Talk:Methodological naturalism/Archive 2

empiricism
Dave, methodological empiricism should probably redirect to "empiricism". If you want to argue that "empiricism" allows for supernatural stuff, then do it there. FuelWagon 14:51, 18 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Except that the point of "methodological empiricism" is that science should operate by the principles of empiricism regardless of the conclusion. It is in direct conflict with MN (ie. the same people - Johnson, et. al. - invented both terms).  To leave out ME is serious misinformation.  Like talking about ID without mentioning evolution.  David Bergan 14:56, 18 August 2005 (UTC)


 * You're telling me that empiricism which has as its basis "Nothing is in the intellect which was not first in the senses" allows for supernatural? How can material/natural senses be affected supernatural causes unless it is natural? This is word games of the highest order. FuelWagon 15:02, 18 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Check out this quote from Johnson where he explains the two ways of understanding science.
 * "In our culture there are two distinct models of scientific enterprise... In the first, the materialist model, science is seen as based by definition upon philosophical naturalism or materialism.  For present purposes naturalism and materialism amount to the same thing.  The first asserts that nature is all there is, while the second adds that nature is made up of matter, i.e. the particles that physicists study, and nothing else. (Philosophers tend to prefer the less familiar term physicalism, because it avoids the ordinary-language distinction between matter and energy--energy also being a physical entity.)  Whichever term is used, every event or phenomenon is conclusively presumed to have a material cause, at least after the ultimate beginning... For scientific materialists, this is equivalent to departing from objective reality into subjective belief.  What we call intelligent design in biology is by this definition inherently antithetical to science, and so there cannot conceivably be evidence for it.


 * "The second, or empirical model, defines science strictly in terms of accepted procedures for testing hypotheses, such as repeatable experiments. (I use the term "empirical" here in it dictionary sense of "arising from observation or experiment," as opposed to arising by deductive reasoning from philosophical axioms.) Of course scientific materialists also employ these testing procedures, but only up to the point where materialism itself comes into question.  For true empiricists, whatever is testable by scientific methods is eligible for consideration.  Within science one cannot argue for supernatural creation (or anything else) on the basis of ancient traditions or mystical experiences, but one can present evidence that unintelligent material causes were not adequate to do the work of biological creation."—Signs of Intelligence Chapter 1 "The Intelligent Design Movement" by Phillip E. Johnson, pg. 29  David Bergan 15:17, 18 August 2005 (UTC)


 * "Nothing is in the intellect which was not first in the senses"—"Supernatural" events are still perceived by the senses. Jesus's resurrected body was witnessed with eyes, ears, and hands.  And this "miracle" was verified by the doctors, not the nuns.  Empirically, we know the girl was healed.  But since there wasn't a naturalistic explanation for her healing, MN would chuck the evidence altogether.  David Bergan 15:24, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

You are arguing that "methodological empiricism" is something completely different from "methodological naturalism". If so, "methodological empiricism" should have it's own article. And "empiricism" should link to it and it should link to "empiricism". This is the "methodological naturalism" article, and it is about whether or not natural or supernatural causes should be part of the method for gaining knowledge. If empiricism allows for supernatural causes, then in this category, it qualifies as methodological supernaturalism, a method for determining knowledge that includes supernatural causes. if that's what it is, and you wish to advocate ID's position on this, start a ME article and report it there. FuelWagon 15:33, 18 August 2005 (UTC)


 * The concepts were born together and the discussion entirely focuses on which of those two is the right way to guide science. That's why it is relevant. David Bergan 15:55, 18 August 2005 (UTC)


 * the article is titled "methodological naturalism". To define methodology, I introduce the superset called ontology. To define naturalism, I introduce the superset that it belongs to called supernaturalism. The point is to show that methodological naturalism is a subset of supernaturalism and a subset of what everything that exists. What you are proposing is bringing a completely unrelated topic called "methodological empiricism" not because it helps define what "methodlogical naturalism" is, but because it advocates for someone's point of view. methodlogical empiricism, by your definition is the same as methodological supernaturalism, because you say it uses material means to investigate the supernatural. that doesn't help define what methodological naturalism is, it allows ID to further advocate its position in this article. FuelWagon 16:50, 18 August 2005 (UTC)


 * To define methodology, I introduce the superset called ontology.—Which really isn't necessary. The word methodology itself suggest "this is the method we are going to operate by".  There is absolutely no need for using the word "ontology" to tell people the concept of "what really exists".  My two-sentence clarification below (with perhaps some editing) does the job without giving people headaches. David Bergan 17:44, 18 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Obviously it is needed based on the bucket of quotes that refer to the difference between methodology and ontology. FuelWagon 21:39, 18 August 2005 (UTC)


 * To define naturalism, I introduce the superset that it belongs to called supernaturalism.—I get what you mean, but it's not immediately obvious to the casual reader. "Supernaturalism" doesn't readily call to mind that "naturalism" is a section of it.  I'm not even sure that your definition of "supernaturalism" is accurate.  Where did you get it?  And if you want to clarify the debate between the two why not use the term "methodological empiricism" since that is a bona fide verifiable term, and since you think that it is synonymous... and the one meant to be used by the author of the whole thing. David Bergan 17:44, 18 August 2005 (UTC)


 * ""Supernaturalism" doesn't readily call to mind that "naturalism" is a section of it." Supernaturalism is exactly what comes to your mind when you think of the word. ghosts, spirits, deities, running around in the material world. That's that ontological supernaturalism means. It means you believe in god or spirituality and you live in the physical world. when you have methodological supernaturalism it means you are running around like one of the ghostbusters, that ghosts are somehow measurable in the material world, and that you can interact with them, and gain knowledge studying their causes and effects. Ghost detectives are Methodologial supernaturalists because they investigate supernatural incidents that have material effect. ID is methodological supernaturalism because they look at flagella as the physical effect of a supernatural influence. Empiricism is irrelevant here, and I would dispute your definition of it in the first place. FuelWagon 21:36, 18 August 2005 (UTC)


 * What you are proposing is bringing a completely unrelated topic called "methodological empiricism" not because it helps define what "methodlogical naturalism" is, but because it advocates for someone's point of view.—The two concepts together explain the discussion of what principles should guide science. To say it is "completely unrelated" is absolutely false.  They were born together in the same chapter of the same author to clarify an ongoing debate.  Leaving out all reference to half the debate is quoting out of context.  David Bergan 17:44, 18 August 2005 (UTC)


 * "The two concepts together explain the discussion of what principles should guide science" Absolutely NOT. SCIENCE is a METHODOLOGY. I've argued long and loud on the creation science article that the article cannot say CS is NOT science. CS proponents view CS as a scientific methodlogy. The scientific method used by evolutionists is another methodology. MN is a category in which evolutionists fit. Methodological Supernaturalism is a category in which creation science, intelligent design, and others fit. Empiricism is yet another methodology, and it fits inside one category or the other, but it doesn't actually help define the category. By your definition, ME is methodological-supernaturalism. My understanding of ME is that it is Methodological-naturalism. The fact that its categorization is disputed and confusing means it will NOT help define methodological naturalism, it will only make it more confusing. ME can get its own article. In it, the different categorizations as to whether it is MN or MS can be reported. It is irrelevant here. It doesn't help define the category if it only makes it more confusing. MN allows absolutely no possibility for supernatural causes, explanations, methods, or anything. If ME is really what you say it is, it's not MN, it is MS. and that categorization will be greatly disputed by empiricist who will say you're playing word games with definitions for ID's benefit. ME doesn't belong here. Create a separate article. FuelWagon 21:28, 18 August 2005 (UTC)


 * it allows ID to further advocate its position in this article—This statement is somewhat ironic because both terms were coined by design theorists. David Bergan 17:44, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Peripheral concepts
Alright FuelWagon... let's hear some justifications
 * Why do you feel a need to use the word "ontology" at all in this article? It's a confusing word.  And even though I am sure you and I both know what it means, it's unnecessary.   David Bergan 15:55, 18 August 2005 (UTC)


 * google "ontological naturalism". here is one of the top hits: "As a substantial view about the nature of reality, it is often called metaphysical naturalism, philosophical naturalism, or ontological naturalism to distinguish it from a related methodological principle. Methodological naturalism, by contrast, is the principle that science and history should presume that all causes are natural causes solely for the purpose of promoting successful investigation" FuelWagon 16:24, 18 August 2005 (UTC)


 * What's wrong with just a two-sentence explanation: "Methodological naturalism means that science should operate by naturalistic principles. Supernatural entities may exist (and a scientist may believe in them), but his scientific research should not infer any such causes."  David Bergan 15:55, 18 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Because "ontology" is the study of "being" and "existence" and whether something "exists" or not is different from "method for promoting successful investigation". So, it's rather important to distinguish whether something exists from methodology. ID proponents like to lump MN in with atheism, and that is a bald faced misrepresentation of facts. FuelWagon 16:24, 18 August 2005 (UTC)


 * What's the point of the box? Why introduce the readers to 2 obvious cases (ON-MN and OS-MS) and 1 ridiculous one (ON-MS)?  I think we should stick to the point and cut the mumbo-jumbo.  David Bergan 15:55, 18 August 2005 (UTC)


 * That ontology and methodology are orthoganal, rather than mutually exclusive. FuelWagon 16:24, 18 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Also a problem solved by my two-sentence clarification without adding peripheral information. David Bergan 17:48, 18 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't see "size" of a 2x2 table to be that problematic. FuelWagon 18:19, 18 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Where do you get the term "methodological supernaturalism"? The term makes me think that it's restricting science to only supernatural causes, since MN restricts to only natural causes.  It's confusing.  David Bergan 15:55, 18 August 2005 (UTC)


 * no, it MS would be methods that investigate for natural and supernatural causes. ghostbusters using their "ghostdetector" would be MS. FuelWagon 16:24, 18 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Where did you get the term? David Bergan 17:48, 18 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I got it from google. "we take for granted the dominance of critical thinking in all areas of intellectual inquiry, which is why today supernaturalism finds itself increasingly irrelevant, attacked, and unsustainable, and is therefore undergoing a reactionary resurgence to save itself. The specific reason is not because people claim to not believe in supernaturalism any more (they don't claim this), or because it is untrue (this has never been demonstrated), but because methodological naturalism is so effective, powerful, and successful, while methodological supernaturalism is not effective and is, in fact, positively ineffective and counter-productive, especially in attempts to understand the natural world." -- Steven D. Schafersman, in a paper presented at the "Conference on Naturalism, Theism and the Scientific Enterprise", sponsered by the Department of Philosophy, The University of Texas, Austin, FuelWagon 18:19, 18 August 2005 (UTC)


 * All of the "methodological supernaturalism" quotes are more accurately labeled "anti-MN" quotes. I think we can dispense of the MS term completely in this article.   David Bergan 15:55, 18 August 2005 (UTC)


 * No, the category is naturalism/supernaturalism. if someone's methodology investigates supernatural causes, then they have a methodological supernaturalism approach. FuelWagon 16:24, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

MN gives one version of science
Dave, regarding this edit.

before
 * Methodological naturalism (MN) refers to a method of inquiry (a procedure for gaining knowlege) that limits itself to natural (i.e. physical or material) approaches and explanations solely for the purpose of promoting successful investigation. MN is considered the basis for the natural sciences.

after
 * Methodological naturalism (MN) refers to a popular 20th century paradigm stating that science should limit itself to solely natural explanations. Some consider MN to be the basis for the natural sciences, while others ascribe to methodological empiricism. Both terms were coined by design theorists.

problem: MN doesn't start out by saying "Science should limit itself". MN is ANY methodology for investigating and inquiring into what can be known. The only requirement is that it limit itself to natural approaches and explanations. people then developed the scientific method which is one possible implementation of methodological naturalism. There are others. Science doesn't give MN. MN gives one version of science. You've made teh definiton tautological.

You're insertion of "while others ascribe to methodologial empiricism" is just plain weird. If your definiton of ME is correct, then it is the one possible version of methodological supernaturalism and it doesn't belong in this article. MN gives one flavor of science called the "scientific method". MS gives your version of ME and ID.

I am reverting your version of the intro. FuelWagon 20:52, 18 August 2005 (UTC).

gutting
Dave, before you gut the article again, wholesale, and without explanation, could you maybe show some sort of justification for wiping out the article? FuelWagon 20:58, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
 * FW, I think we both need to leave the page alone and talk it out. My gutting isn't any different from your wholesale addition  being made without any kind of consensus.  David Bergan 21:06, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
 * No one was on the page for over a month. There was no consensus to get. My edits are all based on defining methodology as a distinction from ontology (which is a common confusion) and defining naturalism as a subset of supernaturalism. And I've got enough sourced quotes to choke a horse in support of this. empiricism is a different topic. It doesn't help define methodological naturalism. You're last change to the intro turned the definition into a tautology. You're just trying to arrange the lighting so ID can show its good side. I'm trying to keep this strictly about defining the term in terms of what it is and what it isn't. Bringing in empiricism is a non-sequitor. it isn't needed to define the term and it only confuses the reader as to how it fits.
 * methodology is a procedure for investigation, which is separate from ontology, whether something exists.
 * Naturalism means material methods and explanations and causes only are used, which is a subset of supernaturalism which may allow non-material methods, explanations, and causes.
 * bringing in "empiricism" doesn't help define the term in any meaningful way, it's just your attempt to advocate the ID POV in this article. FuelWagon 21:18, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

''No one was on the page for over a month. There was no consensus to get.''—Same goes for my reverts. Look, it's just you and me and we're both reasonable people. We'll talk it out over a cup of coffee and come to an agreement on what should and what shouldn't be here. There's no reason why we should be headed toward arbitration. We both have good ideas, we just need to listen to one another. David Bergan 21:26, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Starting Fresh
Since we seem to have completely different takes on methodological naturalism and what should be included in this article, let's outline the key concepts. Here's my take, comment on your disagreements, and add sections you think I'm missing.

Definition: MN refers to a popular 20th century paradigm stating that science should limit itself to solely natural explanations. David Bergan 21:26, 18 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I've already said this: MN doesn't say science should do anything. MN is a category in which different methodologies go. Creation Science goes in MS. Evolutionary Science goes in MN. This definition puts the cart before the horse. FuelWagon 21:41, 18 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Ok, it's clear we have different conceptions going on. My position is that each "methodology" is a paradigm that says "science is defined by doing methodology X".  You seem to be saying that "science is lots of inconsistant things... some parts of it works by methodology X and others work by methodology Y.  Neither methodology is inherently unscientific, but each have their own realms."  Do I have this right? David Bergan 22:19, 18 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Methodology is any procedure for investigation, it could be dowsing rods, it could involve a dead chicken, a bonfire, and naked dancing, or it could involve the specific flavor of methodological naturalism we generally association with "mainstream scientific method". what is "scientific" is more subjective, because it sort of implies this or that particular way is the "right" way to get knowledge. Methodolgy simple says 'this is A way to investigate". it says nothing about quality of results. defenders of MN will say their method is superior. And MS will say the MN folks are ignoring an entire realm of possibilities, so they must be better. But the definition of "methodology" doesn't imply anything about "quality", it only implies that a procedure is being followed, whatever it might be. FuelWagon 03:58, 19 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Ok, I can see where you're coming from. However, I don't think that's what Johnson (definer of the term) or anyone else thinks it means.  Johnson very clearly told us that MN is a way that some people defined science, and why they would automatically consider ID to be unscientific.  And he responded by saying that a better way to define science is through ME, and that ID does have an empirical foundation, although not always a natural one.


 * Johnson's intent has everything to do with "what should govern science on the whole." Yours is more like "how does this branch of science operate?" which raises questions of fact rather than questions of ought.  So it's not really the same concept.  You aren't trying to suggest that "biology" should be MN or ME or MS.  You're just asking, which is it?  Johnson would reply, "It's de facto MN, but should be ME."  And your response would be something like, "Well, it will give you different results if it's MN than if it's ME/MS."  And he would say, "Yup, but is there any reason why it should be MN... arbitrarily limiting itself from potential empircial data?"


 * I don't think this would be an accurate article without asking which methodology is the better one to define science. David Bergan 05:53, 19 August 2005 (UTC)


 * The article needs to focus on what MN is and isn't, not advocate one over the other. FuelWagon 13:36, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Explanation: I think the paragraph from Phillip Johnson above does a good job of explaining the concept from the man who invented the term. David Bergan 21:26, 18 August 2005 (UTC)


 * The man may have invented the term (I don't knwo if he really did or not), but he sure didn't invent the concept. That he used MN as an insult to evolutionists does not mean that wikipedia report it from that POV. The article gives a strict definition of what the term is as a distinction from ontology and as a subset of supernaturalism. Any ID advocacy can go in the quotes section. FuelWagon 21:51, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Distinction: MN is not philosophical naturalism, just asks scientists to act that way when doing science. David Bergan 21:26, 18 August 2005 (UTC)


 * MN doesn't ask scientists to do anything. It is a category. some scientists fit in the MN category. Some scientists do not. FuelWagon 21:42, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Opposition: MN is opposed by ME. For the most part they coincide. They are only in conflict when empirical evidence suggests a supernatural cause. In those cases, ME proponents think that MN is an arbitrary prejudice and dishonest. David Bergan 21:26, 18 August 2005 (UTC)


 * MN is not opposed to anything. it is a category. I find your definition of empiricism to be revisionism and I dispute that empircism allows supernatural investigations. I also find your introduction of ME to be driven solely by an attempt to advocate ID's position, rather than actually define what MN is. ME is irrelevant to defining this term. And your definition is disputable, and those two alone say it should go in its own article, rather than trying to bootstrap some ID propaganda terms into this article. Even if ME allows supernatural investigations and that is not disputed, IT IS IRRELEVANT TO MN. This effort to bring in ME has nothing to do with helping to define MN, and has everything to do with ID advocacy. FuelWagon 21:48, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

History: Both terms were coined by design theorist Phillip Johnson as a means of defining a position that was often raised to him. David Bergan 21:26, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Revert?
I just dropped by to take a look at how the MN page was going and it seems like the quality of the article took a sharp plunge recently. The last time I saw it, it was a quite simple explanation of a simple concept as well as the controversy concerning it. While I encourage the idea of a section describing the difference between Methodology and Ontology, the distinction seems to have crept into introduction in such a way as to make the article difficult for most people to understand. Also, I don't understand the point of the table. I find the visual distinction that the table makes is far less clear than the sentence which precedes it, and I think most wikipedians who stumble across this article would as well. The two sections of quotes at the end make this almost read like a creationist tract. Instead of providing lists of quotes, is it not possible to summarize the positions of various advocates and critics or at the very least introduce them in a paragraph form that looks a bit more encyclopedic? Finally, the term "methodological supernaturalism" appears to be fundamentally pov, as I know of nobody who claims such a position for themselves. It seems to be a derogatory name for open science or theistic science (even the intelligent design page seems to agree this is a name critics use).

Personally, I'm in favor of a complete revert to the last version that I saw with the possible addition of a small section about Ontology vs Methodology and perhaps some summaries of opinions on the matter. Is there anyone else here who thinks that version is superior to the current one, or am I alone here? Glancing at the above, I have the feeling that I'm alone, but... TheIncredibleEdibleOompaLoompa 22:38, August 18, 2005 (UTC)


 * Please DO NOT revert to the old version, at least not yet. FuelWagon has been developing a concept that spun out of Talk:Creation science, and I think the distinctions he's making will, ultimately, improve this article. I'd appreciate some forebearance while this gets fleshed out.&mdash;Parker Whittle 22:59, 18 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm not going to revert it on my own; that's why I created this section of the talk page to discuss it. Although I'm not a frequent editor on Creation Science, mostly because I can't stand all the pov and bickering, I keep an eye on that and other related pages and have a fairly good idea of what's going on with the MN/OS/ETC debate, I think. I'm merely saying that the changes here over the past day or so have taken a good article and made it unnecessarily complex, and furthermore the changes haven't particularly added any new information besides some quotes -- one or two of which might be good if worked into the article in a more encyclopedic way. As for FuelWagon's attempt to discuss two orthogonal issues, he should probably keep all that in one small section, maybe a paragraph or two, which could be added into the previous, and IMO much better, page. As it stands, several concepts which would best be put into a single section are spread all over the article, making it much more difficult to read. TheIncredibleEdibleOompaLoompa 02:33, August 19, 2005 (UTC)


 * Yeah, well, I started working on it, and at some point I had to redirect all my energy to simply defending it. Then the real-world interferred, and I haven't been able to get back to it. as for the orthogonal thing, I wanted to do a simple line-graph of circles to show subset-superset type relationships, a little inch or two per side thing, but I didn't know how to upload images, and I didn't have some software handy at the time. As for complexity, I think it's important to clearly distinguish methodology from ontology, as well as naturlaism from supernaturalism, and maybe I went over the top a bit. Generally, when I do something like this, I have a flurry of activity for a day or so, and then I start crafting and polishing it. I haven't really had a chance to get through the initial burst because of distractions, but I think it's close enough for now. I'd like to put some polish on it over the next day or so. FuelWagon 04:05, 19 August 2005 (UTC)


 * OK, I had a chance to sleep on it. came in fresh, and I rewrote the intro. Everybody hates the 2x2 table, so I cut it. I think it shows sets/subsets/supersets but no one else likes it, so it's gone. I also tried to tighten the intro because Oompa complained it was too long. Hopefully everyone will find this better. I think it still does a good job of defining MN and distinguishing it from MS, ON, and OS. Better? FuelWagon 14:19, 19 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Much much better. However I object to the factualness of the sentence (in the lead no less): "The scientific method used in the natural sciences is an example of a method that fits in the category of methodological naturalism."  The scientific method could also very well be interpreted as being methodologically empirical.  There is no pope of science that settles the doctrines of philosophy of science for everyone else... so interpretation is up to individuals.  And unless you can cite a poll or other such evidence showing a consensus on this, all you have is Dawkins.


 * My suggestions for this sentence is: "The scientific method used in the natural sciences has been interpreted by most as being methodologically naturalistic, but others interpret it as being methodologically empicial." To leave out a wikilink to ME is misinformation.  ME has a link to MN.  David Bergan 16:11, 19 August 2005 (UTC)


 * the method being put in the MN category is the "scientific method used in the natural sciences". By definition, natural sciences are methodological naturalism. Their version of the scientific method is MN. I'm not using a generic term "scientific method", which could be your version of ME or dowsing rods or whatever. I'm using the specific flavor used in Natural Sciences, which is by definition be MN. FuelWagon 19:11, 19 August 2005 (UTC)


 * That was a surprising overhaul in such a short time. I guess I don't see any real reason for a revert anymore.  Not a bad job. I still have a couple of concerns, but maybe I'll bring them up later when I've thought them through more. TheIncredibleEdibleOompaLoompa 03:51, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

quotes
I've moved the quotes to the talk page. The incredible oompa loompa pointed out they were unencyclopedic in their format. I've rewritten the criticism to roll all the quotes into that section as a narative. And I'm moving all the quotes here for reference material. FuelWagon 20:02, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Methodological naturalism proponents
"Naturalism... as a substantial view about the nature of reality, ... is often called metaphysical naturalism, philosophical naturalism, or ontological naturalism to distinguish it from a related methodological principle. Methodological naturalism, by contrast, is the principle that science and history should presume that all causes are natural causes solely for the purpose of promoting successful investigation." -- Keith Augustine, M.A. Philosophy

"we take for granted the dominance of critical thinking in all areas of intellectual inquiry, which is why today supernaturalism finds itself increasingly irrelevant, attacked, and unsustainable, and is therefore undergoing a reactionary resurgence to save itself. The specific reason is not because people claim to not believe in supernaturalism any more (they don't claim this), or because it is untrue (this has never been demonstrated), but because methodological naturalism is so effective, powerful, and successful, while methodological supernaturalism is not effective and is, in fact, positively ineffective and counter-productive, especially in attempts to understand the natural world." -- Steven D. Schafersman, in a paper presented at the "Conference on Naturalism, Theism and the Scientific Enterprise", sponsored by the Department of Philosophy, The University of Texas, Austin,

"Methodological naturalism is not a "doctrine" but an essential aspect of the methodology of science, the study of the natural universe." --Lawrence S. Lerner is Professor Emeritus of Physics and Astronomy at California State University

"Let's allow methodological supernaturalism into science. What would that look like? How would that work? What would we do with supernaturalism?" --Michael Shermer, published in Skeptic magizine (2000)

"the history of science seems to have shown a progression from supernaturalism to naturalism" --Mark I. Vuletic, Phd philosophy

methodological naturalism "does not cause us to run the risk of overlooking blatent signs of the supernatural" --Mark I. Vuletic, Phd philosophy

MN "has the advantage of making science God-free and at the same time permitting belief in God in nonscientific contexts." --Mark I. Vuletic, Phd philosophy

"Science must assume that everything can be investigated empirically, but this doesn't force the abandonment of the supernatural, for those who want it." --Talk Origins website: exploring the creation/evolution controversy

Methodological supernaturalism proponents
"the (philosophical) 'rule' of 'methodological naturalism' ... could just as well be called atheism, and is really a religion to be accepted on faith." --Institute for Creation Research

"methodological naturalism cannot be justified as a normative principle for all types of science--without doing violence to science as a truth-seeking enterprise." -- Discovery Institute

"The most significant implication of this fact, for modern philosophers, is that it is therefore quite impossible to determine anything about certain creation through a study of present processes, because present processes are not creative in character. If man wishes to know anything at all about creation time of creation, the duration of creation, the order of creation, the methods of creation, or anything else his sole source of true information is that of divine revelation." -- Institute for Creation Research

"So this leaves both evolutionists and creationists in same the boat. No absolute way to objectivity test their assertions. No eyewitnesses" -- Creation Science website

"creation scientists have a 'world-view', or 'model' for their science which is based on the belief that an intelligent designer ("God") exists who created our universe and the natural things in it. ... there are only two alternatives for how we got here, and if naturalistic processes are incapable of the task, then special creation must be the correct answer." -- Creation Science website

second coat of polish
actually, looking at it again, I think the current version of the article appears to have a second coat of polish after I rewrote the criticism using all the quotes. i.e. I'm really liking it now. comments? FuelWagon 20:05, 19 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Nice. I may go in at some point and groom the methodology/ontology distinction, if you wouldn't mind. You make the right point, IMO; I'd just like to wordsmith it a bit.&mdash;Parker Whittle 20:35, 19 August 2005 (UTC)


 * cool. FuelWagon 20:39, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Article merged with naturalism (philosophy)
There was not enough material to justify two different articles on subjects that are different only in their discussion of metaphysics. The distinction between ontology and methodology is an important one that is now made on the redirected page, but the distinction should not be two separate articles because there is often confusion between the two naturalisms -- especially by creationists. The quotes included on this page for the most part don't name "methodological naturalism" by name and arguably were about both assumptions.

As for Philip Johnson's terminology, he is notorious for introducing more and more obfuscated terminology into his works in the hopes of redefining science to his means. That's perfectly his right, but the tacit endorsement by Wikipeida of his appropriated terms is too much. We already have an article on naturalism -- we don't need to splinter the concept in order to adequately explain it. Joshuaschroeder 15:21, 6 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Please review the process for "Votes for deletion", which includes merging articles, before taking it upon yourself to do something like this again. methodological naturalism is a specific concept that is different from philosophical naturalism. also, methodological naturalism is a term used numerous times by the ID folks to criticize the evolution types. Given that, there is absolutely NO justification to require people read a massive article that covers philosophical and methodological naturalism just to get an introduction to this one concept. FuelWagon 15:25, 6 September 2005 (UTC)


 * You yourself should look at the votes for deletion rules. Merges can and should take place by means of any editor's actions. I understand the distinction between ontology and methodology. It is discussed on the new page and there is no reason that it shouldn't be. I understand that ID folks enjoy adopting neologism, but the readers of Wikipedia can figure it out for themselves on the new page. More than that, we can even talk about how ID prefers to use obfuscating terms on the ID page if we are so incluined. The article is not massive in the least, well below any size limitations for wikipedia. I understand you have a vested interest in the article, but I preserved the information in the article during the merger. Surely you must have seen that there was considerable overlap between the two articles including a lot of redundant and repeated information. Joshuaschroeder 15:34, 6 September 2005 (UTC)


 * "I understand you have a vested interest in the article" And I understand you like to beg the question. I have no more "vested" interest than you do. It's just that I see methodology as distinct enough from ontology that they should be separate articles. FuelWagon 17:04, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

I support a merge. MN is largely a contrived distinction, and used largely only by the ID crowd. MN is philosophical naturalism. FeloniousMonk 16:11, 6 September 2005 (UTC)


 * No, it isn't the same. a naturalist methodology means you approach science without using the supernatural. a naturalist philosophy means you don't believe in god. They are different distinctions. And they are orthogonal to each other. You can believe in god and still be a naturalist in your science. FuelWagon 17:02, 6 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Only a naturalistic metaphysics means you don't believe in God. You are very wrong on this point. Joshuaschroeder 02:18, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Links to vocabulary
Please take a look at this URL reviewing the book "Intelligent Design Creationism and its Critics" by Robert T. Pennock, who is a vocal critic of ID. In section 2, it says the book talks about "methodological naturalism vs. philosophical naturalism". Methodological naturalism is about METHODS. Philosophical naturalism is synonymous with ontological naturalism. This is from a notable source on the very topic of Intelligent Design. FuelWagon 02:41, 7 September 2005 (UTC)


 * This is a response to a Johnson neologism. This is not an indication that normally a distinction is made. Joshuaschroeder 13:03, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Or this url, with the headline "Methodological and Philosophical Naturalism". "An important goal of the Intelligent Design movement is to get people to think that “methodological naturalism (MN) entails philosophical naturalism (PN)." In other words, they want people to believe that the naturalistic methodology that is standard in modern science is compatible only with atheism, not with theism." FuelWagon 02:48, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
 * You have misrepresented this citation. The article makes the point that one need not be a naturalist at all to practice or believe science. After all, materialism is not the only way to look at the world -- methodologically or otherwise. Krebs makes a great point of this in his quote on the page. Basically, the distinction is a false dichotomy between methodology and ontology and the two are conflated on this page! Joshuaschroeder 13:03, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

This url says that  metaphysical naturalism, philosophical naturalism, and ontological naturalism are all synonymous. And that they mean something different from Methodological naturalism. FuelWagon 02:52, 7 September 2005 (UTC)


 * This is the only URL that makes a proper distinction between methodology and ontology, though they do so incorrectly since they have no citation to their claim that philosophical naturalism is synonymous with ontological naturalism. Philosophy does not only deal with ontology. Joshuaschroeder 13:03, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Someone tell me again why we've taken two distinctly different concepts and conflated them? if an important goal of ID is to get people to think the MN and ON/PN are the same, having MN redirect to ON/PN is only forwarding the ID POV. FuelWagon 02:52, 7 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Relying on well-meaning but misleading websites to support your claim that ON/PN are properly conflated is not appropriate. Philosophy is not synonymous with ontology. Period. Joshuaschroeder 13:05, 7 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Your ASSERTION is irrelevant. Wikipedia reports the various points of view of notable sources. these are notable sources and the links show their points of view. These are critics of ID who are explaining the difference between methodology and ontology/philosophy. That's their point of view so we report it. You've thus far supplied absolutely NO url's yourself and simply repeat your assertion that your version is correct. That's original research. FuelWagon 14:40, 7 September 2005 (UTC)


 * The wikipedia articles: Philosophy vs. ontology serves as a good starting point for proof of my "assertion". Just because you have a list of URLs does not mean you have shown your case to be legitimate. URLs are not the be all and end all of encyclopedia writing. I too could do a Google search and come up with people who would write that philosophy and ontology are not synonymous. That would hardly prove any point. Facts are facts.


 * Frankly, Fuel, you sound like you need to take a breath and calm down. We're trying to write an encyclopedia. We're not trying to get into a debate-match. I have included most of what was written in this article in the naturalism (philosophy) article which no one seems to care that much about at this point. The case of why the article should be here seems to be that that article is too confusing -- which we can, if you like, start an RfC on, and that this article is somehow clearer in its previous form, which could also be RfCed. However, this seems to be an argument based purely on editorial niceties. What we should decide is whether methodological naturalism can be fully, succinctly, and correctly described on the other page. If that's so, the two articles should be merged. Joshuaschroeder 17:58, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

mindlessly reverting
Joshua, I appreciate the comment on your diff here that beseaches me to "don't just mindlessly revert". How silly of me. I forgot I just had my brain removed prior to making that edit. FuelWagon 17:10, 6 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Depending on one's opinion of the mind-brain connection this may or may not be an indication of whether you were mindless in your reversion. Joshuaschroeder 12:56, 7 September 2005 (UTC)


 * keep it up. FuelWagon 14:50, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

vocabulary
The Naturalism (philosophy) article introduces many, many new vocabulary terms, many of which are not explained and are left with links to outside articles for the reader to figure out what they mean.


 * Naturalism is any of several philosophical stances, typically those descended from materialism and pragmatism


 * naturalism rejects teleology, the idea that natural phenomenom and events have an innate purpose.


 * to distinguish it from the purely functionalist usage of the concept


 * Methodological naturalism implies to most philosophers of science that the endeavor of science is strictly agnostic


 * there is neither any need nor any place for a "first philosophy", such as (abstract) metaphysics or epistemology, that could stand behind and justify science or the scientific method.

The Methodological naturalism article introduces ONE term, "ontology" and describes how it is different from "methodology" so that readers do not have to go to another article.

philosophical naturalism is far above and beyond methodological naturalism. I also disagree with the idea of it being "agnostic". philosophical naturalism is more like atheism.

And there is no need to get into metaphysics or epistemology for methodological naturalism. it isn't needed for that article. It may be needed for philosophical naturalism, since you're now talking about a more encompassing approach.

Merging these two articles would be a disservice to readers. FuelWagon 18:47, 6 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Fuel -- I have studied the philosophy of science extensively. Nowhere have I ever seen distinctions such as you are making. Naturalism in the context of philosophy is simply a statement about the comprehensibility of the natural world. If you have a text citation the contrary let me know. Using IDers as a resource is not a good idea, though (especially Johnson who is fond of making up his own distinctions). Joshuaschroeder 02:33, 7 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I've included URL's for a number of ID critics above. That they make the distinction means we report the distinction. FuelWagon 02:55, 7 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Irrelevent. A common tactic of creationists is to make up an idea (such as baraminology) and then when a legit scientist criticized it claim that the idea is a distinct discipline. Whether the person is a supporter or a detractor of ID isn't the point. The point is that Johnson is the one who forced the distinction in the first place. Others are respondents. Joshuaschroeder 18:01, 7 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Besides, no one has made the claim that we shold make a distinction between methodology and ontology, only that such a distinction in the realm of naturalism need not be covered in two articles. Joshuaschroeder 18:02, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

vfd
i started a vote for deletion with a vote of oppose. i think this article should not simply be redirected to philosophical naturalism because there is a strong demand for a discussion of methodological naturalism without getting too deep into the details of philsophy and the naturalism movement therein (which I -- coincidently -- personally support). --Rikurzhen 03:03, September 7, 2005 (UTC)


 * Since nobody here has asked for a deletion of this article the VfD has been removed. An RfC should be started. Joshuaschroeder 18:10, 7 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Wow. I'm impressed. FuelWagon 18:15, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

methods versus belief in god
methodological naturalism is the methods you use in an inquiry. This is a separate topic from whether or not you believe in supernatural forces such as God. Merging these two topics conflates two different topics into one. For that reason alone, MN and PN should remain separate articles.


 * Just because you have distinctions of ideas doesn't mean that you deserve separate articles. For example, there are a lot of different kind of ID supporters, some who are more religious than others -- that doesn't mean you have a slew of pages that describe all the different kinds of ID.


 * Have you seen the variations of stuff under the Creationism header? ID contains a template that points to a number of creation-related articles. If you follow those links, you'll find articles that point to OTHER articles that aren't even in the original template. If you want to battle multiplying articles, go after that. This is a term that is used in the creation/evolution debate. I've provided several links to show it is used by notable sources. There is absolutely NO reason to merge it. You not once justified this other than to say this is the way you say it should be. It is a separate concept. And it is often used in the creation/evolution debate and merging MN with PN will only further confuse readers looking to understand what MN means. The only reason you say to merge it is "because you say so" or "because that's the way it is". FuelWagon 19:42, 7 September 2005 (UTC)


 * In general, the idea behind creating new articles is to distinguish between subjects that are substantial enough to maintain separate subtopics and discussions. For example, creationism talks about all the different kinds of creationists there are. Creation science talks about the ways creationists make arguments they claim are scientific. Plenty of material available for both of those articles.


 * Contrast that, if you will, with methodological naturalism and ontological naturalism whose only differences are in their practice. They both refer to the general idea of naturalism, and both are also dependent on the assumptions outlined in the PN article. The only difference is one of ontology, an issue that can be and is adequately expressed in the main PN article. There is some substantial omissions from the MN article in terms of what naturalism itself is. This is covered well in the PN article and allows for the basic discussion of what the difference between methodology and ontology is to be covered adequately. If you are concerned about people confusing methodology with ontology simply make the link like this: methodological naturalism. Then it will be abundantly clear and you won't have to have this article. Joshuaschroeder 20:21, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

terms are used in creation/evolution debate
Methodological naturalism is also a term used in creationists circles as an insult to mainstream science. There are something like a dozen or more creation-related articles on wikipedia and a number of them mention methodological naturalism. For that reason, those articles should point to a single article that explains methodological naturalism and how it differs from atheism. Creationists generally make the MN accusation to mean that to follow MN means you must be an atheist. The MN article specifically uncollapses this accusation withtout getting into all the various philosophical conversations that would come out of pointing to philosophical naturalism. The MN article is simple, straightforward, and only introduces one term (ontology) to explain what MN is and is not. The PN article introduces half a dozen terms doesn't explain many of them, and for a reader coming from a creationist-related article, PN doesn't help them. MN does. That is another reason for keeping MN separate from PN.


 * If you are interested in only defining the term, why not simply link to methodology and make the distinction with ontology? Most people who click on the link I would wager and not interested in the adjective but rather the noun. Since naturalism as a philosophy is not just ontological vs. methodological, it is disingenuous for us to link to a article that is only hung up on the adjective. Joshuaschroeder 18:09, 7 September 2005 (UTC)


 * "I would wager". Please review "No Original Research". I keep talking about notable sources using the term and how THEY distinguish it as different from ON/PN. All you keep talking about is what YOU think it should be. If you have no sources, this is one-hundred percent original research, and what YOU think it should be. FuelWagon 18:20, 7 September 2005 (UTC)


 * "I would wager" was a question of editorial convenience and not about scholarship or research. As such, a more appropriate response might be to poll the Wikipedians and see if they really are that astonished when methodological natuarlism links to naturalism (philosophy). No one has ever claimed that there isn't a distinction between ON/PN. I don't know why you think otherwise. Joshuaschroeder 18:28, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

terms are used by both sides of evolution/creation debate
The phrase methodological naturalism is used by creationist supporters and creationist critics. The phrase was invented by one of the main ID proponents, and the phrase is used by one of the main ID critics. That fact alone means that the phrase deserves being reported in wikipedia.


 * Why can't it be reported in the naturalism (philosophy) article? Joshuaschroeder 18:09, 7 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Because MN explains itself by only introducing one term, "ontology",
 * Correction: actually three terms: ontology, methodology, and naturalism. Joshuaschroeder 20:13, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Wow. let me try again, then. the article name is methodological naturalism and it defines and distinguishes the two terms in its title/name by introducing and explain one other term called ontology. FuelWagon 20:37, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
 * This article does not adequately define naturalism while PN does. Joshuaschroeder 12:18, 9 September 2005 (UTC)


 * and the MN article explains what ontology means.
 * So does the PN article. Joshuaschroeder 20:13, 7 September 2005 (UTC)


 * The PN article introduces numerous new terms and doesn't explain most of them,
 * First of all, what you consider "new" and what others may consider "new" is subjective. The article does have wikilinks to all the terminology. Moreover, the introduction of ontology and methodology is well-explained in the appropriate section. What is confusing about that? Joshuaschroeder 20:13, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
 * the Philosophical Naturalism article needs to define philosophy, naturalism. In doing this, the current article introduces the following additional terms wth links: materialism, pragmatism, teleology, functionalist, metaphysics, epistemology, and now methodology, because you've collapsed MN into the PN article.
 * These "additional" terms are useful in the discussion of naturalism whether it is PN or ON or MN or whatever. There is no reason that people should shy away from learning terminology. It does not make articles more confusing to use "vocabulary" or "terminology" that are directly related. Especially in philosophy articles. There is no policy in Wikipedia that states "articles should use as little vocabulary as possible". That seems to be what you are insinuating. Joshuaschroeder 12:18, 9 September 2005 (UTC)


 * So, MN defines two terms by introducing one additional term (ontology). Total vocabulary = 3.


 * Whereas, PN defines two terms by introducing six additional terms. Total vocabulary = 8.


 * I'm not sure how I can be any more clear that introducing 1 additional term is a lot simpler than introducing 6 additional terms. For someone reading an article on ID, MN is not the end result, but a term to be understood so the rest of teh ID article can be understood. FuelWagon 20:43, 7 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I think the problem is that you are assuming simpler=better. That's definitely not the case in terms of this subject. Sometimes simpler=not as thorough. Joshuaschroeder 12:18, 9 September 2005 (UTC)


 * requiring readers to go to another article.
 * Why is that a problem? That's the point of Wikipedia! Joshuaschroeder 20:13, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
 * The MN article links to the PN article for those wishing to dive into this depth of vocabulary. FuelWagon 20:50, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Not good enough. The MN article article links to it as though PN=ON. That's not what PN is -- rather it's just a philosophical statement about existence and the natural world -- it can be both ontological and methodological or both or neither. Joshuaschroeder 12:18, 9 September 2005 (UTC)


 * My question to you is this: WHY MERGE?
 * Simply because naturalism is a fundamental idea that deserves a complete explanation and not a hodgepodge. It is nice to read about other arguments about naturalism and not just this one narrow point. Most encyclopedias traditionally have articles that cover topics in-depth rather than Balkanizing to smaller articles that have less information. More than that, MN is considered by some to be a false distinction. I agree that we should talk about the distinction, but presenting two articles as such may make it seem like we are endorsing a POV in this regards. However, this is a more minor concern. I'm more interested in presenting a good article rather than two poor ones. I see the present naturalism (philosophy) article to be an improvement over the two previous articles. Joshuaschroeder 20:13, 7 September 2005 (UTC)


 * "MN is considered by some to be a false distinction" "make it seem like we are endorsing a POV in this regards" You know, you say this is a "minor concern", but I get the feeling that this is more and more the reason behind your pushing the MN article into the PN article. Because MN is false and because making two articles forwards that POV. Well, false or not, noteable sources are using the phrase and using it in such a way that it is distinct from PN/ON. and in that regard, wikipedia REPORTS those POV's, we do not pass judgement. Perhaps some outside point of view could be added to the MN article that shows them saying MN is a false distinction or whatever, if that point of view is missing. But merging the article is inappropriate. FuelWagon 20:48, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I know that you think this is the reason I'm pushing it, but I'm telling you that it isn't. I'm more concerned with the problem that the MN article as it currently stands is far too limiting in its definition of naturalism. If MN is a false distinction that is only an additional problem with having its own article. As DBergan has pointed out, it's really easy to just make the distinction in a paragraph in the PN article. That's what is done currently and that's why this article can safely be redirected. Joshuaschroeder 12:18, 9 September 2005 (UTC)


 * What reason do you have to take an article that specifically addresses MN and how it differs from ON and does so in a simple, straightforward manner, and merge it into the gobbedly gook that is in the PN article?
 * I'm not sure where the "gobbedly gook" invective came from, but frankly the distinction is still present and basically in the same language as you had on this page before the merger. Joshuaschroeder 20:13, 7 September 2005 (UTC)


 * If someone is reading an article about ID, the PN article is WORTHLESS to them.
 * Nonsense. Philosophical naturalism is very relevent to ID discussions. Joshuaschroeder 20:13, 7 September 2005 (UTC)


 * If they were confused about MN and needed clarification, going to an article that explains MN by introducing twelve other terms MISSES THE POINT.
 * 12? How did you make that determination? Moreover, there is a pargraph that is titled and explains the distinction. How is the article confusing? Joshuaschroeder 20:13, 7 September 2005 (UTC)


 * the article being linked to should clarify, not confuse readers futher.
 * It does clarify.


 * PN is far too complex and is a superset of MN and trying to have the PN article explain MN thus far has ZERO JUSTIFICATION OTHER THAN YOU WANTING IT TO BE SO. FuelWagon 19:36, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Writing in caps is generally not a good way to get your point across. Naturalism is not as complex as other subjects covered on Wikipedia like the Lambda-CDM model or the Boussinesq approximation. Certainly the article here is not substantially less complex than the article over at PN. Joshuaschroeder 20:13, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

multiple creation-related articles link to this term
Either every creationist-related article explains the term, what it means and doesn't mean, and the points of view of the people who use the term, OR, all of that is put in the MN article, and all the creationist-related articles link to it. That is another reason for keeping MN separate from PN. FuelWagon 15:02, 7 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Nonsense. If that were true every time we linked to God we'd have to clarify what kind we were interested in. Disambiguation occurs in articles that the subject is about not in the article that is talking about the subject. Joshuaschroeder 18:09, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree. Checking the "what links here" should be more than convincing that there are numerous references to this particular idea as distinct from philosophical naturalism. David Bergan 15:36, 7 September 2005 (UTC)


 * But is philosophical naturalism = ontological naturalism? Joshuaschroeder 18:09, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

The very fact that there exists essays (e.g., ) examining the question of whether MN implies PN should be evidence enough that that they are distinct. While I personally believe that MN practically implies PN, this is not good enough reason to merge the two articles. There is more than enough to be written about both. --Rikurzhen 17:11, September 7, 2005 (UTC)


 * Barbara Forrest claims that PN and ON are synonymous without providing any rationale for this claim. I think that this link is problematic and is not a reliable resource. Joshuaschroeder 18:09, 7 September 2005 (UTC)


 * On who's authority? You've got nothing to support your arguments but... your arguments. Countless links have been provided to outside sources to show that this is a point of view that needs to be reported and your reply thus far has been "no" and your reasons given are "because". FuelWagon 18:20, 7 September 2005 (UTC)


 * These aren't arguments, Fuel, these are simple facts. Barbara Forrest is effectively stating that philosophy = ontology --> something that can be seen to be incorrect from their simple definitions. That is unless suddenly the words mean something else when you attach naturalism to them. I'm not sure what you want me to find a resource for. Are you asking me to find a citation that says "Philosophy and ontology are not the same thing"? Joshuaschroeder 18:33, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

methodological empiricism
But is philosophical naturalism = ontological naturalism? - Well, let's see. The question of ontological naturalism is the question of whether or not nature is all that there really is. I'm guessing by "Philosophical naturalism" or "the philosophy of naturalism" you mean to include other questions as well, such as "Should we operate by naturalistic principles in only certain respects (ie. science)?" I see your point.

Since the concept of methodological naturalism probably doesn't take more than a paragraph to explain, merging does make sense. Now, in the philosophy of science there is the question of whether or not science should be methodologically naturalistic or methodologically empirical. Where does that question fit in? Can we merge that into the paragraph on MN? David Bergan 19:08, 7 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Egads! I can't believe such an article exists. I'm half tempted to VfD that article or merge it with empiricism. What is it with adding methodological as an adjective to terms and suddently having a new article? Thanks for the support, Dbergan. Joshuaschroeder 19:16, 7 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Methodological naturalism is a phrased used by notable sources many times in the creation/evolution debate. It is not the same as PN or ON and is best explained by its own article. FuelWagon 19:50, 7 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Why is the distinction worthy of its own article? How is it confusing to have the PN article with "methodological vs. ontological" being the first section? Isn't it clear then? Joshuaschroeder 19:55, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I see you took it upon yourself to delete/redirect the methodological empiricism article. Where do you propose to introduce the readers to the discussion of whether science should be guided by naturalism or empiricism? David Bergan 21:42, 7 September 2005 (UTC)


 * False dichotomy. The only place this discussion occurs is in the context of Intelligent Design. No one else thinks that there is a discussion. Joshuaschroeder 15:44, 8 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I realize that there could be other methodological principles guiding science, but those seem to be the two dominant ones and the discussion is real. So should it go in the Intelligent Design article?  What do you suggest?  David Bergan 15:53, 8 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, it definitely belongs in either the Intelligent Design article or the Philip Johnson article since the distinction seems to be his hangup. My feeling is the latter article may be more appropriate. If you have a citation to some recognized philosophy of science (outside of the ID community) work that states that those are the two "dominant" methodological principles I'd like to see it. It would go a long way to your contention that the "discussion is real". Joshuaschroeder 21:59, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Also you may want to check the "Philosophical Naturalism" statement on the disambiguation page to see if it fits with this new "all under one umbrella" style article. David Bergan 21:42, 7 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Fixed. Joshuaschroeder 15:44, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

NPOV

 * Methodological naturalism (MN) refers to any method of inquiry or investigation or any procedure for gaining knowledge that limits itself to natural, physical, and material approaches and explanations. The scientific method as used in the natural sciences is an example of a method that fits in the category of methodological naturalism.

This article and the lead section promote that the scientific method is limiting itself, this is not the case. Markus Schmaus 20:00, 8 September 2005 (UTC)


 * What are you talking about? And if this is a problem with the definition, how does this qualify as an NPOV violation? FuelWagon 20:06, 8 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Labelling MN as a term used by creationists is (AFAIK) incorrect. MN is a philosophy that most scientists would recognize as something they do employ. --Rikurzhen 20:27, September 8, 2005 (UTC)


 * On the face of it, I might agree, yet digging a little deeper, MN being an actual philosophy that most scientists employ isn't backed up by any evidence. A little basic research shows that MN is not a term commonly seen, much less used in science.
 * Google definitions yields only 1 hit for Methodological naturalism, and that hit is this wikipedia article:.
 * Google scholar (which searches citations) yields 230+ hits, most of which are found in Christian literature or responses to it from the scientific community:
 * Lastly, all participants here should read before becoming too entrenched Methodological Naturalism and Philosophical Naturalism: Clarifying the Connection (PDF) and True Science: Does it Presume Naturalism?.
 * The term MN is not just by creationists, but largly promoted creationists. MN is not widely used in science. FeloniousMonk 22:06, 8 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I would expect to find MN used by philosophers not scientists. Scientists are mostly naive about philosophy. See google scholar --Rikurzhen 22:13, September 8, 2005 (UTC)


 * Interesting point. I'll look at the Google Scholar results above to see if that bears out. Also, though most scientists may be largely naive about philosophy, they're presumably well-trained in their methodology and its philosophical underpinnings. Were they not they wouldn't be practicing science very long, due to the inevitable mistakes that would be apparent in their results arising from their flawed methods. Of course, there's also Sokal affair arguing against my point, which pointed out that ideological preconceptions can influence how science is disseminated. FeloniousMonk 22:24, 8 September 2005 (UTC)


 * sort of -- we're trained in methodology but not in the philsophical underpinnings of naturalism or empiricism ... rather than drawing these sorts of conclusions on our own, it is essential to see them in print somewhere, because prima facia I don't buy it. --Rikurzhen 22:26, September 8, 2005 (UTC)


 * Scientists are trained in the methods to use. Tab A into slot B type stuff. The underpinnings of the philosophy is light or nonexistent in the training. The point is that MN is a philosophical category that describes scientific methods, whether or not scientists are trained in them. A PhD in philosophy would know the category that MN describes and would know what sorts of methodologies would go into it, such as the scientific method. ID folks use the category to attack science as being aetheistic. Scientific folks use the category to distinguish methods of science as separate from religious beliefs. Science does not prove that there is no god, science asks different questions. MN isn't something a scientist would take a class in college. It might be something that a philosophy major might study in college. FuelWagon 03:31, 9 September 2005 (UTC)


 * All you have said above, Fuel, is correct. Since MN is a philosophical idea, it fits in beautifully under the PN article. Joshuaschroeder 12:31, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Can someone explain "the lead (says) the scientific method is limiting itself, this is not the case"? Limiting itself to what? How is this NPOV? FuelWagon 22:35, 8 September 2005 (UTC)


 * And while you're at it, can someone explain how this change makes the article better? FuelWagon 22:39, 8 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Is Schmaus saying that the scientific method doesn't limit itself to "natural, physical, and material" means? Is the basic argument here that the scientific method allows for supernatural causes? If so, it's not the article that's POV, it's the editor. FuelWagon 22:43, 8 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I think it should be reverted. --Rikurzhen 23:15, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

I've never heard about "methodological naturalism" up to this article, but I've heard the argument of science restricting itself to nonsupernatural explations by creationists. According to the history section "a creationist (Phillip E. Johnson) took the term from a theologian (Nancey Murphy)". MN can be found used by neither scientists nor philosophers, but by creationists.

The argument is, that "limits itself" suggests the posibility of not limiting oneself, but from the viewpoint of naturalism, which should be presented in this article, this is not possible. For resolving the NPOV issue I would suggest the following.
 * 1) "is used by creationists" or "in supernaturalism" in the lead section.
 * 2) A section presenting the naturalistic view point.
 * 3) A section on whether the scientific method fits the definition. Markus Schmaus 00:08, 9 September 2005 (UTC)


 * "limits itself" suggests the posibility of not limiting, but from the viewpoint of naturalism this is not possible Uhm... what? It is possible to limit your methods to naturalistic approaches, or it is possible to allow your methods to include supernatural methods and causes. Whether or not it will give you good answers is a different question. ID is effectively methodological-supernaturalism. That it gives lousy answers is different from whether or not it is a possible methodology. The problem is that you already limit yourself by saying "from the viewpoint of naturalism", which of course, means there is nothing supernatural. But that isn't what this article is about. MN is about methods that are naturalistic. which is different from methods that are supernatural. which is different from believing in the existence of the supernatural, being religious and being a scientist. It is quite possible to be a trained scientist who only uses naturalistic methods and still be a very spiritual person at the same time. The category naturalism has a superset called supernaturalism. and the category methodology has a superset called ontology or philosophy or metaphysics. MN does not exclude metaphysical supernaturalism. The category is only limited because you've limited to "the viewpoint of naturalism". FuelWagon 03:31, 9 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Whether something is a possible methodology is a question of how one views empiricism. Of course, that term isn't linked or discussed in the MN article while it is in the PN article. The problems with keeping a separate MN article keep mounting when we are trying to explain it in full. Joshuaschroeder 12:31, 9 September 2005 (UTC)


 * "the problems keep mounting"? There is no need for alarmist language. There are no "mounting problems". MN is a simple concept. It is used explicitely by a number of creationist related articles. Directing people to a PN when they click on MN will create a mounting problem for readers. They'll be looking for an explanation of MN and will get a half dozen things thrown at them instead. FuelWagon 13:36, 9 September 2005 (UTC)


 * We need to resolve this issue and so far all we're doing is talking in circles. I'm convinced that you have run out of arguments here. You have an opinion that a redirect to PN is confusing. I say it isn't. MN is explained on the PN page so you're contention that there are "half a dozen things thrown at them" is moot.


 * To have your way we should in an NPOV context create a number of different articles: one on "ontological naturalism" one on "methodological naturalism" and then maybe even two complete neologistic articles on ontological and methodological supernaturalism. Absolutely absurd bifurcations and balkanizations of very straightfoward concepts: the supernatural and naturalism. To be clear, these three other articles are not necessary and they should not be created for obvious reasons. This one should be redirected for equally obvious reasons. Joshuaschroeder 19:02, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

supernatural scientific method
Markus Schmaus, in reference to this edit you recently made, I have a simple, yes/no question. Are you saying the scientific method is a supernatural method? Yes or no. FuelWagon 14:01, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

I have no idea what a supernatural method is, please tell me. Markus Schmaus 19:32, 9 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Intelligent Design is methodological supernaturalism. they use methods that try and inquire about supernatural causes. ID specifically says that evolution is methodological naturalism and that MN is equivalent to atheism, unlike ID, which allows for God to be studied scientifically. Clear?


 * So, back to the original question. Are you saying teh scientific method is a supernatural method? FuelWagon 21:37, 9 September 2005 (UTC)


 * The scientific method can be and is used to inquire about causes, which are commonly considered supernatural, if that's your definition of supernatural methodology, my answer has to be yes. Markus Schmaus 08:05, 10 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Exactly. If there is any evidence of the supernatural, the data itself is natural, otherwise we couldn't observe it.  It has to be perceived by one of the senses.  David Bergan 11:51, 10 September 2005 (UTC)