" 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."
Do you have an example of when it should?
It is not the business of science to locate the supernatural.
Agreed.
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.
This makes no sense. Where is this generic "empirical evidence" coming from? And what is it "empirical evidence" of? You seem to be saying that the correct way for science to investigate the presently inexplicable is to just not investigate it.
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.
Of course, this cute caricature of science is nonsense. But you know that.
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.
What fallacy are you talking about? And what, specifically, is your "method of empirical science," and how does it differ from the scientific method?
Empirical science is wherever the evidence leads.
Once again, that big pile of generic evidence. How do you know where that evidence is leading if you don't ask, don't hypothesize, don't infer or deduce, don't theorize?