Is methodological naturalism useful in science? Should intelligent design be allowed in science?
Currently, most scientists use methodological naturalism (MN) by including only natural cause-and-effect in their scientific theories. Is it necessary for a scientist to always conclude, for everything in the history of nature, that “it happened by natural process”? This assumed conclusion produces an inflexible Closed Science that is constrained, in its search for truth, by rigid-MN. In a rational alternative, a flexible Open Science uses testable-MN in which a scientific investigation begins by assuming “it happened by natural process” but considers this a flexible assumption that can be tested, not a rigid conclusion that must be accepted. If we define science as “whatever scientists do,” and most scientists currently use methodological naturalism (MN), does this make it scientific? If those with power to make decisions (about publishing, funding, and hiring) decide that MN is a “rule of science” that is unwritten yet is enforced, does this settle the issue? Is science a game with r
Related Questions
- What would it mean for science if intelligent designs project of overturning methodological naturalism was successful?
- Is methodological naturalism always useful in science? Should intelligent design be allowed in science?
- Is methodological naturalism useful in science? Should intelligent design be allowed in science?
