Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Philosophy, in all its guises. => Topic started by: Walt Zingmatilder on September 06, 2025, 10:46:30 AM
-
Oh the statements we take for granted.
What then exactly is the method and when was the last time you used it..........comments like "I'm doing it now" to be treated with the contempt they deserve, silence on the matter as a "well, I don't really know ".
-
Oh the statements we take for granted.
What then exactly is the method and when was the last time you used it..........comments like "I'm doing it now" to be treated with the contempt they deserve, silence on the matter as a "well, I don't really know ".
Or utter boredom at your continued badly considered, badly defined, badly written vacuous posts
-
Or utter boredom at your continued badly considered, badly defined, badly written vacuous posts
You can't articulate what your oft mentioned "Method" is?
-
You can't articulate what your oft mentioned "Method" is?
oddly enough it's not mine, and after your rather sad poisoning of the well, made even sadder given that you have seemed to indicate no problem with the concept in the past.
I don't have a lot to disagree with the high level summary hete, which I think you have posted before.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalism_(philosophy)
-
oddly enough it's not mine, and after your rather sad poisoning of the well, made even sadder given that you have seemed to indicate no problem with the concept in the past.
I don't have a lot to disagree with the high level summary hete, which I think you have posted before.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalism_(philosophy)
I probably did. It does mention physicalism, empiricism and materialism so my question is, if we have those, why introduce naturalism. In other words, what does this new term bring to the party apart from a wooly grey area for people exposed as physicalists, empiricist and materialists.
So then when you talk about methodological naturalism, what is special about this method?
-
I probably did. It does mention physicalism, empiricism and materialism so my question is, if we have those, why introduce naturalism. In other words, what does this new term bring to the party apart from a wooly grey area for people exposed as physicalists, empiricist and materialists.
So then when you talk about methodological naturalism, what is special about this method?
Exposed? No preconceived bias in that critical analysis, then?
What's special about it - to quote your absolute favourite 'Atheist Saint(TM)', "... it works, bitches."
O.
-
I probably did. It does mention physicalism, empiricism and materialism so my question is, if we have those, why introduce naturalism. In other words, what does this new term bring to the party apart from a wooly grey area for people exposed as physicalists, empiricist and materialists.
So then when you talk about methodological naturalism, what is special about this method?
It works. Got one that works for the supernatural claim?
-
It works. Got one that works for the supernatural claim?
Yes but this is what I'm driving at. In what way does it work that methodological materialism, or methodological physicalism or methodological empiricism doesn't.....or is it really a term which gussies up the other 3?
Look when it comes to the material, the physical and the empirical I'm as methodological as the next man but get Into the natural and it gets a bit wooly, pretentious and frankly a bit Emperor's new clothesey.
-
Exposed? No preconceived bias in that critical analysis, then?
What's special about it - to quote your absolute favourite 'Atheist Saint(TM)', "... it works, bitches."
O.
"It works, bitches' ...how old are you?
-
Yes but this is what I'm driving at. In what way does it work that methodological materialism, or methodological physicalism or methodological empiricism doesn't.....or is it really a term which gussies up the other 3?
Look when it comes to the material, the physical and the empirical I'm as methodological as the next man but get Into the natural and it gets a bit wooly, pretentious and frankly a bit Emperor's new clothesey.
I don 't see any significant difference between those. It's just that methodological naturalism is the more common term. I have no idea what you think you are saying with your last sentence.
-
"It works, bitches' ...how old are you?
Old/young enough to still be amused at how much that riles some people. The author, of course, is I believe in his mid-80's now (although when he said in 2013 he was 'only' in his early 70's; and the original author, the excellent Randall Munroe of XKCD and 'What If' fame, is currently barely 40 years young).
Sort of an ad hominem, though, of course - how old I am, or Professor Dawkins is, or Munroe is irrelevant to the point. You asked what makes methodological naturalism different, and that's what makes it different - it works.
O.
-
Old/young enough to still be amused at how much that riles some people. The author, of course, is I believe in his mid-80's now (although when he said in 2013 he was 'only' in his early 70's; and the original author, the excellent Randall Munroe of XKCD and 'What If' fame, is currently barely 40 years young).
Sort of an ad hominem, though, of course - how old I am, or Professor Dawkins is, or Munroe is irrelevant to the point. You asked what makes methodological naturalism different, and that's what makes it different - it works.
O.
So the difference between Methodoligical naturalism and Methodological materialism, physicalism and empiricism is that it works and materialism, physicalism and empiricism don't?
What are you talking about?
-
I don 't see any significant difference between those. It's just that methodological naturalism is the more common term. I have no idea what you think you are saying with your last sentence.
So that rather makes the term natural redundant then.
-
Old/young enough to still be amused at how much that riles some people. The author, of course, is I believe in his mid-80's now (although when he said in 2013 he was 'only' in his early 70's; and the original author, the excellent Randall Munroe of XKCD and 'What If' fame, is currently barely 40 years young).
Sort of an ad hominem, though, of course - how old I am, or Professor Dawkins is, or Munroe is irrelevant to the point. You asked what makes methodological naturalism different, and that's what makes it different - it works.
O.
What is the 'It' you think is working?
-
So that rather makes the term natural redundant then.
No, because in the phrase methodological naturalism ir is obviously not redundant. If you meaning can be replaced by another word with similar meaning then yes, but that isn't redundancy.
-
No, because in the phrase methodological naturalism ir is obviously not redundant. If you meaning can be replaced by another word with similar meaning then yes, but that isn't redundancy.
So what is the difference between naturalism and the similar but different materialism, physicalism or empiricism?