Naturalism and Scientism

[Elioenai26]

Naturalism is the ontological thesis that physical events only have physical causes. The naturalist therefore holds that there are no miracles or supernatural causes.

Scientism is the epistemological thesis that we should only believe that which can be proven scientifically. In other words, science is the only source of knowledge and therefore the only arbiter of truth.

My purpose in this thread will be simple. I first want to ask if there are any persons here who hold to a naturalistic ontology and dialogue with them regarding said ontology. Secondly, I want to ask if there are any persons here who hold the scientisitic view of epistemology.

It is important to note that a person may be a naturalist and not hold to a scientistic epistemology. It is also possible that one who holds a scientisitic view may not be a naturalist. Let us keep those things in mind.

With that being said, let the discussion begin.

 

[essentialsaltes]

With that being said, let the discussion begin.

Given those definitions, I believe I am a naturalist, but definitely not a scientismist.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Naturalism is the ontological thesis that physical events only have physical causes. The naturalist therefore holds that there are no miracles or supernatural causes.

Where are you getting that definition from? The second sentence sounds fine, but the first sentence doesn't sound quite right. It sounds more like a definition of physicalism.

Naturalism is the ontological thesis that nothing beyond the natural universe influences its behavior. Whatever behavior the natural universe has, it does not come from anywhere but the natural universe. Therefore, there are no miracles or supernatural causes.

I don't know of any stipulation that "physical events only have physical causes".

Anyway, I could be regarded as a naturalist, but I am opposed to scientism.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Elioenai26]

Where are you getting that definition from?

Metaphysical or Ontological naturalism is a philosophy which maintains that nature encompasses all that exists throughout space and time.

Non-physical or quasi-physical substance, such as information, ideas, values, logic, mathematics, intellect, and other emergent phenomena, either supervene upon the physical or can be reduced to a physical account. The supernatural does not exist, which is to say, only nature is real.

Naturalism, in recent usage, is a species of philosophical monism according to which whatever exists or happens is natural in the sense of being susceptible to explanation through methods which, although paradigmatically exemplified in the natural sciences, are continuous from domain to domain of objects and events. Hence, naturalism is polemically defined as repudiating the view that there exists or could exist any entities which lie, in principle, beyond the scope of scientific explanation.

— Arthur C. Danto, The Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Naturalism​

Naturalism is the ontological thesis that nothing beyond the natural universe influences its behavior. Whatever behavior the natural universe has, it does not come from anywhere but the natural universe. Therefore, there are no miracles or supernatural causes.

Agreed.

I don't know of any stipulation that "physical events only have physical causes".

If all there is is the natural then all events have only natural causes. Natural here is speaking of that which is physical or that which can be ultimately viewed as being reducible to a physical explanation. My simplistic definition above is therefore synonymous with this understanding.

Anyway, I could be regarded as a naturalist, but I am opposed to scientism.

Thank you. I will be asking some questions of you later on.

 

[Eudaimonist]

If all there is is the natural then all events have only natural causes. Natural here is speaking of that which is physical or ultimately seen as being reducible to a physical explanation.

As long as you don't forget that what is natural can refer to supervenient non-physical phenomena (such as ideas, values, etc), and that naturalism should not be confused with reductive materialism or physicalism, I have no objections at this time.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Elioenai26]

As long as you don't forget that what is natural can refer to supervenient non-physical phenomena (such as ideas, values, etc),

This is true, for Metaphysical/Ontological naturalism holds that all properties related to consciousness and the mind are reducible to, or supervene upon, nature.

 

[Paradoxum]

I don't know if I am any of those.

Naturalism seems to depend on ones definition of 'physical' and 'supernatural', and whether there is in fact a real difference between the two. I don't discount miracles or the supernatural (though it depends on their definition), but I don't believe them to exist.

I tend towards monism, by which I mean, it makes sense to me that everything in reality is all part of one substance. This would seem to cancel out the natural/supernatural distinction. There could be more beyond this universe than I can imagine.

I don't think science is the only way to move closer to truth, but it is probably the most sure way. It should be considered more trustworthy than anything else.

I believe there is no God which works miracles... if that helps. But this belief isn't as strong as my belief invisible unicorns don't exist, for example. Perhaps I would put that God belief at 60-75% certainty.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Friedrich Nietzsche - Human, All Too Human : Section One: Of First and Last Things - Aphorism # 9

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Naturalism is the ontological thesis that physical events only have physical causes. The naturalist therefore holds that there are no miracles or supernatural causes.

Scientism is the epistemological thesis that we should only believe that which can be proven scientifically. In other words, science is the only source of knowledge and therefore the only arbiter of truth.

My purpose in this thread will be simple. I first want to ask if there are any persons here who hold to a naturalistic ontology and dialogue with them regarding said ontology. Secondly, I want to ask if there are any persons here who hold the scientisitic view of epistemology.

It is important to note that a person may be a naturalist and not hold to a scientistic epistemology. It is also possible that one who holds a scientisitic view may not be a naturalist. Let us keep those things in mind.

With that being said, let the discussion begin.

With regards to naturalism, I don't know if I'm a naturalist unless you give the definition of 'physical', 'supernatural', and 'miracle'. A definition for 'natural' wouldn't go amiss either.

With regards to scientism, given that some knowledge (e.g., mathematics, pure logic) is known without using the scientific method, the thesis can be safely rejected. However, outside of pure logic, when we deal with questions about the real world, scientism has a much stronger case for it.

 

[Eudaimonist]

With regards to scientism, given that some knowledge (e.g., mathematics, pure logic) is known without using the scientific method, the thesis can be safely rejected.

Agreed. It is largely in that spirit that I reject scientism.

It's not that I reject a desire to have knowledge cohere to one's experience of the natural world, including scientific observations of that world, but that I think that the scientific method is not likely to be a good tool for dealing with various fields of knowledge.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Davian]

Naturalism is the ontological thesis that physical events only have physical causes. The naturalist therefore holds that there are no miracles or supernatural causes.

So this 'naturalist' would need to have a clear understanding of what is meant by 'miracle' and 'supernatural', so that they could then rule them out?

That would not be me.

Scientism is the epistemological thesis that we should only believe that which can be proven scientifically. In other words, science is the only source of knowledge and therefore the only arbiter of truth.

Since when does science prove anything? I don't say that scientific methodology is the only reliable means of exploring reality.

I ask, what else have you got?

My purpose in this thread will be simple. I first want to ask if there are any persons here who hold to a naturalistic ontology and dialogue with them regarding said ontology. Secondly, I want to ask if there are any persons here who hold the scientisitic view of epistemology.

It is important to note that a person may be a naturalist and not hold to a scientistic epistemology. It is also possible that one who holds a scientisitic view may not be a naturalist. Let us keep those things in mind.

With that being said, let the discussion begin.

Perhaps you could provide a robust definition of what you mean by the terms "miracle" and "supernatural". Something testable, repeatable, falsifiable, rather than the usual "what it is not".

 

[Elioenai26]

So this 'naturalist' would need to have a clear understanding of what is meant by 'miracle' and 'supernatural', so that they could then rule them out?

That would not be me.

Since when does science prove anything? I don't say that scientific methodology is the only reliable means of exploring reality.

I ask, what else have you got?

Perhaps you could provide a robust definition of what you mean by the terms "miracle" and "supernatural". Something testable, repeatable, falsifiable, rather than the usual "what it is not".

Still clinging tightly to the long dead logical positivism Davian?

I do not want this thread to be derailed so if you want to start a new thread on why logical positivism is a tenable position, do so. Just don't do it here.

 

[Davian]

Still clinging tightly to the long dead logical positivism Davian?

Still bravely fighting straw men, Elio?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Still clinging tightly to the long dead logical positivism Davian?

I think he is asking the same question I've been trying to get an answer on. The same question that you continue to evade.

 

[Davian]

Still clinging tightly to the long dead logical positivism Davian?

I do not want this thread to be derailed so if you want to start a new thread on why logical positivism is a tenable position, do so. Just don't do it here.

Red herring.

You yourself brought in the terms in your own OP. Provide a robust definition of what you mean by the terms "miracle" and "supernatural". Something testable, repeatable, falsifiable, rather than the usual "what it is not".

To repeat, on the subject of scientism, I don't say that scientific methodology is the only reliable means of exploring reality.

I ask, what else have you got?

 

[Elioenai26]

Still bravely fighting straw men, Elio?

I think he is asking the same question I've been trying to get an answer on. The same question that you continue to evade.

If you two would like for me to start a new thread on why logical positivism is self defeating, I would be happy to. This thread is for discussing naturalism and scientism.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

If you two would like for me to start a new thread on why logical positivism is self defeating, I would be happy to. This thread is for discussing naturalism and scientism.

You are evading the question yet again. What can we know about the supernatural and how do we obtain knowledge from it?

 

[essentialsaltes]

I first want to ask if there are any persons here who hold to a naturalistic ontology and dialogue with them regarding said ontology.

Since a few people have at least provisionally agreed (barring quibbles of definition) to naturalism, maybe you could move on to the dialogue part. I assume you had something you wanted to say to us.

No one (fortunately) has stood up for scientism, so you can just skip that part.

 

[Elioenai26]

You are evading the question yet again. What can we know about the supernatural and how do we obtain knowledge from it?

What does this have to do with Metaphysical Naturalism?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

What does this have to do with Metaphysical Naturalism?

The existence of the supernatural has no bearing on the question of metaphysical naturalism?