This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
I just reverted an extended edit by 173.55.80.176 that appeared to slant much of the article toward a particular view, that of Dennis Polis. While it was obviously a good-faith edit and clearly represented a lot of work on some anonymous editor's part, it appeared to violate NPOV, so I reverted it. Any other opinions on this? Agathman ( talk) 19:56, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
It is quite clear that this article was written by a believer. The "arguments" section is particulary bad in the sense that it lists very weak arguments in the "against" sub-section. The arguments "for" contain no citations whatsoever, but when I recently tried to add a strong argument "against", equally without citation, it was promptly removed. This is ludicrous. Either allow both, or none at all. If I don't see reliable sources added to that section in short order, it is only fair to wipe it out completely. As a philosopher, there is nothing more repugnant to me than a group of individuals who cannot stand to put the best argumentation forward, both for and against. It is the only way to procede in philosophy. A belief system which cannot withstand a proper debate is not worth believing in the first place. Sylvanius 16:05, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
The article describes Intelligent Design as legally unscientific. This is bizarre on several levels. For one thing this article is about philosophy not science, and arguments do not have to be scientific. Further the claim is based on US law which should not be privileged above other legal systems. (I can imagine Iranian law having a different opinion.) Finally it is not clear that it matters at all whether the law views the theory as unscientific. I will delete this description. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MathHisSci ( talk • contribs) 15:34, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
At the top of this page, Wildbot points out that the "primacy" link in "(see Value of society and Primacy of happiness below)" is broken (section Metaphysical naturalism#Evolution).
That is because this edit (Dec 2008) removed the "Primacy of happiness" section (search for "primacy" on this talk page). I suppose the link should just be removed? Johnuniq ( talk) 01:31, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
The section on "Mind as brain" claims that the "Causal Closure" paradigm has been falsified. However, the reference material points to http://xianphil.org/testing_cc.html and doesn't support this and neglects to take into consideration that parts of the brain can change the chemistry of other parts. It's taken from a book that isn't a scientific text and is isn't accepted as part of scientific literature.
Moreover, the site on which the article is hosted has this on the front page:
"Open philosophy is an approach that combines science with traditional wisdom to build a truly inclusive worldview. Dr. Dennis F. Polis is a Catholic Philosopher-Physicist and is available to speak on the challenges science poses to the religious worldview."
Hardly seems a credible source. The section that says Causal Closure has been falsified needs to go ASAP. Bhagwad ( talk) 12:36, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
the sentence "However, the existences of multiverses with variant physical constants and natural laws, which is required to support the antropic principle counterargument the is completely unsupported by any scientific data, and violates the empirical principles on which naturalism is supposed to be based." is just counter-factual.
It insinuates that the multiverse violates Occam's razor, but OR is meant to clean up hypothesis. If something exists, it can not be shaved off. If this were the case, then sub-atomic particles would violate OR. Also, many physicists believe there is a ton of evidence, predictions in relation to the multiverse. Edward Witten, Andrei Linde, Michio Kaku, Leonard Susskind, Brian Greene, Stephen Hawking, Sean Carroll, Steven Weinberg are just a few of the massive amount of physicists that support it. Eightbitlegend ( talk) 23:29, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Snowed: You deleted two paragraphs (below) because they were creationist "assertions and general material on naturalism." Come on. If you would have checked, you would have seen that both paragraphs are sourced directly from the same anti-creationist author: Steven D. Schafersman, whose anti-creationist article is posted on http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/schafersman_nat.html, which is an anti-creationist site. This material is pure Metaphysical naturalism philosophy. Creationism and creationists have nothing to do with it. Read Schafersman's article and you will see. Your cutting of these paragraphs is based solely on your knee-jerk reaction against creationism and not on rational thought. _ AshforkAZ ( talk) 13:13, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
"Naturalism is a philosophy that maintains:
Naturalism is therefore a metaphysical philosophy opposed primarily by Biblical creationism." [1]
The truth of Naturalism presumably depends upon the existence of a supernatural realm. If there is empirical evidence or a logical reason to believe in the supernatural without that evidence, then naturalism would be false. If it were certain that the supernatural did not exist, then naturalism would be true. But even if there is no evidence and no reason to believe in it despite the lack of evidence, the supernatural may possibly still exist without our knowledge. Thus, the naturalist must be agnostic about the existence of the supernatural and the ultimate truth of naturalism. Because of the lack of empirical evidence, it seems reasonable to disbelieve the supernatural and believe that naturalism is true. [2]
Are there any sources for that section? I have never heard, or understood, metaphysical naturalism defined in a way that makes it distinct enough from physicalism to be compatible with pluralism. The article's lead openly says "metaphysical naturalism is a monistic and not dualistic view of reality" - so at very lest there is some contradiction here. As far as I know, this section is incorrect and should be deleted.- Tesseract2 (talk) 19:29, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Was redirected here for "scientific materialism". Not convinced there's a real body of thought more than 40 years old on a subject called "metaphysical naturalism". I am happy to acquiesce regarding the possibility there really is one that passes notability; however, I want to see some very clear definitions right at the beginning. And not world-view claiming definitions at that.
To be clear: I am not convinced that there is such a thing. I've studied science, humanities, philosophy of science. This is new to me. I cast doubt on its existence.
damian ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:29, 29 October 2011 (UTC).
I added to the history of naturalism section (which has no references at all) information from a reliable source? What is it that cant be said? this doesn't make sense to me.
Here is what was posted. "Current naturalism derives from debates in America in the first half of the last century. Naturalists John Dewey, Ernest Nagel, Sidney Hook, and Roy Wood Sellars worked to ally philosophy more closely with science. Reality is exhausted by nature, containing nothing ‘supernatural’. The scientific method should be used to investigate all areas of reality." [3] It comes directly from the article called Naturalism by Papineau on the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. This author is listed in the next paragraph as among "prominent contemporary defenders of naturalism."
I cant see anything that is controversial in it. Consider the first sentence. This is a historical statement. Apparently there were debates among philosophers about what is naturalism and what is not. Nothing unusual about debates going on. Then in sentence two is a list of philosophers who wanted to have philosophy and science go hand in hand. No surprises there. Then come two sentences which summarizes what these philosophers were promoting. no surprises there. So what is it that cant be said? Mthoodhood ( talk) 08:21, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
Man jess: please explain your action better. Mthoodhood ( talk) 03:42, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Papineau is talking about religiously inclined philosophers who are apathetic toward strict metaphysical naturalism and who hold being a naturalist in esteem and who do not want to disqualify themselves a naturalists. They, therefore, endorse methodological naturalism. see [1]
In order to accurately reflect what Papineau is saying the paragraph should read:
Philosophers view naturalism as a positive term so few dare to announce themselves as non-naturalists. The religiously inclined philosophers tend to be indifferent toward metaphysical naturalism. Such philosophers who are more apathetic toward metaphysical naturalism prefer to understand naturalism in a nonrestrictive way in order not to disqualify themselves as naturalists. Instead they endorse methodological naturalism. Those who are keen on metaphysical naturalist doctrines are happy to set the bar for naturalism higher.
And "philosophers" need not be used since it applies not just to philosophers. Mthoodhood ( talk) 18:01, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Even so, this entry will not aim to pin down any more informative definition of ‘naturalism’. It would be fruitless to try to adjudicate some official way of understanding the term. Different contemporary philosophers interpret ‘naturalism’ differently. This disagreement about usage is no accident. For better or worse, ‘naturalism’ is widely viewed as a positive term in philosophical circles—few active philosophers nowadays are happy to announce themselves as ‘non-naturalists’.[1] This inevitably leads to a divergence in understanding the requirements of ‘naturalism’. Those philosophers with relatively weak naturalist commitments are inclined to understand ‘naturalism’ in a unrestrictive way, in order not to disqualify themselves as ‘naturalists’, while those who uphold stronger naturalist doctrines are happy to set the bar for ‘naturalism’ higher.[2]
[1] It should be noted that philosophers concerned with religion tend to be less enthusiastic about ‘naturalism’. See the essays in Craig and Moreland (eds) (2000) Naturalism a Critical Analysis.
[2] Philosophers who understand ‘naturalism’ in a generous sense include John McDowell (1996), David Chalmers (1996) and Jennifer Hornsby (1997).
— David Papineau, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2009 Edition), "Naturalism"
These philosophers [of the early 20th century] aimed to ally philosophy more closely with science. They urged that that reality is exhausted by nature, containing nothing ‘supernatural’, and that the scientific method should be used to investigate all areas of reality, including the ‘human spirit’ (Krikorian 1944, Kim 2003).
So understood, ‘naturalism’ is not a particularly informative term as applied to contemporary philosophers. The great majority of contemporary philosophers would happily accept naturalism as just characterized—that is, they would both reject ‘supernatural’ entities, and allow that science is a possible route (if not necessarily the only one) to important truths about the ‘human spirit'.
And
As indicated by the above characterization of the mid-twentieth-century American movement, naturalism can intuitively be separated into an ontological and a methodological component. The ontological component is concerned with the contents of reality, asserting that reality has no place for ‘supernatural’ or other ‘spooky’ kinds. By contrast, the methodological component is concerned with the ways of investigating reality, and claims some kind of general authority for scientific method.
And
In some philosophy of religion circles, ‘methodological naturalism’ is understood differently, as a thesis about natural scientific method itself, not about philosophical method. In this sense, ‘methodological naturalism’ asserts that religious commitments have no relevance within science: natural science itself requires no specific attitude to religion, and can be practiced just as well by adherents of religious faiths as by atheists or agnostics (cf. Draper 2005). This thesis is of interest to philosophers of religion because many of them want to deny that methodological naturalism in this sense entails ‘philosophical naturalism’, understood as atheism or agnosticism. You can practice natural science in just the same way as non-believers, so this line of thought goes, yet remain a believer when it comes to religious questions.
— David Papineau
Quote from schafferson article: In my own definition, a synthesis of those above, naturalism is the philosophy that maintains that (1) nature is all there is and whatever exists or happens is natural; (2) nature (the universe or cosmos) consists only of natural elements, that is, of spatiotemporal material elements--matter and energy--and non-material elements--mind, ideas, values, logical relationships, etc.--that are either associated with the human brain or exist independently of the brain and are therefore somehow immanent in the structure of the universe; (3) nature works by natural processes that follow natural laws, and all can, in principle, be explained and understood by science and philosophy; and (4) the supernatural does not exist, i.e., only nature is real, therefore, supernature is non-real. Naturalism is therefore a metaphysical position opposed mainly by supernaturalism. It is not an ethical system, although a variety--pragmatic naturalism, a synthesis of pragmatism and naturalism--does develop ethical positions. Furthermore, naturalism is a subset of metaphysical realism. Mthoodhood ( talk) 02:24, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
M.Elf massacred the article by inserting a definition into the middle of a definition. Fixed by moving his definition outside the original existing definition. Also replaced sourced material which M.Elf keeps removing and inserting his own unsourced opinion in its place (over and over and over again edit war style). If you have sourced material great, use it, but keep your opinion and POV to yourself. If you don't like a source, fine, but you cannot remove it based solely on your POV or opinion no matter your education or profession. You need to prove that the existing reliable source contradicts other reliable sources by obtaining these other sources which illustrate that point. The existing source already bases his definition on half-dozen other well established reliable sources.
Also, put references at the end of each line showing that they all are from the same source (which seemed like it was already obvious). And inserted logical ANDs at the end of the propositions showing that they are all integral parts of a single definition. Mthoodhood ( talk) 18:45, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
The second paragraph here is rather sketchy:
According to this article, metaphysical naturalism excludes any supernatural. However, some sources disagree with that. I brought that topic for discussion on Talk:Naturalism_(philosophy)#Definition_-_allow_for_supernatural_or_not.3F. -- Chealer ( talk) 03:58, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
I don't see anything in the "Science and metaphysical naturalism" section that's specific to metaphysical naturalism. Is there any reason not to move to Naturalism (philosophy)? -- Chealer ( talk) 21:03, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
I am amazed to see how complex the term "naturalism" is. In this use, there is first a big distinction between 2 "forms of naturalism", methodological and metaphysical naturalism. The difference here is rather clear.
However, it seems that just "naturalism" means different things to different people. This article is itself contradictory. The lead says:
However, the Metaphysical naturalism section contains:
The definition offered in Metaphysical naturalism is almost identical to the latter.
Obviously, this is inconsistent about whether naturalism allows for (a certain form of) supernatural or not. Both definitions are sourced, the latter with several references. The former, which I didn't verify, is attributed to the Oxford English Dictionary. Furthermore, this ambiguity is explicitly acknowledged by several sources:
Similarly:
What should be done? I guess these 2 senses need to be explained first, but then how would we choose between them? I think the difference is unimportant for methodological naturalism, but primary for metaphysical naturalism. "Weak" metaphysical naturalism seems to allow for some moral stances that would make no sense to "strong" metaphysical naturalists.
Should we choose a sense, and if not, what else can be done? Is there any terminology to disambiguate? -- Chealer ( talk) 03:54, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Opposed: As you no doubt anticipated from the discussion above (copied from Naturalism (philosophy)). Frankly, isn't it a bit too obvious that philosophy≠“science”, (not modern science anyway). Ideology, word games and WP:IDHT are no substitute for a cogent proposal.— Machine Elf 1735 23:30, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
The {{ close paraphrasing}} tag automatically listed this article for review at the copyright problems board. I do not see specific issues with close paraphrasing (please provide examples if retagging), but I do believe that the use of non-free content requires some work. For one example, the article says:
Metaphysical naturalism is a philosophy "wherein worship is replaced with curiosity, devotion with diligence, holiness with sincerity, ritual with study, and scripture with the whole world and the whole of human learning," and it is the naturalist’s duty "to question all things and have a well grounded faith in what is well-investigated and well-proved, rather than what is merely well-asserted or well-liked."
While the quotations are cited, they are not attributed as required by WP:NFC; see WP:INTEXT for more information. All direct quotations should be properly attributed.
Please also make sure that there is valid reason to make use of this non-free content rather than simply a desire to incorporate the information. Where content can be properly paraphrased, it often should be; quotations do certainly have value, but should be transformative, such as (to draw on the WP:NFC examples) "illustrat[ing] a point, establish[ing] context, or attribut[ing] a point of view or idea."
Thanks. -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:53, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
Mthoodhood and SmittyhillIII blocked as socks, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Allenroyboy/Archive. Dougweller ( talk) 16:52, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
According to the Wikipedia entry on Carl Sagan, he indicated rather clearly that he was not an atheist:
On atheism, Sagan commented in 1981: "An atheist is someone who is certain that God does not exist, someone who has compelling evidence against the existence of God. I know of no such compelling evidence. Because God can be relegated to remote times and places and to ultimate causes, we would have to know a great deal more about the universe than we do now to be sure that no such God exists. To be certain of the existence of God and to be certain of the nonexistence of God seem to me to be the confident extremes in a subject so riddled with doubt and uncertainty as to inspire very little confidence indeed".[46] In reply to a question in 1996 about his religious beliefs, Sagan answered, "I'm agnostic."[47] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.223.19.171 ( talk) 09:12, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
". . .only nature is real[2], i.e. Atheism." Metaphysical naturalism is not equivalent to atheism. Atheism is the lack of belief in God or gods. It is possible to lack belief in God but still believe in supernatural entities such as ghosts, demons, angels, etc. 108.200.48.254 ( talk) 03:25, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
This is not necessarily true. I (the relatively high functioning "conscious" organic deterministic state machine typing this) am the result of ongoing chemically based computation occurring within my body and in reaction to the inputs I come across, and as such, am no more than a series of "memories" (currently existing sets of atoms and related interactions) and processes (sets of atoms and interactions existing since I was "born" [a state which I shall define as that when these such processes exist]). There is no reason to assume that we cannot deduce these processes and memories and replicate them in another substrate. While my mind is wholly material, if it were executing on a different substrate I would still say I exist and interacting with me you may not be able to say I am not the me that is/was my brain. Indeed my brain 30 years from now will have largely replaced its constituent atoms while the interactions occurring among the atoms today will still cause me to be me.
Perhaps these sections as a whole are largely missing something. The current scientific understanding of the mind / body problem has significantly changed since prior to 1960 (although had I the chance to discuss this with Mr. Stace I am certain I could have convinced him both that the mind is material and that it is not only the static brain).
--
216.37.197.178 (
talk) 00:11, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
I added this section, and I would prefer it to stay up. If there is something needing modification, or attention, please do assert it. But if metaphysical naturalism is true, it ought to be able to better other metaphysical explanations, such as realism, and other things cited in the subsection I added. 67.3.135.155 ( talk) 22:02, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
This section reads like an advertisement for someone trying to sell Ed Feser's book. Despite the fact that Feser is arguing for a classical position in philosophy which is not held by the majority of philosophers, it reads as though he personally has concluded and won the argument [4]. Another huge problem is that it reads as though classical philosophy offers the only variants of realism and that naturalism is tied to either nominalism or eleminative materialism. Neither one of these claims is true. There are many more variants of realism that are either naturalistic or compatible with naturalism. There are also other options for the naturalist besides eleminativism or nominalism.
If this section stays up on the article, then it needs to be completely rewritten. This rewritting needs to include the fact that (1) the naturalist position is taken by the majority of philosophers to be best explanation for these things (probably citing David Chalmer's massive survey "What Do Philosophers Believe?" that outlines this which I referenced above), (2) making it not a biased advertisement for Feser's book (don't make it about Feser and do not treat it as though his popular level book written from his side is the end of the discussion), and (3) citing a list of the schools of philosophy that are taken as better answers by professional philosophers.
Eightbitlegend ( talk) 15:19, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
I didn't find Reference Desk Humanities or Science to be appropriate places for this question, although this comment does not suggest a precise change, sorry about that; but it pertains to this article.
When verifying various definitions (including Webster 1913 and this article's), I see the use of belief, doctrine and denial, to describe the naturalist point of view. Which made me question if there has ever been evolution of the definition over time in certain sources.
I may be mistaken, but describing naturalism as a doctrine or belief, reminds me the common fallacy presented to athiests: "how can you prove that a diety doesn't exist?", when of course, athiests respond that it's simply non-belief in a diety, because of the lack of evidence; we cannot produce non-evidence, but acknowledge the observable.
Similarily, as someone who considers to hold a naturalist view, I don't find that faith is required to hold this view, which would only be altered if evidence of non-physical, non-naturalistic processes at work were demonstrated. Therefore, I'm not convinced that belief or doctrine are technically adequate terms to define naturalism.
If the definition indeed evolved in this direction in the work of some authors (a point of view, acknowlegement, or assertion, versus a belief or doctrine), we probably should have mention of this in the article, and possibly even alter the definition in the lead? But do such works even exist making the distinction? Thanks, 76.10.128.192 ( talk) 15:12, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Metaphysical naturalism. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 03:52, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Metaphysical naturalism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 08:56, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Metaphysical naturalism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 17:29, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
This article's scope should be more clearly defined: that it's about 19th century philosophical metaphysical naturalism (not naturalism or methodological naturalism or the scientific method, or physical constants, etc). There is a tendency (and it has been a long-time target of a prolific sockpuppeteer WP:LTA in this sense) to accumulate subtle (mostly YEC Christian) apologetics, including via extensive quote mining of notable people, to promote a relativist view (a stepping stone to deny evolution, etc). The introduction of the article also begins with a description from Schafersman that seems to confirm that objections are primarily from Biblical creationism. Creationist apologetics should not be given undue weight in a mainstream encyclopedia. The article also has strange "for/against" sections that are not only imbalanced but are in the spirit of WP:FALSEBALANCE. The "for" one doesn't even mention the general success of science and technology, however obvious. The "against" goes to the nonsensical, but can be comprehensible on a philosophical basis only (and are against materialism more than metaphysical naturalism, with "Evolutionary argument against naturalism" clearly apologetic and within a philosophy of religion scope; also see Ruse's response about conflating methodological and metaphysical naturalism). But it's also possible that this is all out of the ideal scope of the article... — Paleo Neonate – 20:15, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
Sources for further reference:
— Paleo Neonate – 03:56, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help)
Based on the following sources:
{{
cite web}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
I just reverted an extended edit by 173.55.80.176 that appeared to slant much of the article toward a particular view, that of Dennis Polis. While it was obviously a good-faith edit and clearly represented a lot of work on some anonymous editor's part, it appeared to violate NPOV, so I reverted it. Any other opinions on this? Agathman ( talk) 19:56, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
It is quite clear that this article was written by a believer. The "arguments" section is particulary bad in the sense that it lists very weak arguments in the "against" sub-section. The arguments "for" contain no citations whatsoever, but when I recently tried to add a strong argument "against", equally without citation, it was promptly removed. This is ludicrous. Either allow both, or none at all. If I don't see reliable sources added to that section in short order, it is only fair to wipe it out completely. As a philosopher, there is nothing more repugnant to me than a group of individuals who cannot stand to put the best argumentation forward, both for and against. It is the only way to procede in philosophy. A belief system which cannot withstand a proper debate is not worth believing in the first place. Sylvanius 16:05, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
The article describes Intelligent Design as legally unscientific. This is bizarre on several levels. For one thing this article is about philosophy not science, and arguments do not have to be scientific. Further the claim is based on US law which should not be privileged above other legal systems. (I can imagine Iranian law having a different opinion.) Finally it is not clear that it matters at all whether the law views the theory as unscientific. I will delete this description. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MathHisSci ( talk • contribs) 15:34, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
At the top of this page, Wildbot points out that the "primacy" link in "(see Value of society and Primacy of happiness below)" is broken (section Metaphysical naturalism#Evolution).
That is because this edit (Dec 2008) removed the "Primacy of happiness" section (search for "primacy" on this talk page). I suppose the link should just be removed? Johnuniq ( talk) 01:31, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
The section on "Mind as brain" claims that the "Causal Closure" paradigm has been falsified. However, the reference material points to http://xianphil.org/testing_cc.html and doesn't support this and neglects to take into consideration that parts of the brain can change the chemistry of other parts. It's taken from a book that isn't a scientific text and is isn't accepted as part of scientific literature.
Moreover, the site on which the article is hosted has this on the front page:
"Open philosophy is an approach that combines science with traditional wisdom to build a truly inclusive worldview. Dr. Dennis F. Polis is a Catholic Philosopher-Physicist and is available to speak on the challenges science poses to the religious worldview."
Hardly seems a credible source. The section that says Causal Closure has been falsified needs to go ASAP. Bhagwad ( talk) 12:36, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
the sentence "However, the existences of multiverses with variant physical constants and natural laws, which is required to support the antropic principle counterargument the is completely unsupported by any scientific data, and violates the empirical principles on which naturalism is supposed to be based." is just counter-factual.
It insinuates that the multiverse violates Occam's razor, but OR is meant to clean up hypothesis. If something exists, it can not be shaved off. If this were the case, then sub-atomic particles would violate OR. Also, many physicists believe there is a ton of evidence, predictions in relation to the multiverse. Edward Witten, Andrei Linde, Michio Kaku, Leonard Susskind, Brian Greene, Stephen Hawking, Sean Carroll, Steven Weinberg are just a few of the massive amount of physicists that support it. Eightbitlegend ( talk) 23:29, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Snowed: You deleted two paragraphs (below) because they were creationist "assertions and general material on naturalism." Come on. If you would have checked, you would have seen that both paragraphs are sourced directly from the same anti-creationist author: Steven D. Schafersman, whose anti-creationist article is posted on http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/schafersman_nat.html, which is an anti-creationist site. This material is pure Metaphysical naturalism philosophy. Creationism and creationists have nothing to do with it. Read Schafersman's article and you will see. Your cutting of these paragraphs is based solely on your knee-jerk reaction against creationism and not on rational thought. _ AshforkAZ ( talk) 13:13, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
"Naturalism is a philosophy that maintains:
Naturalism is therefore a metaphysical philosophy opposed primarily by Biblical creationism." [1]
The truth of Naturalism presumably depends upon the existence of a supernatural realm. If there is empirical evidence or a logical reason to believe in the supernatural without that evidence, then naturalism would be false. If it were certain that the supernatural did not exist, then naturalism would be true. But even if there is no evidence and no reason to believe in it despite the lack of evidence, the supernatural may possibly still exist without our knowledge. Thus, the naturalist must be agnostic about the existence of the supernatural and the ultimate truth of naturalism. Because of the lack of empirical evidence, it seems reasonable to disbelieve the supernatural and believe that naturalism is true. [2]
Are there any sources for that section? I have never heard, or understood, metaphysical naturalism defined in a way that makes it distinct enough from physicalism to be compatible with pluralism. The article's lead openly says "metaphysical naturalism is a monistic and not dualistic view of reality" - so at very lest there is some contradiction here. As far as I know, this section is incorrect and should be deleted.- Tesseract2 (talk) 19:29, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Was redirected here for "scientific materialism". Not convinced there's a real body of thought more than 40 years old on a subject called "metaphysical naturalism". I am happy to acquiesce regarding the possibility there really is one that passes notability; however, I want to see some very clear definitions right at the beginning. And not world-view claiming definitions at that.
To be clear: I am not convinced that there is such a thing. I've studied science, humanities, philosophy of science. This is new to me. I cast doubt on its existence.
damian ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:29, 29 October 2011 (UTC).
I added to the history of naturalism section (which has no references at all) information from a reliable source? What is it that cant be said? this doesn't make sense to me.
Here is what was posted. "Current naturalism derives from debates in America in the first half of the last century. Naturalists John Dewey, Ernest Nagel, Sidney Hook, and Roy Wood Sellars worked to ally philosophy more closely with science. Reality is exhausted by nature, containing nothing ‘supernatural’. The scientific method should be used to investigate all areas of reality." [3] It comes directly from the article called Naturalism by Papineau on the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. This author is listed in the next paragraph as among "prominent contemporary defenders of naturalism."
I cant see anything that is controversial in it. Consider the first sentence. This is a historical statement. Apparently there were debates among philosophers about what is naturalism and what is not. Nothing unusual about debates going on. Then in sentence two is a list of philosophers who wanted to have philosophy and science go hand in hand. No surprises there. Then come two sentences which summarizes what these philosophers were promoting. no surprises there. So what is it that cant be said? Mthoodhood ( talk) 08:21, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
Man jess: please explain your action better. Mthoodhood ( talk) 03:42, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Papineau is talking about religiously inclined philosophers who are apathetic toward strict metaphysical naturalism and who hold being a naturalist in esteem and who do not want to disqualify themselves a naturalists. They, therefore, endorse methodological naturalism. see [1]
In order to accurately reflect what Papineau is saying the paragraph should read:
Philosophers view naturalism as a positive term so few dare to announce themselves as non-naturalists. The religiously inclined philosophers tend to be indifferent toward metaphysical naturalism. Such philosophers who are more apathetic toward metaphysical naturalism prefer to understand naturalism in a nonrestrictive way in order not to disqualify themselves as naturalists. Instead they endorse methodological naturalism. Those who are keen on metaphysical naturalist doctrines are happy to set the bar for naturalism higher.
And "philosophers" need not be used since it applies not just to philosophers. Mthoodhood ( talk) 18:01, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Even so, this entry will not aim to pin down any more informative definition of ‘naturalism’. It would be fruitless to try to adjudicate some official way of understanding the term. Different contemporary philosophers interpret ‘naturalism’ differently. This disagreement about usage is no accident. For better or worse, ‘naturalism’ is widely viewed as a positive term in philosophical circles—few active philosophers nowadays are happy to announce themselves as ‘non-naturalists’.[1] This inevitably leads to a divergence in understanding the requirements of ‘naturalism’. Those philosophers with relatively weak naturalist commitments are inclined to understand ‘naturalism’ in a unrestrictive way, in order not to disqualify themselves as ‘naturalists’, while those who uphold stronger naturalist doctrines are happy to set the bar for ‘naturalism’ higher.[2]
[1] It should be noted that philosophers concerned with religion tend to be less enthusiastic about ‘naturalism’. See the essays in Craig and Moreland (eds) (2000) Naturalism a Critical Analysis.
[2] Philosophers who understand ‘naturalism’ in a generous sense include John McDowell (1996), David Chalmers (1996) and Jennifer Hornsby (1997).
— David Papineau, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2009 Edition), "Naturalism"
These philosophers [of the early 20th century] aimed to ally philosophy more closely with science. They urged that that reality is exhausted by nature, containing nothing ‘supernatural’, and that the scientific method should be used to investigate all areas of reality, including the ‘human spirit’ (Krikorian 1944, Kim 2003).
So understood, ‘naturalism’ is not a particularly informative term as applied to contemporary philosophers. The great majority of contemporary philosophers would happily accept naturalism as just characterized—that is, they would both reject ‘supernatural’ entities, and allow that science is a possible route (if not necessarily the only one) to important truths about the ‘human spirit'.
And
As indicated by the above characterization of the mid-twentieth-century American movement, naturalism can intuitively be separated into an ontological and a methodological component. The ontological component is concerned with the contents of reality, asserting that reality has no place for ‘supernatural’ or other ‘spooky’ kinds. By contrast, the methodological component is concerned with the ways of investigating reality, and claims some kind of general authority for scientific method.
And
In some philosophy of religion circles, ‘methodological naturalism’ is understood differently, as a thesis about natural scientific method itself, not about philosophical method. In this sense, ‘methodological naturalism’ asserts that religious commitments have no relevance within science: natural science itself requires no specific attitude to religion, and can be practiced just as well by adherents of religious faiths as by atheists or agnostics (cf. Draper 2005). This thesis is of interest to philosophers of religion because many of them want to deny that methodological naturalism in this sense entails ‘philosophical naturalism’, understood as atheism or agnosticism. You can practice natural science in just the same way as non-believers, so this line of thought goes, yet remain a believer when it comes to religious questions.
— David Papineau
Quote from schafferson article: In my own definition, a synthesis of those above, naturalism is the philosophy that maintains that (1) nature is all there is and whatever exists or happens is natural; (2) nature (the universe or cosmos) consists only of natural elements, that is, of spatiotemporal material elements--matter and energy--and non-material elements--mind, ideas, values, logical relationships, etc.--that are either associated with the human brain or exist independently of the brain and are therefore somehow immanent in the structure of the universe; (3) nature works by natural processes that follow natural laws, and all can, in principle, be explained and understood by science and philosophy; and (4) the supernatural does not exist, i.e., only nature is real, therefore, supernature is non-real. Naturalism is therefore a metaphysical position opposed mainly by supernaturalism. It is not an ethical system, although a variety--pragmatic naturalism, a synthesis of pragmatism and naturalism--does develop ethical positions. Furthermore, naturalism is a subset of metaphysical realism. Mthoodhood ( talk) 02:24, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
M.Elf massacred the article by inserting a definition into the middle of a definition. Fixed by moving his definition outside the original existing definition. Also replaced sourced material which M.Elf keeps removing and inserting his own unsourced opinion in its place (over and over and over again edit war style). If you have sourced material great, use it, but keep your opinion and POV to yourself. If you don't like a source, fine, but you cannot remove it based solely on your POV or opinion no matter your education or profession. You need to prove that the existing reliable source contradicts other reliable sources by obtaining these other sources which illustrate that point. The existing source already bases his definition on half-dozen other well established reliable sources.
Also, put references at the end of each line showing that they all are from the same source (which seemed like it was already obvious). And inserted logical ANDs at the end of the propositions showing that they are all integral parts of a single definition. Mthoodhood ( talk) 18:45, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
The second paragraph here is rather sketchy:
According to this article, metaphysical naturalism excludes any supernatural. However, some sources disagree with that. I brought that topic for discussion on Talk:Naturalism_(philosophy)#Definition_-_allow_for_supernatural_or_not.3F. -- Chealer ( talk) 03:58, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
I don't see anything in the "Science and metaphysical naturalism" section that's specific to metaphysical naturalism. Is there any reason not to move to Naturalism (philosophy)? -- Chealer ( talk) 21:03, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
I am amazed to see how complex the term "naturalism" is. In this use, there is first a big distinction between 2 "forms of naturalism", methodological and metaphysical naturalism. The difference here is rather clear.
However, it seems that just "naturalism" means different things to different people. This article is itself contradictory. The lead says:
However, the Metaphysical naturalism section contains:
The definition offered in Metaphysical naturalism is almost identical to the latter.
Obviously, this is inconsistent about whether naturalism allows for (a certain form of) supernatural or not. Both definitions are sourced, the latter with several references. The former, which I didn't verify, is attributed to the Oxford English Dictionary. Furthermore, this ambiguity is explicitly acknowledged by several sources:
Similarly:
What should be done? I guess these 2 senses need to be explained first, but then how would we choose between them? I think the difference is unimportant for methodological naturalism, but primary for metaphysical naturalism. "Weak" metaphysical naturalism seems to allow for some moral stances that would make no sense to "strong" metaphysical naturalists.
Should we choose a sense, and if not, what else can be done? Is there any terminology to disambiguate? -- Chealer ( talk) 03:54, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Opposed: As you no doubt anticipated from the discussion above (copied from Naturalism (philosophy)). Frankly, isn't it a bit too obvious that philosophy≠“science”, (not modern science anyway). Ideology, word games and WP:IDHT are no substitute for a cogent proposal.— Machine Elf 1735 23:30, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
The {{ close paraphrasing}} tag automatically listed this article for review at the copyright problems board. I do not see specific issues with close paraphrasing (please provide examples if retagging), but I do believe that the use of non-free content requires some work. For one example, the article says:
Metaphysical naturalism is a philosophy "wherein worship is replaced with curiosity, devotion with diligence, holiness with sincerity, ritual with study, and scripture with the whole world and the whole of human learning," and it is the naturalist’s duty "to question all things and have a well grounded faith in what is well-investigated and well-proved, rather than what is merely well-asserted or well-liked."
While the quotations are cited, they are not attributed as required by WP:NFC; see WP:INTEXT for more information. All direct quotations should be properly attributed.
Please also make sure that there is valid reason to make use of this non-free content rather than simply a desire to incorporate the information. Where content can be properly paraphrased, it often should be; quotations do certainly have value, but should be transformative, such as (to draw on the WP:NFC examples) "illustrat[ing] a point, establish[ing] context, or attribut[ing] a point of view or idea."
Thanks. -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:53, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
Mthoodhood and SmittyhillIII blocked as socks, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Allenroyboy/Archive. Dougweller ( talk) 16:52, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
According to the Wikipedia entry on Carl Sagan, he indicated rather clearly that he was not an atheist:
On atheism, Sagan commented in 1981: "An atheist is someone who is certain that God does not exist, someone who has compelling evidence against the existence of God. I know of no such compelling evidence. Because God can be relegated to remote times and places and to ultimate causes, we would have to know a great deal more about the universe than we do now to be sure that no such God exists. To be certain of the existence of God and to be certain of the nonexistence of God seem to me to be the confident extremes in a subject so riddled with doubt and uncertainty as to inspire very little confidence indeed".[46] In reply to a question in 1996 about his religious beliefs, Sagan answered, "I'm agnostic."[47] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.223.19.171 ( talk) 09:12, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
". . .only nature is real[2], i.e. Atheism." Metaphysical naturalism is not equivalent to atheism. Atheism is the lack of belief in God or gods. It is possible to lack belief in God but still believe in supernatural entities such as ghosts, demons, angels, etc. 108.200.48.254 ( talk) 03:25, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
This is not necessarily true. I (the relatively high functioning "conscious" organic deterministic state machine typing this) am the result of ongoing chemically based computation occurring within my body and in reaction to the inputs I come across, and as such, am no more than a series of "memories" (currently existing sets of atoms and related interactions) and processes (sets of atoms and interactions existing since I was "born" [a state which I shall define as that when these such processes exist]). There is no reason to assume that we cannot deduce these processes and memories and replicate them in another substrate. While my mind is wholly material, if it were executing on a different substrate I would still say I exist and interacting with me you may not be able to say I am not the me that is/was my brain. Indeed my brain 30 years from now will have largely replaced its constituent atoms while the interactions occurring among the atoms today will still cause me to be me.
Perhaps these sections as a whole are largely missing something. The current scientific understanding of the mind / body problem has significantly changed since prior to 1960 (although had I the chance to discuss this with Mr. Stace I am certain I could have convinced him both that the mind is material and that it is not only the static brain).
--
216.37.197.178 (
talk) 00:11, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
I added this section, and I would prefer it to stay up. If there is something needing modification, or attention, please do assert it. But if metaphysical naturalism is true, it ought to be able to better other metaphysical explanations, such as realism, and other things cited in the subsection I added. 67.3.135.155 ( talk) 22:02, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
This section reads like an advertisement for someone trying to sell Ed Feser's book. Despite the fact that Feser is arguing for a classical position in philosophy which is not held by the majority of philosophers, it reads as though he personally has concluded and won the argument [4]. Another huge problem is that it reads as though classical philosophy offers the only variants of realism and that naturalism is tied to either nominalism or eleminative materialism. Neither one of these claims is true. There are many more variants of realism that are either naturalistic or compatible with naturalism. There are also other options for the naturalist besides eleminativism or nominalism.
If this section stays up on the article, then it needs to be completely rewritten. This rewritting needs to include the fact that (1) the naturalist position is taken by the majority of philosophers to be best explanation for these things (probably citing David Chalmer's massive survey "What Do Philosophers Believe?" that outlines this which I referenced above), (2) making it not a biased advertisement for Feser's book (don't make it about Feser and do not treat it as though his popular level book written from his side is the end of the discussion), and (3) citing a list of the schools of philosophy that are taken as better answers by professional philosophers.
Eightbitlegend ( talk) 15:19, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
I didn't find Reference Desk Humanities or Science to be appropriate places for this question, although this comment does not suggest a precise change, sorry about that; but it pertains to this article.
When verifying various definitions (including Webster 1913 and this article's), I see the use of belief, doctrine and denial, to describe the naturalist point of view. Which made me question if there has ever been evolution of the definition over time in certain sources.
I may be mistaken, but describing naturalism as a doctrine or belief, reminds me the common fallacy presented to athiests: "how can you prove that a diety doesn't exist?", when of course, athiests respond that it's simply non-belief in a diety, because of the lack of evidence; we cannot produce non-evidence, but acknowledge the observable.
Similarily, as someone who considers to hold a naturalist view, I don't find that faith is required to hold this view, which would only be altered if evidence of non-physical, non-naturalistic processes at work were demonstrated. Therefore, I'm not convinced that belief or doctrine are technically adequate terms to define naturalism.
If the definition indeed evolved in this direction in the work of some authors (a point of view, acknowlegement, or assertion, versus a belief or doctrine), we probably should have mention of this in the article, and possibly even alter the definition in the lead? But do such works even exist making the distinction? Thanks, 76.10.128.192 ( talk) 15:12, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Metaphysical naturalism. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 03:52, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Metaphysical naturalism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 08:56, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Metaphysical naturalism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 17:29, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
This article's scope should be more clearly defined: that it's about 19th century philosophical metaphysical naturalism (not naturalism or methodological naturalism or the scientific method, or physical constants, etc). There is a tendency (and it has been a long-time target of a prolific sockpuppeteer WP:LTA in this sense) to accumulate subtle (mostly YEC Christian) apologetics, including via extensive quote mining of notable people, to promote a relativist view (a stepping stone to deny evolution, etc). The introduction of the article also begins with a description from Schafersman that seems to confirm that objections are primarily from Biblical creationism. Creationist apologetics should not be given undue weight in a mainstream encyclopedia. The article also has strange "for/against" sections that are not only imbalanced but are in the spirit of WP:FALSEBALANCE. The "for" one doesn't even mention the general success of science and technology, however obvious. The "against" goes to the nonsensical, but can be comprehensible on a philosophical basis only (and are against materialism more than metaphysical naturalism, with "Evolutionary argument against naturalism" clearly apologetic and within a philosophy of religion scope; also see Ruse's response about conflating methodological and metaphysical naturalism). But it's also possible that this is all out of the ideal scope of the article... — Paleo Neonate – 20:15, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
Sources for further reference:
— Paleo Neonate – 03:56, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help)
Based on the following sources:
{{
cite web}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help)