NoName
Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013
|
Gary, what, specifically, are 'alternatives to methodological naturalism'?
Causation is a fully natural phenomenon and so is not a phenomenon susceptible to, let alone requiring, an alternative explanation. 'Nature' is defined as the scope of the web of cause and effect. Science is concerned with effects and their causes. That pretty much removes any hope for an 'alternative' to methodological naturalism' even getting started. It has no scope, no potential, no utility.
In fact, all phenomena known or available are natural, involving occurrences in nature and, to date, being susceptible to naturalistic explanations.
Explanation itself is methodologically naturalistic, for no other grounds for explanation have ever withstood scrutiny.
Define your terms, present your grounds, and we'll have it out.
Otherwise, well, there really is no controversy.
In its simplest form, methodological naturalism boils down to "we'll assume natural explanations until and unless some other candidate appears and shows itself to be qualified." Somehow that has never happened. Not for lack of trying, but for lack of success.
And just by the way, and for the record, your "theory" as written is entirely based on and driven by methodological naturalism. That the user of methodological naturalism is a borderline insane crank with no grammar, syntax, or semantic skills, no insight, and stunning degrees of irrationality doesn't matter at all. Your notions are reductive materialism at its most extreme.
You base your work on the pre-requisite of a physical body. No body, no intelligence. You extend that to atoms and molecules, your every move is naturalistic. The most you can hope for is to plead some sort of epiphenomenal stature for 'intelligence' but you remain bound by your own 4-part structure. Every aspect of it is not just naturalistic, but materialistic, reductively so.
|
