Fine, declare what tangible evidence you use to presuppose standards of naturalism and I will get back to you. Are you really so dense as not to understand the question?
By the way, one does not "presupposition." A presupposition is an "a priori" assumption one brings to the table. One "presupposes" certain things and adopts them usually without critical analysis. It is like a fish being unaware of the medium in which it swims (to quote another). This is why the modern technocrats splutter so angrily when they are challenged on this issue, and continue to recite the same old cant about science dealing with the observable and quantifiable, as if this were a new vantage point that was heretofore unacknowledged. Naturalistic assumptions are not a part of science, but are simply the philosophical a prioris of many modern scientists.
Fine, declare what tangible evidence you use to presuppose standards of naturalism and I will get back to you. Are you really so dense as not to understand the question?
OK. I declare tangible evidence to be evidence which I can somehow detect. Is this really rocket science to you?
By the way, one does not "presupposition." A presupposition is an "a priori" assumption one brings to the table.
Save the etimology lessons for someone who cares. You knew what I was trying to communicate, and neologism isn't a felony.
One "presupposes" certain things and adopts them usually without critical analysis. It is like a fish being unaware of the medium in which it swims (to quote another). This is why the modern technocrats splutter so angrily when they are challenged on this issue, and continue to recite the same old cant about science dealing with the observable and quantifiable, as if this were a new vantage point that was heretofore unacknowledged. Naturalistic assumptions are not a part of science, but are simply the philosophical a prioris of many modern scientists.
This is pretentious gibberish of an old stripe. People much less wordy than you have been confusing themselves, and others, about the distinction between philosophical naturalism and the choice of science to deal only with tangible evidence, since before you were a gleam in your father's eyes.