before. Here it is again:
>
>"It follows from the definition. Naturalism means that nature is
>all there is. So `methodological naturalism' means that the
>scientist, even if he/she is not a metaphysical naturalist (ie.
>does not believe that nature is all there is) must *assume* that
>nature is all there is in doing science."
>
>I presume the "N" in methodological naturalism is the same "N" in
>metaphysical naturalism? If it isn't, perhaps Brian can explain the
>difference between them.
>BH>Perhaps we can let Phil explain it. In a footnote on page 212 of
>RITB Phil writes..."Methodological_ naturalism --the principle that
>science can study only the things that are accessible to its
>instruments and techniques--is not in question. Of course science
>can study only what science can study. Methodological naturalism
>becomes metaphysical naturalism only when the limitations of science
>are taken to be limitations upon reality...I would not express the
>point that way today..."
SJ>I am quite happy with Phil's definition of methodological
>naturalism:
>
>"the principle that science can study only the things that are
>accessible to its instruments and techniques"
BH>Sound familiar? I hope so since this is what I've been trying to
>explain for decades.
>SJ>I'm quite happy with it too. What's the difference between the
>above and what I said:
>SJ>"Naturalism means that nature is all there is. So
>`methodological naturalism' means that the scientist, even if he/she
>is not a metaphysical naturalist (ie. does not believe that nature
>is all there is) must *assume* that nature is all there is in doing
>science."
BH>The difference is that "the principle that science can study only
>the things that are accessible to its instruments and techniques"
>has nothing to do with whether "nature is all there is".
Agreed. But Brian needs to read a bit more carefully. I only said
that methodological naturalists "must *ASSUME* that
nature is all there is in doing science."
BH>Or, to put it another way, the instruments and techniques of
>science cannot determine whether or not "nature is all there is".
Agreed. If they could we would all be atheists.
BH>A scientist is certainly free to assume that nature is all there
>is if they so choose
Yes. That is *exactly* the word I used - "assume".
BH>but this assumption has nothing to do with "the principle that
>science can study only the things that are accessible to its
>instruments and techniques".
Agreed. Who said anything different?
BH>No offense intended, but I suspect that you might be confusing
>methodological naturalism with scientism. For example, the
following appeared earlier in this thread:
No "offense" is taken, because I am not "confusing
methodological naturalism with scientism".
>BH>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?
>
>SJ>Johnson defines MN as:
>
>"A variety of terms have been used in the literature to designate
>the philosophical position I call scientific naturalism. For
>present purposes, the following terms may all be considered,
>equivalent: scientific naturalism, evolutionary naturalism,
>scientific materialism, and scientism. All these terms imply that
>scientific investigation is either the exclusive path to knowledge
>or at least by far the most reliable path, and that only natural or
>material phenomena are real. In other words, what science can't
>study is effectively unreal." (Johnson P.E., "Darwin on Trial",
>1993, p116).
>
>But I would have thought that definition is hardly necessary in this
>case - the words define themselves. The only *method* to be used in
>science is *naturalism*, and "naturalism" is the assumption that
>"nature is all there is".
BH>In the pasage you quoted Johnson was defining scientism rather
>than methodological naturalism.
Agreed. I was wrong in prefacing that quote with "Johnson defines MN
as". In fact AFAIK Johnson doesn't even mention "methodological
naturalism" in Darwin on Trial at all. I thank Brian for pointing
this out.
God bless.
Steve
-------------------------------------------------------------------
| Stephen E (Steve) Jones ,--_|\ sejones@ibm.net |
| 3 Hawker Avenue / Oz \ Steve.Jones@health.wa.gov.au |
| Warwick 6024 ->*_,--\_/ Phone +61 9 448 7439 (These are |
| Perth, West Australia v my opinions, not my employer's) |
-------------------------------------------------------------------