Posted: Apr 27, 2013 11:47 pm
DrWho wrote:Teuton wrote:Kinds of Naturalism:
1. Metaphysical Naturalism:
1.1 Ontological Naturalism:
The natural world is the entire reality; everything is natural and nothing is non-natural/supernatural.
(The spatiotemporal world is the whole world, and the only kind of substances it contains are physical ones.)
1.2 Ontological Scientism:
The posits of well-confirmed scientific theories are the only things which exist, are real, and only the belief in them is justified and rational.
Motto: Science, tell me what there is, and I believe in it!
1.3 Etiological Naturalism:
The natural world is causally closed; there are no supernatural influences on the natural course of things and no restrictions of its autonomy: if a natural event has a cause, then it has only a natural cause.
2. Epistemological Naturalism:
2.1 Scientific Empiricism (Anti-apriorism/Anti-intuitionism):
Knowledge about reality can only be attained through the empirical methods of scientific a posteriori inquiry.
(Weaker: The empirical methods of scientific a posteriori inquiry are the most objective and most reliable methods for attaining knowledge about reality.)
2.2 Agnostic Naturalism:
If supernatural entities and facts exist, they are unknowable (in principle).
3. Methodological Naturalism:
3.1. Metaphilosophical Scientism:
Philosophy is to be scientized, i.e. to be affiliated with or incorporated into (natural) science and to be adapted to its methods and results (as far as possible).
Motto: The days of philosophy as an a priori Geisteswissenschaft prior to (natural) science are over!
3.2 Metascientific Scientism (Monism/Unificationism):
All non-natural sciences are but pseudosciences and thus no producers of genuine knowledge unless they are methodologically adapated to and modelled on natural science. So this is what is to be done!
3.3 Metascientific Nonsupernaturalism:
Always look for naturalistic explanations of all phenomena!
Supernaturalistic explanations are to be ignored in principle during scientific inquiries.
(Weaker: Supernaturalistic explanations are to be ignored during scientific inquiries as long as there is a reasonable chance of finding a naturalistic explanation, at least in the future.)
Nothing in your quote denies my basic point: Different contemporary philosophers interpret ‘naturalism’ differently
Meant for Teuton, not you Dr. Who.
The point is that extravagant unprovable claims are being made for a position that has mountains of evidence and no counter evidence. It's unnecessary and only leads us into silly discussions where counter-claims such as idealism or mentalism SEEM to have some weight. They do not. Just as none of these universal claims do not.