>Group
>
>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..."
>
>>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"
>
>>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".
>
>SJ>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."
>
But if MN has nothing to do with whether nature is all there is
then there is no reason to *ASSUME* nature is all there is.
>BH>Or, to put it another way, the instruments and techniques of
>>science cannot determine whether or not "nature is all there is".
>
>SJ Agreed. If they could we would all be atheists.
>
Really? I think many atheists would become theists though some
would continue to resist.
>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".
>
Gee, I think the word was also imbedded in a sentence that contained
the word must. Free to assume if they so choose carries a somewhat
different meaning than must 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".
>
>SJ>Agreed. Who said anything different?
>
"must assume" was part of your description of MN. Pardon me for
assuming that you thought it had something to do with MN.
Brian Harper
Associate Professor
Applied Mechanics
Ohio State University
"Aw, Wilbur" -- Mr. Ed