RAZD writes:
The supernatural cannot be studied by scientific methods, and therefor supernatural is not considered in sciences. Whether or not God does not exist is not considered because the supernatural is not testable, being supernatural.
We study the natural world to see how we can explain it through natural processes, because that is what we can do, not because of belief.
Fine. This is basically the same thing that RichardWang is saying naturalism is but in a negative/opposite manner.
As indicated, supernatural is not-natural. If science is limited to the testing and observation of natural things (matter and energy), then by that definition, the testing and observational techniques cannot be used to validate or negate anything supernatural, or anything else beyond nature including those things mentioned like "Non-physical or quasi-physical substance, such as information, ideas, values, logic, mathematics, intellect, and other emergent phenomena."
You still have it backwards.
It's not an a priori belief.
I'm surprised at this assessment, cause it is contradicted by just about everything else that follows these statements.
Science doesn't start with a belief, it starts with observations, then it develops theories to explain those observations, using known processes. To be science these theories must be testable, and that means we need to be able to discern cause and effect, and be able to repeat them. That limits us to natural processes.
Of course science starts with a belief. It has to, unless you are saying that scientific processes validate scientific processes, which would be a tautology (circular reasoning). What you are referring to in these statements is all a position held (a belief) before you have made any observations or tests. You have a priori ruled out anything supernatural because you cannot observe, test, such things.
Not having any means known to test metaphysical or supernatural processes, we are left with testing what we can with natural processes. In other words we are limited to the natural world and natural processes because we don't have any known tools to consistently test metaphysical or supernatural processes,...
So again, you are here showing the limits of what can be considered by science, and this is again a position that is in place before you even start any observations or tests. In other words, an a priori stance.
... and it is only when/if such tools become available that testing can include metaphysical or supernatural processes.
This phrase is left hanging out there like like an escape hatch. But it is a self-contradiction. The problem is that any "testing" that is acceptable by your scientific standards must be related to observations of natural things. So if anything is observed, it must be due to a natural process. It could not ever observe a supernatural thing because supernatural things are
a priori not allowed.
Again, it's not an a priori belief, it's a result of our limited ability to test the theories with natural processes.
This statement is shocking just by itself. If you limit the ability to testing only by natural processes, you can only have
results that conform to nature. The
limited ability is the
a priori belief.
Dr Adequate writes:
Well, we have noticed that whenever we know the explanation for a biological phenomenon, that explanation is always natural and never supernatural.
Not surprising when "whatever we know" is only allowed to be a natural explanation. You don't allow any other explanation.
So it's not a premise in biology. It's a conclusion
But it is a premise. You limit your testing to natural things only, do not have any tests outside of natural processes, and thus you cannot, by definition, have any other conclusions beyond something natural.
™ Version 4.2
(1)