[grey_whiskers]

Should we only allow naturalistic assumptions? Only allowing a philosophical framework based on naturalism limits science!

Would I be going too far by suggesting that science is based on naturalism because we can (in principle at least) reliably, repeatably test natural things to double check our ideas of what makes them work?

Would I be going too far by saying that "by definition" we cannot experiment on God?

Would I be going too far by saying that even if it were possible to experiment on God, we wouldn't necessarily be able to say with confidence that the experiment was valid, because God might be deliberately changing the way he acted, for the course of the experiment, for any reason He chose?

Would I be going too far to say that, once you allow extra-natural influences, which you cannot test, then for the sake of logical consistency, you have no a priori grounds for excluding ANYTHING, from pixies to angels?

In other words, if you can't measure it consistently or reliably, you are in no position to use science to deal with it.

It is not NECESSARILY that all such entities must be entirely the result of deranged minds, as some skeptics like to claim (Bill Maher). But if you have no way of reliably testing or sifting through HOW or WHEN a supernatural being will act, then there is no tidy way of incorporating it into a mathematical model.

And thus while there may or may not be a supernatural, it is and will remain a non-trivial task to try to incorporate any supernatural elements into a scientific framework.

The problem is that while there are other means of acquiring knowledge about things, (eyewitness testimony as from courtrooms, experience such as tennis practice or karate, "angels appearing from on high", etc.), the other forms of acquiring knowledge tend to be personal, or subjective, or not easily reproducible by independent, disinterested observers. Therefore there is the distinct possibility of a lot of junk being accepted because there is no good way of weeding it out. And scientists, being used to having very efficacious means of making sense out of things, tend to eschew less effective methods.

OTOH, most scientists tend to avoid strict reliance on the scientific method in their personal lives. There is a time and a place for things, you know. :-)

Cheers!

[Ichneumon]

Would I be going too far to say that, once you allow extra-natural influences, which you cannot test, then for the sake of logical consistency, you have no a priori grounds for excluding ANYTHING, from pixies to angels?

Blasphemer: You are denying the Invisible Pink Unicorns?

[nasamn777]

Would I be going too far by suggesting that science is based on naturalism because we can (in principle at least) reliably, repeatably test natural things to double check our ideas of what makes them work?

ID makes the claim that it is possible to detect intelligence by examining the information content of patterns. If the pattern is specified and complex, it is designed. ID uses only natural methods in the determination of design. The philosophical assumption behind ID is that there may exist processes designed by intelligence. Naturalists don't allow the possibility that there may exist non-natural processes -- which limits science.