Quote of the Day

bFast: you wrote: "I contend that methodological naturalism itself is absolutely unfalsifiable". However I thought to understand that the expression "(un)falsifiable" applied solely to theories and hypotheses. Methodological Naturalism is, as I understand it, a methodology. In what way could a methodology (of whatever kind) be falsifiable? Antwerpenaar

russ, I would contend that ID is also not falsifiable, and for the very same reasons. Both methodological naturalism and ID should, in my opinion, be relegated to the philosophy department. That said, however, the ID paradyme produces very falsifiable theories, such as IC, CSI, etc. These theories should be pursued by the scientific community with all of the gusto that the theory of natural selection is pursued -- especially as these theories seriously challenge (falsify) the theory of natural selection. However, these theories, falsifiable though they are, are rejected as "non-science" because the unfalsifiable philosophy of methodological naturalism requires their expulsion. bFast

However, I contend that methodological naturalism itself is absolutely unfalsifiable. As such, it doesn’t even have the protection of a genuine invitation to the world that it be proved wrong.

Whatever happened to Darwinists' suggestions that ID be relegated to philosophy departments? Is that "helpful" suggestion still being offered?

russ

I think that the single belief that the scientific community places the most warrant on is the belief in methodological naturalism. However, I contend that methodological naturalism itself is absolutely unfalsifiable. As such, it doesn't even have the protection of a genuine invitation to the world that it be proved wrong. bFast