I think that I also replied to you in a direct and thoughtful way. Apparently you took what I wrote in a condescending way towards you. If so, I do apologize to you for that. I certainly don't know nearly as much as I'd like, but I do know that my response to you was anything but disrespectful.
While I appreciated your first post and enjoyed considering the points you raised, I do believe you've jumped to the wrong conclusions on my response to you. You've also implied that I'm:
1)Wanting to move the goal posts of the argument.
2)I'm not smart enough to see that the analogy of the transitive rule you provided (rock paper scissors) is not the transitive rule. It's actually a non-transitive rule. (They are not the same thing and I pointed it out w/out the condescension you've offered)
3)Ignorant of history.
I have no problem admitting if and when I'm shown to be wrong, but it is hard to take anybody seriously who resorts to borderline name calling. Why can't people just have a dialog w/out the ad hominems? If you don't agree and you are choosing to engage a person, why not remain civil? How does your last response show anything but a short fuse?
It's OK. I won't waste more of your time as you seem to now think that I am. Thanks for the earlier response. It was good while it lasted.
...it is hard to take anybody seriously who resorts to borderline name calling.Borderline? I guess I must not be any good at it since it wasn't intended to be borderline.
However, I shall take you at your word for now. I likewise apologize. I have held you to a stricter standard than others - I usually allow several strikes. If you will refrain from using misleading rhetoric, I will be happy to engage you.
BTW, you do know what a strawman argument is and why it is wrong, right? Well maybe not so here is a link. As a specific instance, if I use the word reliable, do not "refute" my point by substituting the word infallible.
Now, let's continue directly and thoughtfully to address your main question, "why must [methodological naturalism] be the paradigm?"
I would say first that "must" isn't the correct way to look at it. The proper word is "ought" by which I mean that it is not a necessity but rather a rational choice. It is a rational choice because it the only method so far developed that has produced reliable knowledge about the world.