Vlad,
My original post this morning was about your treatment of the rationalwiki quote and definition of Philosophical Naturalism. What are you quoting? Something different?
The Wikipedia page on philosophical naturalism. If you want the RationalWiki one though it makes no difference. Here it is:
“
Philosophical naturalism is the doctrine that the natural world is all there is — in other words, that the supernatural is definitionally impossible, since whatever is shown to exist (via affecting the natural world) is clearly part of that same natural world.[1]
Basically all scientists (and a vast majority of modern philosophers) adhere to some version of naturalism, which is why reference to supernatural or miraculous effects or forces is frowned upon in academia.[2]
Two refinements of the term "naturalism" that are of use for any rationalist to know are methodological naturalism (on the one hand) and metaphysical naturalism (on the other).
Science is itself a process based on methodological naturalism, i.e. treating the world as if metaphysical naturalism was the case (even in utmost issues of philosophy), but without actually taking a stand on matters philosophical (outside of method).[3]
Metaphysical naturalism, on the other hand, is what it means to extend scientific principles all the way into the farthest reaches of philosophy. Scouting future territory for the natural sciences to conduct research in (and defending naturalism generally), philosophical naturalism is what Richard Carrier simply describes as "science with less data",[4] operating in anticipation of scientific data where possible.
Metaphysical naturalism is more or less a basic precept of all modern analytic philosophy , which was itself formed partially in protest of the centuries of woo that had accreted in philosophy prior to the explosive triumph of modern science in the last 150 years or so.
Strict adherence to methodological naturalism creates a theoretical space in which positions like NOMA may be compatibly held by those who chose to do so. Methodological naturalism is, as such, the "minimum position" to which science is reducible[5] — and it still entails not giving the time of day to woo-meistry.
In that context, metaphysical naturalism simply means "closing" said NOMA/gaps space by taking the fight all the way against theology and accommodationism.[6]”
Furthermore you are giving your commentary of it. In fact your reply is heavy on your commentary.
Stop avoiding and bring yourself to quote the rationalwiki definition of philosophical naturalism.
There is no avoidance. Here’s something that will explain where you’re going wrong though (also from RationalWiki):
“
Quote mining (also contextomy or, when used to attack somebody, Breitbarting) is the fallacious tactic of taking quotes out of context in order to make them seemingly agree with the quote miner's viewpoint or to make the comments of an opponent seem more extreme or hold positions they don't in order to make their positions easier to refute or demonize.[2] It's a way of lying. This tactic is widely used among Young Earth Creationists in an attempt to discredit evolution.
Quote mining is an informal fallacy and a fallacy of ambiguity, in that it removes context that is necessary to understand the mined quote.”methodological naturalism has no philosophical entailment.
Other than the method itself, that’s right. Are you finally getting it? Wow!
Any definition you have given contains philosophical entailment.
No it doesn’t. Specifically, it does "
not take a stand on methods philosophical” at all, and certainly not on the metaphysical naturalism you keep trying to yoke to it.
There is no getting away therefore from your conflation and confusion of Methodological naturalism and philosophical naturalism.
And now you can see why a debate would be pointless. You’ve been categorically shown to have your terms confused but, rather than accept that, adjust your claim and move on, you just assert the opposite to be the case.
And that’s dishonest.
Incidentally, as your thought processes are so shambolic and as you find me in generous mood, let me unscramble them for you once and for all.
You describe a position in which scientific principles – essentially materialism – extend into a statement of philosophical certainty, namely that the material is necessarily all there is.
You then mischaracterise that as “philosophical naturalism” whereas in fact what you mean is “metaphysical naturalism”. No matter – you’ve been corrected now, and you can use the correct term in future.
Then though you argue (OK, assert) that metaphysical naturalism (as you now know it to be called) is problematic because methodological naturalism doesn’t demonstrate it.
This is wrong. Metaphysical naturalism (as you now know it to be called remember?)
is problematic, but not because of the supposed failings of methodological naturalism. It’s problematic for the same reason that
any claim of certainty is problematic – there’s no way to eliminate the possibility at least of data that would falsify the claim.
Metaphysical naturalism does not however rely on methodological naturalism for support, and nor does methodological naturalism have anything at all to say about metaphysical naturalism (which you now know... etc). To the contrary, methodological naturalism merely proceeds
as if naturalism is the only game in town because that’s all its tools and methods can address.
Does this imply in some way that there is a non-material? Of course not – for that claim to be distinguishable from white noise its proponent would have to provide tools and methods of his own to investigate the claim. Which is the point at which you always suddenly remember that you have another appointment to attend to.
Anyways, now you have no excuse to get this wrong again have you? If ever you do go a bit wobbly again though, can I suggest that you carry a copy of this around in your wallet for easy reference?
Jolly good. So there's you straw man correctly phrased.
Now all you have to do is to find someone who actually
is a metaphysical naturalist so you can take the matter up with him. Good luck with the search!
You’re welcome.
