How does that work in practical terms, as a methodology? How do you even justify employing logic without "editing" the world down to your expectation that whatever it is you're investigating will have a logical explanation?
The "editing" business I was referring to is the reduction of one's problem to the size of one's model, so to speak. A pithy way to put it is, "If all one has is a hammer, then every problem looks like a nail."
Or put another way, it's like placing a template down over reality, and everything that shows through is admitted as relevant to one's problem; but the template itself also occludes much from view, which is still very much a part of the reality under investigation.
I hope this makes sense. Sometimes the most obvious things are the most difficult to explain. Go figure!
Anyhoot, if the use of doctrinal templates is what constitutes a "method," then it seems to me it's a pretty bad one. FWIW.
How do you justify your belief that every problem has a logical explanation?
How do you define what a logical explanation is? I can see that things in the world can have logical consequences arising from causes that are quite irrational. Can we cite an irrational cause as a "logical explanation?"
To illustrate, an example from Nobel Laureate (Literature, 1981) Elias Canetti's stunning novel Auto-da-Fé: Peter Wien, great scholar and leading sinologist of his time, having gone totally insane, was the cause of the immolation of his beloved and treasured library (of 25,000+ books) and of himself. (That must have been one Hell of a weenie roast.) This is a logical explanation. But it misses the point of what happened to Peter to cause his utter psychic breakdown, and tells us nothing about the etiology and course of his disease, why it happened, etc. Still, the cause of the fire was irrational, arising in a thoroughly devastated mind — which according to materialists/methodological naturalists is just an epiphenomenon of the physical brain, yada-yada, and as such mind is really unable to cause anything. This would be classed as an immaterial or NOT-natural cause, thus a fiction to begin with.
The scientists will come in to do the forensics after the fact. It seems science cannot tell us very much else about what happened.