Replies

What's the criteria for deciding which disciplines and subjects need to conform to that standard, and which don't? Is molecular biology a "broad" subject, or a "narrow" subject?

It's about the investigation much more so than the discipline.

Okay. What's the criteria for deciding which investigation need to conform to that standard, and which don't? We've got examples of investigations that are being done wrong because they're not objective, and others that seem perfectly acceptable even though it's admitted that they are quite subjective.

What's the criteria for deciding which investigation need to conform to that standard, and which don't?

It is a simple matter. My proposal was:

How about simply approaching science the way mathematicians approach problems? Which is to say, declare upfront whatever axioms apply to the particular investigation and otherwise keep an open mind.

It an axiom applies to the investigation, declare it. If not, don't and keep an open mind.

The claim that methodological naturalism yields an objective result is subjective per se. And it's irrelevant in my proposal.

Again many if not most of the routine investigations are managed by protocols which establish the axioms such as they are for a particular class of investigation.

The ground breaking investigations are the ones that would be affected by my proposal.

For instance, if you want to theorize about the rise of autonomy in biological life then state your applicable presuppositions first. What constitutes autonomous biological life? Do you take an RNA world as a "given?" Do you limit the investigation to physicochemical causation? Do you presume an arrow of time, four dimensional space/time? Do you exclude information theory? And so on.