No, I think most of the epistemological problem hinges upon the extent to which a person thinks and feels that processes of Verification, Falsification and Justification are central to the methodology he/she employs in evaluating phenomena. However, the actual grounding of naturalistic or supernaturalistic "ideas" always remain to be seen. All too often, there's merely pretenses and presumptions put forward as providing ground that are actually quite questionable.
Are you saying its like an open question when evaluating phenomena as it what is fundemental reality. That each will have an epistemic basis which is premised on certain assumptions that are not themselves verifiable by science or logic or empiricle evidence.
It depends, since methodological naturalism can be conceptualized and defined a little differently from one scientist or philosopher of science to the next. See Miles K. Donahue's article (or others like his) where he analytically delineates between 1) Unrestriced 2) Provisional and 3) Restricted forms of Methodological Naturalism.
I present and evaluate three interpretations of methodological naturalism (MN), the principle that scientific explanations may only appeal to natural phenomena: as an essential feature of science, as a provisional guideline grounded in the historical failure of supernatural hypotheses, and as a...
link.springer.com
Ok I will check it out and sounds interesting as I have researched this area. Kuhn is a pioneer on this with his ideas on paradigm shifts and how they come about. But I have read some good modern takes as well.
I found this paper informative as well
Naturalism and Science
metanexus.net
Sure. Each paradigm has it's own assumptions, expected rules of justification and definitions. But even so, reality remains the same whatever it is.
I am not sure what you mean. Do you mean that whatever fundemental reality is this remains the same and is not an ontological truth for any particular paradigm worldview.
That wouldn't be science, but rather "scientism." That's what happens when people take short steps and it's obvious to everyone.
Is it though I wonder. I think the massive success and immercion within the teach age has itself had an affect that causes people to assume a truth about the power of science as the only way to know reality.
Its subtle and even subliminal. When we hear of new disciveries its seen as revealing something true about fundemental reality. Certain theories are taught and spoke as facts.
I don't think we can seperate the scientist from the science. A bit like we cannot seperate the observer from the observed. I think there will be a metaphysical aspect that will be closely followed that people cannot help but influence the way they measure, what they chose to measure and what they choose to highlight.
Yes. But a lot of the current materialism doesn't come by epistemic justification, but rather by sad outcomes of emotional need and disappointment in life. Trauma, too, plays a large role in swatting people instantly away from seeing the world in more, shall I say, "Christian" terms.
Its a pity because I think even just being open I think is healthy and positive. So long as you use your reason. Sometimes that reason lead to a more holistic view which can open up possibilities that may give some answers.
Yes, that's what sociologist Christian Smith seems to be picking up on lately through his studies of American culture.
And I think ironically this point has come despite and because of the accummulation of knowledge and tech. As though 'ok we have tried all that and its not meeting our expectations or understanding of what constitutes reality'.
After decades of tech and science this has actually accentuated that there is something more beyond the material world. I think both from the amazing world it has opened up but also because as a result our conscious awareness has increased.
We can thank Karl Marx and others like him for setting Western society on that path.
I remeber a lecture maybe from Jordan Peterson on Postmodernism. There was one school of thought that pioneered this line of thinking. But I can't remember who that was. I know
Nietzsche is one but he comes a little later. I think maybe the Frankfurt school of philosophy such as
I think initially a critique in the arts and literature which was redefining the rules about what is real. But I think it really took off from feminism which coined the phrase "the political has become the personal". Feminism and the critical theories and I think especially queer theory are about performance and narratives as the basis for reality. Making self referential truths reality and even trumping objective reality.
Science and empiricle evidence becomes only one way to see reality and even said to be a tool for imposing a certain worldview on others such as Indigenous peoples and minorities. Thats where I think Marxism comes in as this seen as westernised science through colonialism and imposition.
Meh. There is such a thing as overreaching in one's metaphysical or scientific theorizing. I prefer playing the skeptic to allay that potentiality.
Or just being open. That is one thing I noticed with Dawkins that he was guarded and seemed to want to stick in a narrow lane. Not even entertaining the slightest crossing a rigid line of empiricalism.
To me I think a scientist should be able to play philosopher and entertain alternative ideas and perspectives. To be able to step back into the paradigm and know it is just one of many. In that sense Dawkins could say he realises that science or methodlogical naturalism is just one way to know reality and may be the wrong basis in the greater scheme of things.
To some extent, that's what Critical Realism and Philosophical Hermeneutics have already been doing for some time. Then again, some of this isn't a trend as much as it is an already existing tradition, or confluence of older traditions, that we've had with us all along.
Yeah I think in some ways theres a degree of Gnosticism or Mysterism.
Well, to be fair, he is 'only' a biologist and as most academics should know, they shouldn't put too many steps forward in epistemological trespassing into highly specialized fields that are not their own. It also helps to read widely, which I'm not sure Dawkins has always been willing to do. For the longest time he refused to talk to Jordan Peterson, for instance. I'm surprised he finally did.
I think when you compare Dawkins almost old school evolution compared to for example the extended evolutionary synthesis there such a difference. Dawkins seems very gene centric whereas modern evolution has branched into for example evolutionary psychology and the behavioural sciences.
Which expand the possible influences for evolutionary change. In fact when we introduce these aspects of behaviour it brings in the question of agency and therefore consciousness. Which is near impossible to explain in mere reductionist physical processes. Maybe why he doesn't go there.
Going with Romans 1 only works if we situate ourselves in a more or less Thomistic context. If we do, we might find that a change of interpretive spectacles goes some way, even if a small way, in to actually becoming aware of the sort of theological concepts Paul the Apostle was alluding to (but did not make clear explication of).
Thats interesting you connect Aquinas and Paul. I can see some similarities in the sort of metaphyics of the spiritual and the carnal flesh. But also Gnosticism lol. Maybe they go too far. There still needs to be some grounding.
I wouldn't put too much stock in a lot of what passes for Metaphysics these days. But, one does need to remain open to mulling over the various philosophical propositions that one thinker or another might put forward.
Yes
Maybe. So far I'm not impressed by what has "been found" out in the universe now any more than I was 40 years ago. But I still have the Bible and the Philosophy of History to come at things from another angle.
I have been keeping tabs on the JWT and its absolutely amazing what they are finding. That we can see so far back is unbelievable.
A quote or rather an idea John Wheeler had with his "
Participatory Anthropic Principle" was a universe that was slowly awakening to itself. That we as conscious observers are actually creating the universe and reality. What we thought the universe and its beginning was 100 years ago is completely different and what we are discovering at break neck speed is changing our understanding again.
In that sense each new understanding and paradigm is a new reality worldview we are living within and always updating. Which is like we are creating and also discovering our universe and reality. This was one of the outcomes of findings from quantum physics and I think has led to an almost explosion of such ideas.
