David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Philosophical Studies 148 (1):79 - 87 (2010)
In recent years, it has become common to defend science against charges of bias against the supernatural by explaining that science must remain methodologically natural but does not assume metaphysical naturalism. While such a response is correct, some details about the distinction between methodological naturalism and ontological or metaphysical naturalism have been lacking, as has a clear understanding of the distinction between the methodological restriction of science to natural explanations and naturalistic claims about the scope of those methods. We still require an account of the natural that explains well why science is restricted to giving naturalistic methods, and why the pursuit of natural explanations is not tantamount to the assumption that only natural causes exist. I suggest that the distinguishing characteristics of the natural are not metaphysical at all but broadly epistemological, concerning goals of intersubjectivity and predictability. I argue that by focusing on naturalistic goals we can better explain why the pursuit of natural explanations need not presume any purely natural metaphysics. But I also suggest that the adoption of natural methods is not entirely metaphysically neutral, as it is associated with values that may be more closely associated with some metaphysical views than others.
|Keywords||Naturalism Methodological naturalism Supernatural Design Intersubjectivity Science|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
Edgar Sheffield Brightman (1937). An Empirical Approach to God. Philosophical Review 46 (2):147-169.
David C. Lindberg & Ronald L. Numbers (eds.) (2003). When Science and Christianity Meet. University of Chicago Press.
Thomas Nagel (2008). Public Education and Intelligent Design. Philosophy and Public Affairs 36 (2):187-205.
Robert T. Pennock (1996). Naturalism, Evidence and Creationism: The Case of Phillip Johnson. [REVIEW] Biology and Philosophy 11 (4):543-559.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Reed Richter (2002). What Science Can and Cannot Say: The Problems with Methodological Naturalism. Reports of the National Center for Science Education 22 (Jan-Apr 2002):18-22.
Ingo Brigandt (2009). Natural Kinds in Evolution and Systematics: Metaphysical and Epistemological Considerations. Acta Biotheoretica 57 (1-2):77-97.
Owen J. Anderson (2012). The Natural Moral Law: The Good After Modernity. Cambridge University Press.
Lee C. McIntyre (2004). Redescription and Descriptivism in the Social Sciences. Behavior and Philosophy 32 (2):453 - 464.
Immanuel Kant (2004). Metaphysical Foundations of Natural Science. Cambridge University Press.
Elizabeth Tropman (2008). Naturalism and the New Moral Intuitionism. Journal of Philosophical Research 33:163-84.
E. J. Lowe (2006). The Four-Category Ontology: A Metaphysical Foundation for Natural Science. Oxford University Press.
Mariska Leunissen (2010). Explanation and Teleology in Aristotle's Science of Nature. Cambridge University Press.
Ingo Brigandt (2011). Natural Kinds and Concepts: A Pragmatist and Methodologically Naturalistic Account. In Jonathan Knowles & Henrik Rydenfelt (eds.), Pragmatism, Science and Naturalism. Peter Lang Publishing.
Added to index2010-02-01
Total downloads44 ( #44,033 of 1,413,409 )
Recent downloads (6 months)4 ( #51,624 of 1,413,409 )
How can I increase my downloads?