Science studies what it can observe. It makes no assumptions. The concept of naturalism in science is a conclusion not a premise - you have it all the wrong way round.
Sorry, is this correct? If science did not assume that life consists only of matter, then wouldn't we have satisfactory answers to any and all data? With no constraints on theory, it's simple to overfit any finite set of data.
I think science only works because we assume that all things are guided by natural laws, and aim to discover the laws.
Science did not assume the conclusion that everything in matter/energy before its studies.
Hate to be pedantic, but could you provide some support for this? As a scientist, I believe this is incorrect. Here's why:
quote:The process of the scientific method involves making conjectures (hypotheses), deriving predictions from them as logical consequences, and then carrying out experiments or empirical observations based on those predictions.
In science, we have to start with a hypothesis. I believe the underlying hypothesis of science is: we can explain the observable universe via empirical laws. When we fail to do so, we never EVER jump to "it must be metaphysical". Instead, we keep iterating on empirical laws.
Science concluded that everything is matter/energy after observing a whole big bunch of things and never finding anything that is not matter/energy.
Easy counter-example: consciousness. No physical theories, sorry. Yet, we have not moved to assuming there's a "soul", nor accepted eastern explanations for consciousness.
Thanks for the replies, I appreciate the time. At the same time, my general feeling is that you're not only getting my point, you don't want to get my point.
I find good conversations steel-man each other's arguments before finding counter-examples. It's not happening here, and I have way too limited time to engage at the depth necessary to get what I wish out of this conversation.
Again, appreciate the efforts, and will look elsewhere for more collaborative conversations.