• Phil wrote up a paper with the following title several years ago when he was working at a university in Tokyo. He is presenting an AI-abbreviated version of that paper below.

The Status of Methodological Naturalism as Justified by Precedent

Phil Stilwell

Introduction

The demarcation between science and non-science is a dynamic and evolving boundary, heavily influenced by the justification of precedent. Throughout history, science has integrated heuristic concepts that have demonstrated their utility through successful explanations, predictions, and technologies. One concept that has proven essential to the scientific method is methodological naturalism (MN). This paper examines the justification for MN within the framework of scientific methodology by evaluating its historical efficacy, its explanatory power, and the resulting technological advancements. Additionally, the paper explores the future relevance of MN as scientific inquiry ventures into increasingly complex and non-intuitive domains.

Definition and Misconceptions of Methodological Naturalism

MN is often misunderstood and misrepresented by the general public. Most academics agree that MN, also known as scientific naturalism, does not deny the possibility of supernatural entities operating within our universe. Such denial falls under the realm of philosophical materialism, which asserts a metaphysical stance. In contrast, MN is a provisional epistemology and ontology that provides a practical framework for scientific inquiry. It requires that science begin each investigation with the assumption that explanations will fit within the existing matrix of established material definitions and laws. This pragmatic approach does not equate to philosophical naturalism but serves as a temporary guideline to facilitate scientific progress.

MN implies that if a natural explanation does not immediately emerge from an inquiry, scientists should adopt an epistemological agnosticism, admitting a lack of evidence without defaulting to supernatural causes. However, MN does allow for the consideration of supernatural causes if positive evidence clearly emerges from rigorous inquiry. This distinction is crucial as it underscores MN’s commitment to empirical evidence and systematic investigation, rather than preconceived metaphysical commitments.

Historical Context of Methodological Naturalism

Historically, supernatural explanations were the default for phenomena that exceeded human understanding. From the dawn of civilization until a few centuries ago, the default explanation for many phenomena had a deistic or theistic basis. Observable phenomena that conformed to no known naturalistic paradigm were attributed to gods, offering black box explanations that lacked mechanisms but provided psychological and social comfort.

The transition towards naturalistic explanations began with early thinkers like Aristotle, who noted regularities in the movements of celestial bodies and suggested natural causes for these phenomena. Aristotle posited that celestial bodies were composed of a fifth element, “quintessence,” which, while more ideal than earthly elements, operated independently of direct supernatural intervention. This idea laid the groundwork for a naturalistic understanding of the universe, gradually displacing supernatural explanations.

The work of Nicolaus Copernicus in the 16th century marked a significant shift towards MN. Copernicus proposed a heliocentric model of the solar system, challenging the geocentric view endorsed by the Church. Although initially presented as a speculative hypothesis, the heliocentric model gained traction in the scientific community, particularly through the observations and experiments of Galileo Galilei and the mathematical formulations of Johannes Kepler and Isaac Newton. These developments extended the web of material causation and solidified the precedence of natural explanations in scientific inquiry.

Practical Justification for Methodological Naturalism

MN’s success as a heuristic tool in science is evident in its ability to provide coherent, predictable, and testable explanations for natural phenomena. Unlike methodological supernaturalism (MSN), which presupposes supernatural causation, MN relies on empirical evidence and systematic inquiry. The gradual displacement of supernatural explanations by material ones has driven technological and scientific advancement, reinforcing MN’s practical value.

For instance, Benjamin Franklin’s experiments in the 18th century demonstrated that lightning was a form of static electricity, dispelling the notion of divine vengeance. This empirical evidence not only advanced scientific understanding but also led to practical applications such as the lightning rod, which provided tangible benefits to society. The success of such naturalistic explanations bolstered confidence in MN and diminished the credibility of MSN.

The efficacy of MN is further exemplified by its role in the development of germ theory. Prior to the acceptance of germ theory, diseases were often attributed to supernatural causes. The Black Death in the 14th century, for instance, was commonly seen as divine punishment. However, as natural explanations for disease emerged and were validated through systematic observation and experimentation, the reliance on supernatural explanations waned. The implementation of germ theory revolutionized medicine and public health, saving countless lives and underscoring the practical superiority of MN.

Examination of Methodological Supernaturalism

MSN, which assumes supernatural causation for unexplained phenomena, lacks the precedent of success that MN enjoys. MSN often relies on unfalsifiable explanations and fails to provide a productive framework for scientific inquiry. Historical attempts to explain phenomena through MSN have frequently resulted in superstition and dogma rather than empirical progress.

One notable example is the attribution of mental disorders to demonic possession. For centuries, individuals exhibiting symptoms of mental illness were often subjected to exorcism or other religious rituals. These practices, based on MSN, offered no real understanding or treatment of mental disorders. It was not until the advent of modern psychology and psychiatry, grounded in MN, that effective treatments for mental illness were developed. This shift not only improved the lives of countless individuals but also demonstrated the limitations and dangers of MSN.

The failure of MSN to provide reliable explanations and technological advancements highlights its inadequacy as a heuristic tool in science. In contrast, MN’s track record of success in explaining natural phenomena and fostering technological innovation justifies its continued use in scientific inquiry.

Addressing the Possibility of Supernatural Causation

While MN remains the dominant heuristic in scientific inquiry, the possibility of intermediate supernatural causation (ISC) is not entirely dismissed. ISC refers to the insertion of a supernatural cause into the current web of material explanations. However, for ISC to be taken seriously within scientific methodology, it must meet rigorous standards of evidence and replicability.

To establish ISC as a credible explanation, proponents must provide clear, consistent, and replicable evidence. For example, if the hypothesis that lightning is divine vengeance were to be tested, researchers would need to statistically analyze the frequency of lightning strikes on individuals who defy the mandates of a particular deity. If a significant correlation were found and replicated in subsequent studies, it would lend weight to the hypothesis of ISC. However, the burden of proof is high, and the lack of a clear mechanism for ISC weakens its explanatory power.

The scientific community remains open to evidence of ISC but demands rigorous testing and validation. Until such evidence is produced and verified, MN will continue to be the preferred heuristic for scientific inquiry.

Conclusion

MN has proven its worth through its substantial contributions to scientific knowledge and technological advancement. The success of MN justifies its continued use and relegates ISC and MSN to the realm of mere logical possibility. Future scientific inquiry should maintain MN as its guiding heuristic, focusing on empirical evidence and systematic investigation. As science advances into more counterintuitive domains, the challenge will be to uphold the principles of MN while exploring new frontiers of knowledge.

References

• Byrd, R.C. (1988). Positive therapeutic effects of intercessory prayer in a coronary care unit population. Southern Medical Journal, 81(7), 826-829.
• Dean, C. (2005). Scientific Savvy? In the U.S., Not much. New York Times, 30 Aug. Retrieved from nytimes.com.
• Forrest, B. (2000). Methodological Naturalism and Philosophical Naturalism: Clarifying the Connection. Philo, 3(2).
• Giere, R.N. (2006). Modest Evolutionary Naturalism. Biological Theory, 1(1), 52-60.
• Kuhn, T. (1962). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
• White, A.D. (2004). A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom. Kessinger Publishing.

---