NvC-1: What is the premise of Naturalism in Biology?

I don't think it's a premise.
I think it's a tentatively held conclusion.

It's not like a bunch of people woke up and said "Hey... let's assume the Supernatural doesn't exist and totally ignore anything that would indicate it's presence!"
That's not how science works.

Science works like this: "Hey, let's investigate! Look... we've investigated for hundreds of years, and have learned a vast amount about biological processes that we didn't know before. In all this learning - while looking for anything at all - no one has ever found any evidence that suggests that the supernatural exists or (if it does) that it has any influence on this world in any way at all. This is enough tentative evidence to allow us to stop considering the supernatural as a possible explanation for anything. Of course, the second any verifiable evidence of the supernatural exists - we will change our minds and promote further investigation."

That's a "tentative conclusion" held within DN.
That's not an axiomatic premise of DN.

In any given situation, they act in practically the same manner.
However, in the way you're attempting to frame the discussion - they have drastically different implications.

Nothing about the Scientific Method excludes the supernatural.
It's just that the supernatural hasn't provided any way to be reliably detected (by anything at all... let alone the Scientific Method.)
Likely because the supernatural doesn't exist.

But, again, that's a tentatively held conclusion based on the evidence.
That is not an axiomatically assumed premise.

Again - it's not an assertion.
It's a tentatively held conclusion based upon the evidence available.

As soon as information comes along that contradicts it - Science will re-evaluate it's tentatively held conclusion into something else that explains all the available evidence.

That's what Science does - investigate reality and make tentatively held conclusions based on the available information.

This statement is correct.

Your problem is in identifying the difference between a premise and a tentatively held conclusion.
The only premise in Science is that "we are able to learn things about reality by investigation, testing and evidence."

If you have a problem with that premise, then you should be rephrasing your questions.
If you actually have a problem with one of Science's tentatively held conclusions, then again, you should be rephrasing your questions.

Aim for clarity and honesty - you'll learn more, faster.

It's not a premise.
It's a tentatively held conclusion.

This is true.
And if further information shows it's incorrect, Science will move along to "Super-Duper-Naturalism" that then explains all the available information.
Except, of course, Science is better at thinking up names than I am...

This is also true.
Of course, this is also true for every Science fact that exists.
True for Gravity.
True for Conservation of Momentum.
True for Chemical Reactions.
True for Stellar Formation.

Science is always questioning if any/all of it's "facts" are correct or not.

This is the strength of Science, not a weakness.
If a previously-understood-as-true "fact" turns out to be incorrect: Science discovers this very quickly, identifies the issue, and the updates into a new "fact" that incorporates all the available information.

Are you sure you understand Science at all?
These are the basic fundamentals of Science taught in high-school (although I do admit - most high-schoolers don't understand these concepts and think that Science creates "facts" - a naive, immature understanding of what Science is.)

That's right, I do.

Sure - why not?
Strong conclusions are still tentatively held. Just like Gravity.

Okay - sounds like more agreement.

A conclusion based on observation can be used as a premise for another idea. Why not?
Something can easily be both a tentatively held conclusion and a premise.
It doesn't remove the fact that if additional information/observations come along - the conclusion (and premise) will be changed.
...which is still diametrically opposed to your idea of an axiomatic premise "just because."

Okay.

You seem to imply it's an axiomatic premise - which is very wrong and contextually opposite to how it should be understood.
Why promote confusion?
Are you afraid of honesty?

Questioning it's correctness is good, though.
But Science already beat you to this - all conclusions, premises, data... everything in Science is always constantly questioned on it's correctness.
It's the strength of Science.

I don't see how that holds.
And Science certainly doesn't make such a "link."

Science may conclude that only natural laws operate in biological process and that life consists of only matter...
...but these would be tentatively held conclusions based on observation... not based on any "logical connection."
...and the moment any observations surface that contradict these conclusions; Science will update it's position - as it always does.

I agree.

Linked as a conclusion based on observations of reality.
Not linked as a premise.

I don't remember commenting on dying physicists.

But to me... it seems like the word "information" is being abused all over the place.
Trying to define the term in one context, and then use it in another is only confusing, not any sort of "gotcha" moment.

If one can't be clear without relying on their preferred terms - then maybe they don't really understand what they're discussing in the first place.

My confuzzled attempt:

Let's take colour blindness as an example.

We'll start with basic grass (like on a normal lawn in the suburbs.)
-The colour of the grass is what it is (whatever that is...)
-Most will see this as green
-Some with colour blindness might say it's blue
-both use their eyes as created to their human body by nature
-what if the "most people seeing it as green" is also incorrect?
-what part of this is the "information"?

My points:
-it doesn't matter if most see it as green
-it doesn't matter if some see it as blue
-it doesn't matter what we call information
-the grass still is whatever colour it is... regardless of whether we recognize it correctly (either as a whole or in parts.)

If the grass's "colour" can be converted to an objective measurement:
Say "530nm" (the measureable wavelength of "green" light.)
Then... this can be observed and measured by all.
This is what the grass is, under the conditions of the measurement
Some might call 530nm green, others may call 530nm blue... but everyone agrees that the measurement is 530nm.

If we take multiple measurements across vast amounts of time, and the grass is always 530nm... this lends confidence to the following assumptions:
The grass "was 530nm" before we measured it
The grass "will remain 530nm" after we measure it
The grass "was always" 530nm and we only identified it at some point and became aware of it

-whatever part of that you want to call "information" doesn't really matter
-the grass is what it is
-our measurement of the grass is what it is
-our perception of the grass (individually or in groups) is what it is
-our perceptions and measurements always include certain assumptions and it's wise for us to not confuse such assumptions with the grass "being whatever it is."

Not sure if this is applicable to math/information/reality-of-the-universe-as-studied-by-physicists (they're so quirky!)... but it should be applicable to GDR/Tangle's conversation, I think.

I'm not sure if I'm saying anything other than what I said

...but this seems close enough for me to agree with - sure.

If you're talking about the grass being "whatever colour it is" - then I agree.
If you're talking about the grass being "530nm" - then I disagree (a human created what a "nm" is...)
If you're talking about the grass being "green" - then I disagree (a majority collection of humans agreed on what we identify "green" is...)
-which means that what you are talking about certainly depends on your definition of "information"
-as that word can have various valid meanings to various people ("530nm" and "green" certainly are "information" - just not the kind you seem to be talking about here,) and this discussion is getting into specific details, I would suggest avoiding the word "information" and just explain the context you intend to be using instead

That I agree with, yes.

I don't understand this at all.

Why does grass being-what-it-is go against strict materialism? (not that I believe in strict materialism... but the question remains...)
Isn't grass a material that fits directly within strict materialism?
Why can't grass exist without sentient life perceiving it?
If grass can exist without sentient life perceiving it - how does this lend credence to the idea that God might exist, or something that isn't strictly materialist?
Don't you end up with the same issue as before: God may exist without anyone believing in Him, or He may not exist at all?

I know enough about brain scans and decision making to not like this example.
I also don't know enough about brain scans and decision making to explain why I don't like it.

...but if I can take a guess at what you're attempting to explain regardless of the example of it that I don't like... then I agree. With something. I guess