Does Science Presuppose Naturalism (or Anything at All)?
- 788 Downloads
Several scientists, scientific institutions, and philosophers have argued that science is committed to Methodological Naturalism (MN), the view that science, by virtue of its methods, is limited to studying ‘natural’ phenomena and cannot consider or evaluate hypotheses that refer to supernatural entities. While they may in fact exist, gods, ghosts, spirits, and extrasensory or psi phenomena are inherently outside the domain of scientific investigation. Recently, Mahner (Sci Educ 3:357–371, 2012) has taken this position one step further, proposing the more radical view that science presupposes an a priori commitment not just to MN, but also to ontological naturalism (ON), the metaphysical thesis that supernatural entities and phenomena do not exist. Here, we argue that science presupposes neither MN nor ON and that science can indeed investigate supernatural hypotheses via standard methodological approaches used to evaluate any ‘non-supernatural’ claim. Science, at least ideally, is committed to the pursuit of truth about the nature of reality, whatever it may be, and hence cannot exclude the existence of the supernatural a priori, be it on methodological or metaphysical grounds, without artificially limiting its scope and power. Hypotheses referring to the supernatural or paranormal should be rejected not because they violate alleged a priori methodological or metaphysical presuppositions of the scientific enterprise, but rather because they fail to satisfy basic explanatory criteria, such as explanatory power and parsimony, which are routinely considered when evaluating claims in science and everyday life. Implications of our view for science education are discussed.
KeywordsIntelligent Design Kolmogorov Complexity Methodological Naturalism Auxiliary Assumption Ontological Naturalism
We thank Stefaan Blancke, Johan Braeckman, Michael Matthews, Brent Meeker, and six anonymous reviewers for helpful comments on an earlier draft of the paper.
- Alcock, J. E. (2003). Give the null hypothesis a chance: Reasons to remain doubtful about the existence of psi. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 10, 29–50.Google Scholar
- Alcock, J. E. (2011). Back from the future: Parapsychology and the Bem affair. Skeptical Inquirer, 35, 31–39.Google Scholar
- Bandyopadhyay, P. S. (2007). Why Bayesianism? A primer on a probabilistic philosophy of science. In S. K. Upadhyay, U. Singh, & D. K. Dey (Eds.), Bayesian statistics and its applications. New Delhi: Amaya Publishing Company.Google Scholar
- Bandyopadhyay, P. S., & Forster, M. R. (2011). Philosophy of statistics, volume 7 (handbook of the philosophy of science). Oxford: Elsevier.Google Scholar
- Benson, H., Dusek, J. A., Sherwood, J. B., Lam, P., Bethea, C. F., Carpenter, W., et al. (2006). Study of the therapeutic effects of intercessory prayer (STEP) in cardiac bypass patients: A multicenter randomized trial of uncertainty and certainty of receiving intercessory prayer. American Heart Journal, 151, 934–942.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Carrier, R. (2005). Sense and goodness without god: A defense of metaphysical naturalism. USA: Author House.Google Scholar
- Carrier, R. (2007). Defining the supernatural. Retrieved from http://richardcarrier.blogspot.com/2007/01/defining-supernatural.html.
- Clark, T. W. (2009). Why intelligent design isn’t good science. Retrieved from http://www.naturalism.org/science.htm#explanation.
- Coyne, J. A. (2009). Why evolution is true. USA: Viking.Google Scholar
- Darwin, C. (1876). Autobiography. In S. T. Joshi (Ed.), Atheism: A reader. USA: Prometheus Books.Google Scholar
- Dawkins, R. (2006). The god delusion. USA: Houghton Mifflin Co.Google Scholar
- Edis, T. (1998). Taking creation seriously: Are skeptics answering creationists effectively? Skeptic, 6, 2–56.Google Scholar
- Edis, T. (2002). The ghost in the universe. New York: Prometheus Books.Google Scholar
- Edis, T. (2008). Science and nonbelief. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books.Google Scholar
- Fales, E. (2009). Animadversions on Kitzmiller v. Dover: Correct ruling, flawed reasoning. Retrieved from http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/evan_fales/intelligent-design.html.
- Gilboa, I. (2007). Green is simpler than grue. Retrieved from http://www.dklevine.com/archive/refs4122247000000001964.pdf.
- Goodman, N. (1983). Fact, fiction, and forecast (4th ed.). USA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
- Gould, S. J. (1997). Nonoverlapping magisteria. In R. Pennock (Ed.), Intelligent design creationism and its critics: Philosophical, theological, and scientific perspectives (pp. 737–749). USA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
- Grunwald, P. D. (2005). Minimum description length tutorial. In P. D. Grunwald, I. J. Myung, & M. A. Pitt (Eds.), Advances in minimum description length: Theory and applications. USA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
- Hajek, A., & Hartmann, S. (2010). Bayesian epistemology. In J. Dancy, E. Sosa, & M. Steup (Eds.), A companion to epistemology (2nd ed., pp. 93–105). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
- Hawthorne, J. (1994). On the nature of Bayesian convergence. Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association, 1, 241–249.Google Scholar
- Hawthorne, J. (2011). Bayesian confirmation theory. In S. French & J. Saatsi (Eds.), Continuum companion to the philosophy of science. USA: Continuum International Publishing Group.Google Scholar
- Herrick, P. (2000). The many worlds of logic (2nd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Howson, C., & Urbach, P. (1993). Scientific reasoning: The Bayesian approach (2nd ed.). Chicago, IL: Open Court Publishing Company.Google Scholar
- Isaak, M. (2002). A philosophical premise of naturalism? Retrieved from http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/naturalism.html.
- Jefferys, W. H., & Berger, J. O. (1992). Ockham’s razor and Bayesian analysis. American Scientist, 80, 64–72.Google Scholar
- Johnson, P. E. (1997). Defeating Darwinism by opening minds (4th ed.). Downers Grove (Ill.): InterVarsity Press.Google Scholar
- Johnson, P. E. (1999). The church of Darwin. Wall Street Journal, A14.Google Scholar
- Jones III, J. E. (2005). Memorandum and order. Retrieved from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District_trial_documents.
- MacKay, D. J. C. (2003). Information theory, inference, and learning algorithms. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- Monton, B. (2006). Is intelligent design science? Dissecting the Dover decision. Retrieved from http://philsciarchive.pitt.edu/archive/00002592.
- National Academy of Sciences. (1998). Teaching about evolution and the nature of science, Appendix C. USA: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
- Niiniluoto, I. (1999). Defending abduction. Philosophy of Science, 66 (Proceedings of the 1998 Biennial Meetings of the Philosophy of Science Association. Part I: Contributed Papers), S436–S451.Google Scholar
- Paley, W. (1802). Natural theology: Evidence of the existence and attributes of the deity, collected from the appearances of nature. In M. D. Eddy & D. Knight (Eds.), Natural theology (p. 2006). USA: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Pennock, R. T. (1999). Tower of Babel: The evidence against the new creationism. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
- Rosenkrantz, R. (1983). Why Glymour is a Bayesian. In J. Earman (Ed.), Testing scientific theories: Minnesota studies in the philosophy of science (pp. 69–98). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
- Royall, R. M. (1997). Statistical evidence: A likelihood paradigm. New York: Chapman & Hall.Google Scholar
- Ryckman, T. (2006). Early philosophical interpretations of general relativity (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy). Available at http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/genrel-early/.
- Salmon, W. C. (1991). Hans Reichenbach’s vindication of induction. Erkenntnis, 35, 99–122.Google Scholar
- Sarkar, S. (2007). Doubting Darwin: Creationist designs on evolution. MA, USA: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
- Scott, E. C. (1999). The ‘science and religion’ movement. An opportunity for improved public understanding of science? Skeptical Inquirer, 23, 29–31.Google Scholar
- Scott, E. C. (2008). Science and religion, methodology and humanism. Retrieved from http://ncse.com/religion/science-religion-methodology-humanism.
- Skyrms, B. (1999). Choice and chance: An introduction to inductive logic (4th ed.). CA: Wadsworth.Google Scholar
- Sober, E. (1999). Testability. Proceedings and Addresses of the American Philosophical Association.Google Scholar
- Stenger, V. J. (2000). Timeless reality: Symmetry, simplicity, and multiple universes. USA: Prometheus Books.Google Scholar
- Stenger, V. J. (2003). Has science found god? The latest results in the search for purpose in the universe. USA: Prometheus Books.Google Scholar
- Stenger, V. J. (2007a). God: the failed hypothesis: How science shows that god does not exist. USA: Prometheus Books.Google Scholar
- Stenger, V. J. (2007b). The anthropic principle. In T. Flynn (Ed.), The new encyclopedia of unbelief. New York: Prometheus Books.Google Scholar
- Wallace, C. S. (2005). Statistical and inductive inference by minimum message length. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
- Wells, J. (2002). Icons of evolution: Science or myth?: Why much of what we teach about evolution is wrong. Washington, DC: Regnery.Google Scholar
- Wells, J. (n.d.). Ten questions to ask your biology teacher about evolution. Retrieved from http://www.iconsofevolution.com/tools/questions.php3.
- Young, M., & Edis, T. (2004). Why intelligent design fails: A scientific critique of the new creationism. USA: Rutgers University Press.Google Scholar