# Responding to methodological naturalism



## cih1355 (Jun 22, 2006)

How would you respond to the argument that says that supernatural causes should not be allowed in scientific explanations because supernatural causes are not testable?


----------



## Cheshire Cat (Jun 22, 2006)

The very statement that 'we cannot know anything unless it is tested by the scientific method' is in and of itself a metaphysical claim that cannot be tested by the scientific method. Therefore, the claim 'we cannot know anything unless it is tested by the scientific method' is irrational. Same thing goes with people who say that we can only really know something by sense experience.


----------



## ChristianTrader (Jun 23, 2006)

> _Originally posted by cih1355_
> How would you respond to the argument that says that supernatural causes should not be allowed in scientific explanations because supernatural causes are not testable?



It is not really a problem if they do no then try to make what is not scientific, thus unknowable or just wrong.

There is a fishing analogy that can be used. You can use different nets to catch different fish etc. You cant take one net and then say, what my net can't catch aint fish.


----------



## Civbert (Jun 23, 2006)

> _Originally posted by cih1355_
> How would you respond to the argument that says that supernatural causes should not be allowed in scientific explanations because supernatural causes are not testable?



Depends on what the "cause" in question is. For some things, that "natural" explanation is not testable either, and some supernatural explanations are testable. I'd say that not allowing for the supernatural explanation is narrow minded - one should test for what one can test for, and keep in mind that tests only provide evidence, not logical proofs.


----------



## Vytautas (Jun 23, 2006)

> _Originally posted by caleb_woodrow_
> The very statement that 'we cannot know anything unless it is tested by the scientific method' is in and of itself a metaphysical claim that cannot be tested by the scientific method. Therefore, the claim 'we cannot know anything unless it is tested by the scientific method' is irrational. Same thing goes with people who say that we can only really know something by sense experience.



What does this have to do with the original question?


----------



## Cheshire Cat (Jun 23, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Vytautas_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by caleb_woodrow_
> ...


I thought he was asking something else, then after I read the question again I decided to leave my original post as it was even though it didn't really have to do with the question. It still contains good information . Thanks for pointing it out though...

[Edited on 6-24-2006 by caleb_woodrow]


----------

