I don't know, what do other scientists do who step outside the physical view of things. Surely there are ways. I mean we know in other areas that there is more than one way to find truth so maybe this is where philsophy comes in.
So you're complaining that science won't consider something that you believe in but have no evidence for and don't know how to detect...
But if the science method is about methodological naturalism isn't that a metaphysical position because it is ruling out all other possible ways of seeing the world apart form naturalism.
No. The scientific method can only observe, measure, and test what is observable, measurable, and testable.
Sorry I meant to say methological naturalism. So logicaly if methological naturalism restricts explanations to physical stuff and rules out the supernatural isnt that taking a position that there is only physical stuff. Isnt that making a statement that reality is material and therefore taking a metaphysical position as well.
No. The scientific method can only observe, measure, and test what is observable, measurable, and testable.
Yes I agree science has no choice. That is what I have been saying when I say science method restricts things to the physical stuff.
It doesn't matter what label you give it, if it can be observed, measured, or tested, science can explore it.
But I am talking philosophically when I say that if we take a step back to look at the bigger picture of what is reality (not just about the science method) the scientific method is taking one position among others as to what reality is made up of. So in that context science is taking a metaphysical position on reality.
The scientific method has no position. It is an
empirical method for acquiring knowledge. Science is in the business of building
testable models or explanations and making
testable predictions.
If your hypotheses don't meet the minimum standard of testability, don't complain about science ignoring them.
Because science permeates our society and people almost have a faith like view of science as the answer and guider of everything its easy to see how its methodology can become metaphysical and science is then telling us what reality is. If you see a new story put out by Scientific America or similar you read science has discovered a new particle that makes up reality ect its easy to see how this happens. But in some ways its ineviatble because science assumes this and science is in a position to make claims about reality.
What people and society feel about science doesn't change the fundamentals of science. All scientific claims are provisional. Read them with an implicit "Nature/reality behaves
as if..." in front of the claim.
Like I said I don't know. Perhaps you could give some idea.
How am I supposed to know? If it has no detectable influence on the world why would I even think it exists?
All I know is if there is non-physical stuff and it has an effect on reality then wouldn’t science want to know.
If something has an effect on 'reality' then for the purposes of science it is physical, whether you want to call it supernatural, or mystical, or magic.
The fundamental physics of the everyday world at human scales is a regime that has been thoroughly explored, we know what it's made of (protons, neutrons, and electrons), we know the forces that are relevant (gravity and electromagnetism) and we have a model (quantum field theory) that explains every experiment that's been done.
It tells us that any new or unknown forces must be too short-range or too weak to be relevant or significant or we'd have discovered them, and any new or unknown particle that could be relevant or significant would have been made and detected in particle accelerators.
If you think there is something new or unknown that is significant or relevant at everyday human scales, the onus is on you to demonstrate it or provide the information to demonstrate it. So far, all you appear to have is an unsupported belief that there must be something else.
Wouldn’t it have an effect on the current and future scientific findings? wouldn't it skew things and give false findings. How do we know science is not explaining non-physical causes in physical terms and getting it wrong.
Because, by and large, it
works.