The 'framework' there, (ie: of 'incompleteness'), is flawed by inconsistency and so is ultimately philosophically incompatable with the scientific method. This is a commonly held misconceived philosophy of science.... They seem to be saying something like some statements of nature can be made but not understood within a naturalistic framework because this framework is incomplete. I'm not sure how practically or possibly this statement is since without being able to do empirical experiments on it, how could one establish it as a viable structure of knowledge. If you can do experiments on it, than it just seems like another part of the naturalistic methodology/explanation structure
'Statements of nature' are statements for informing ourselves (collectively) of the meaning of the term: 'nature', in that sense, we are informing ourselves about our own perceptions/observations. There is no need to say 'what exists beyond' those perceptions/observations - they are our reality. This interpretation restores the consistent basis for the establishment of knowledge of what 'nature' means, in science.
The other interpretation (ie: 'incompleteness'), is an artefact of philosophically held beliefs in Realism - which should be ignorable in properly conducted science .. (and it is).
Upvote
0