User:Philocentric/methodological naturalism
This is not a Wikipedia article: It is an individual user's work-in-progress page, and may be incomplete and/or unreliable. For guidance on developing this draft, see Wikipedia:So you made a userspace draft. Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Methodological naturalism is a disposition towards scientific inquiry that expects, for any given question concerning physical reality, a natural explanation to eventually be demonstrated and accepted as true. This expectation of a natural explanation to successfully answer questions about physical reality is based on the lengthy successful track record of past natural explanations, and the consistent failures of posited supernatural explanations. It does not exclude the possibility of supernatural explanations, but merely employs inductive evidence to demonstrate that science is justified in maintaining it's focus on proposed natural explanations.
Methodological naturalism concerns itself not with claims about what exists but with methods of learning what nature is. It is strictly the idea that all scientific endeavors—all hypotheses and events—are to be explained and tested by reference to natural causes and events. The genesis of nature (for example, by an act of God) is not addressed. This second sense of naturalism seeks only to provide a framework within which to conduct the scientific study of the laws of nature. Methodological naturalism is a way of acquiring knowledge. It is a distinct system of thought concerned with a cognitive approach to reality, and is thus a philosophy of knowledge. Studies by sociologist Elaine Ecklund suggest that religious scientists in practice apply methodological naturalism. They report that their religious beliefs affect the way they think about the implications - often moral - of their work, but not the way they practice science.[1][2]
In a series of articles and books from 1996 onward, Robert T. Pennock wrote using the term "methodological naturalism" to clarify that the scientific method confines itself to natural explanations without assuming the existence or non-existence of the supernatural, and is not based on dogmatic metaphysical naturalism (as claimed by creationists and proponents of intelligent design, in particular Phillip E. Johnson). Pennock's testimony as an expert witness[3] at the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial was cited by the Judge in his Memorandum Opinion concluding that "Methodological naturalism is a 'ground rule' of science today":[4]
- "Expert testimony reveals that since the scientific revolution of the 16th and 17th centuries, science has been limited to the search for natural causes to explain natural phenomena.... While supernatural explanations may be important and have merit, they are not part of science." Methodological naturalism is thus "a self-imposed convention of science." It is a "ground rule" that "requires scientists to seek explanations in the world around us based upon what we can observe, test, replicate, and verify."[5]
- ^ Belief Net, "What do scientists say"
- ^ Elaine Ecklund's book "Science versus Religion: What do scientists really think"
- ^ Kitzmiller trial: testimony of Robert T. Pennock
- ^ Kitzmiller v. Dover: Whether ID is Science
- ^ Judge John E. Jones, III Decision of the Court Expert witnesses were John F. Haught, Robert T. Pennock, and Kenneth R. Miller. Links in the original to specific testimony records have been deleted here.