[atlaw]

If natural means fail to explain observed phenomena that is believed to be natural, there is either a natural aspect of the phenomena that has not been observed, or the phenomena is supernatural.

If all aspects of the phenomena that can be observed, have been observed, and there is still no natural explanation, any further attempt to explain it by natural means is pure conjecture.

If the means for determining whether something is supernatural is to eliminate all possible natural explanations, then it certainly seems that scientists are performing precisely that task. And it seems that those who complain about a "naturalistic" bias should instead be pleased by the persistent existence of that bias. After all, how else is the supernatural going to be located?

The question is, of course, at what point do you call off the investigation and announce "it's supernatural"? That "throw in the towel" declaration doesn't have a very good track record.

[Fichori]

" If the means for determining whether something is supernatural is to eliminate all possible natural explanations, then it certainly seems that scientists are performing precisely that task. And it seems that those who complain about a "naturalistic" bias should instead be pleased by the persistent existence of that bias. After all, how else is the supernatural going to be located?

The question is, of course, at what point do you call off the investigation and announce "it's supernatural"? That "throw in the towel" declaration doesn't have a very good track record."

The axiom of Naturalistic Science dictates there is no supernatural, so the 'towel' never gets thrown in, even if it should.

It is not the business of science to locate the supernatural.


The correct way to deal with a phenomena with no natural explanation is to say, 'this is beyond science', and then leave it at that until more empirical evidence is available.

The naturalistic method of saying, 'we cannot explain it naturally, so we will just make up some conjecture and call it fact' does not have a very good track record either and is not empirical science.


I find it almost funny, The Naturalistic method of science commits the exact fallacy, to the other extreme, that you are falsely claiming my method of empirical science commits.


Empirical science is wherever the evidence leads.

Naturalistic Science is wherever Naturalism, evidence notwithstanding, leads.