Methodological Naturalism and Scientific Success

European Journal for Philosophy of Religion 14 (1):231-256 (2021)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Several metaphysical naturalists argue that the success of science, together with the claim that scientists adhere to methodological naturalism, amounts to strong evidence for metaphysical naturalism. I call this the scientific-success argument. It is argued that the scientific-success argument is similar to the no-miracles argument for realism in philosophy of science. On the no-miracles argument, the success of science is taken as strong evidence that scientific theories are true. Based on this similarity, some considerations relevant to one argument may also be relevant to the other. One particular consideration is explored. The selectionist response to the no-miracles argument states that on an evolutionary model of science, in which scientific theories are accepted only after surviving a rigorous selection process, the no-miracles argument fails. The selectionist response also applies to the scientific-success argument. If scientific theories are selected for success, we do not need to explain the success of science by appealing to metaphysical naturalism.

Similar books and articles

How Successful is Naturalism?Michael C. Rea - 2007 - In Georg Gasser (ed.), How Successful is Naturalism? Ontos-Verlag. pp. 105-116.
Why methodological naturalism?Hans Halvorson - 2016 - In Kelly James Clark (ed.), Blackwell Companion to Naturalism. Hoboken: Blackwell.
Methodological naturalism and its misconceptions.Tiddy Smith - 2017 - International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 82 (3):321-336.
A puzzle about naturalism.Alexander Paseau - 2010 - Metaphilosophy 41 (5):642-648.
Philosophical Naturalism at the Turn of the Century.Robert Audi - 2000 - Journal of Philosophical Research 25:27-45.
Philosophical Naturalism at the Turn of the Century.Robert Audi - 2000 - Journal of Philosophical Research 25:27-45.
Methodological naturalism and the truth seeking objection.Erkki Vesa Rope Kojonen - 2017 - International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 81 (3):335-355.
What Science Can and Cannot Say: The Problems with Methodological Naturalism.Reed Richter - 2002 - Reports of the National Center for Science Education 22 (Jan-Apr 2002):18-22.
How Successful is Naturalism?Georg Gasser (ed.) - 2007 - Frankfurt: Ontos Verlag.

Analytics

Added to PP
2021-08-05

Downloads
863 (#17,426)

6 months
388 (#4,807)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Yunus Prasetya
Yale-NUS College

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

The Scientific Image.William Demopoulos & Bas C. van Fraassen - 1982 - Philosophical Review 91 (4):603.
Inference to the Best Explanation.Peter Lipton - 1991 - London and New York: Routledge.
The Logic of Scientific Discovery.Karl Popper - 1959 - Studia Logica 9:262-265.
The Empirical Stance.Bas C. Van Fraassen - 2004 - New York: Yale University Press.

View all 41 references / Add more references