Actually, yes. The "givens" of methodological naturalism. What are they? I read your post with interest and you raise some good questions I might address later, but for now, I'd like to know the fundamental assumptions of those who view whatever sensory communication the universe presents, including those who might view it from what is known as "methodological naturalism."
From my viewpoint as an observer, I am approximately halfway through a journey that will allow me to collect and evaluate the universe into which I was born. "Science," to me, is what I can make of it all based on all the sources that communicate to me whether by nature or by other intelligent beings such as yourself.
It is from this perspective that I 1.) would rather engage in dialogue with adherents of evolution without resorting to "proof texts" and "links," and 2.) freely admit to ignorance on a scale science most likely cannot measure. Ignorance is not something I enjoy or seek to promote, but it is a HUGE given from my point of view.
. . . science is conservative.
Insofar as it does not yield theory on a whim, I agree. That is why I believe Copernicus made his propositions after seeing evidence, and not by arbitrarily thinking to himself, "Let's see what happens if I think about the earth as revolving around the sun."
But the word "conservative" carries too much baggage to be applied to science as a whole. IOW, in a certain way Copernicus was radical, and he was right.
. . . fossil evidence . . .
Think about what meets the senses of anyone who is introduced to fossils. Objectively, without the filter of books and teachings of other people, how much fossil evidence have you viewed with your own eyes? Everything I know about fossils, besides a few I've gotten to hold in my hand, comes from the testimony of other observers. The ones I've held in my hand do not speak to me about where they came from, how old they are, and how they came into being.
Even when I read about fossil evidence in a book, it is presented in two dimensions, when fossils are three dimensional at least, and possibly four dimensional. Already the evidence has been tainted.
Well sure, there were discrepancies and difficulties with the prevailing theory. Lots of people were working on it. However the arbitrariness of Copernicus' thought isn't far off the mark. As I have mentioned before (a couple of times and for this very reason) the Tychonic scheme was a good an explanation as the Copernican, better in fact because it explains the lack of apparent motion of the stars due to the earth's motion in the Copernican scheme. Suppose Copernicus had thought of Tycho's scheme first. Galileo might never have been persecuted.
in a certain way Copernicus was radical, and he was right.
I said science is conservative. I hope you agree that science can be conservative even if not all scientists are. But, was Copernicus radical? Certainly he had a new and promising idea, but he also kept circular motion and even added epicycles. Was Einstein radical? He turned physics upside down. But he could never reconcile himself to the reality of QM. I don't think radical is the right term.
There were radicals though. For example, when Napolean asked Laplace why his book didn't mention God, he reportedly said "I have no need of that hypothesis." Methodological naturalism was a radical development. The overthrow of determinism with QM is another. I guess my point is that radicalism in science has more to do with changing the underlying philosophy in a fundamental way. On the scale of radical-ness then I'd put Copernicus way down the list.
Everything I know about fossils, besides a few I've gotten to hold in my hand, comes from the testimony of other observers.
So? Everything I know about virtually everything is that way. I've never seen the Eiffel Tower first hand. I've never seen George Bush in person. China? They say there're over a billion people there, but I've never seen them.
I think what you may have been trying to say is that the interpretation of fossils is suspect and arbitrary because it is theory laden. Have I got that right?