Science is limited to testable hypotheses. If you assume that what is supernatural cannot be tested, then you can argue that this limitation amounts to methodological naturalism. I haven’t seen a satisfactory definition of the supernatural, but many claims to the supernatural are testable, e.g. young earth creationism, intercessory prayer, or ESP. So I don’t think the above assumption is justified. Hence, I don’t think science is even bounded by methodological naturalism, let alone the stronger metaphysical naturalism.

Posted: February 15th 2011

See all questions answered by George Locke

Science does not presuppose metaphysical naturalism. It employs methodological naturalism. It looks for and tests natural mechanisms and explanations, because supernatural mechanisms cannot as yet be detected or tested. Therefore it can’t yet take a position on whether metaphysical naturalism is accurate.

If the existence of a supernatural mechanism is established through the elimination of all possible natural alternatives, or if a method of directly testing the supernatural becomes available, science will have to move beyond methodological naturalism and consider the supernatural. Until then it has no reason to do so.

Posted: February 14th 2011

See all questions answered by SmartLX

No.

Metaphysical naturalism is a philosophical position, but science isn’t about philosophy. It’s about generating theories and models that can be used to make useful predictions; it’s all about utility instead of truth.

If you study chemistry, you will learn an electron model that says (and I’m simplifying a bit…) that electrons are found in shells with various capacities, and the way that the chemistry of a given element is determined by the number of electrons and how they fill these shells. Noble gases, for example, have full shells and therefore have very low chemical reactivity.

This has been an astoundingly useful model, and even with the addition of quantum mechanics to chemistry, this electron shell model remains very useful.

But are there “shells” around all atoms in which the electrons reside?

Not really. But that doesn’t prevent the model from being useful.

Posted: February 14th 2011

See all questions answered by Eric_PK

Not exactly. Science works in a materialist framework because material things are, so far as we know, the only things that can be demonstrated to exist. The question of anything nonmaterial (spiritual, ethereal, etc.) isn’t relevant. Science assumes material causes because they’re sufficient. You could certainly add something nonmaterial to the equation, but there’d be no reason to do so.

It could very well be the case that all material things exist because of nonmaterial causes, but science would still work within a materialist framework because the nonmaterial parts would be immune to investigation (unless they interacted with the material in some demonstrable way).

Posted: February 14th 2011

See all questions answered by Mike the Infidel