What is Naturalism? (Ontological vs Methodological)
Вставка
- Опубліковано 10 лют 2025
- An explication of the position Naturalism and the difference between ontological naturalism and methodological naturalism.
Information for this video gathered from The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, The Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy and more!
Information for this video gathered from The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, The Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy and more!
Helped me out a ton! Many thanks!
Glad to help. Thanks for watching!
Only question I have in terms of moral responsibility. We are apex predators. Does it not fall on our own onus the top of the food chain to protect what is below humanity in a sense? Also sorry for the edit I am a drunk man I with ideas and a thirst for understanding the booze cannot quench.
I’ve had great thoughts while drinking. Not always but it can help! 🥃
I believe that as merely sapient creatures (not just as apex predators) we have the burden to tend to the planet and it's creatures in a sustainable way, not to abuse it and end up losing it. Not only is it vaguely moral in a sense it's also morally utilitarian, as without a planet that is inhabitable to us we would ultimately go extinct
4:13 Mathematics and logical truths can be said to have direct influence on the physical world: you read a textbook of either maths or logic that textbooks *makes* your brain to think about those subjects; you and your brain is part of the natural/physical world; therefore, maths and logical truths influence directly the physical world.
6:24 I can't help but comment on my dislike over this term along with 'a posteriori': humans use experience as basis for knowledge/truths and then come the cognitive capabilities so the distinction between ''either'' a priori or a posteriori truths is useless. Both experience and cognitive functions are necessary for all truths. I don't understand why anyone would consider those terms true and factual in this time and age (7th of March, 2023; greetings future viewers).
I don't understand why the two are lumped together, they don't seem close in meaning.Can someone explain, maybe I'm missing something.
It seems you are conflating between the principle of verifiability and methodological naturalism. The verifiability principle, long been refuted by Alvin Plantinga, states that what is not scientifically verifiable cannot be true or is meaningless. But, as Plantinga has shown, it suffers from failing to live up to its own standards since the principle itself is not scientifically verifiable. Methodological naturalism, as it has been used, works a scientific framework which states that for any natural occurence, there can only be natural (as opposed to supernatural) explanations.
I am a Crusader Well actually it doesnt make sense to "verify" a methodology by observation, as ine would with objects, etc. Verification is made true by the "facts" discovered by it, and how well such facts cohere with "common sense" observations.
Truth Crusader verifiability principle wasn't refuted by Alvin.
@@jokerxxx354 He did though.
Can you explain what the supernatural is and what it does for the issue? Can you do it without asserting things that can't really be verified? And beyond that, what about animals...do they require this supernatural framework/substance/input for them to navigate the natural world, find food, avoid predators, find mates and make babies or is it just humans that need it?
Is gravity not real since it is a nonphysical entity that influences the "natural" world? Is gravity not the relationship between the distance of 2 objects not the physical objects themselves? Is this a syntgetic definition of no physical entities influencibg our world? What is the distinction between phenomena such as gravity and other non-physical "entities" responsible for anomalies and otherwise inexplicable forces we've yet to define?
Gravity is a physical entity since it affects the physical world. Just like microwaves can heat your coffee, a gravity wave can affect a Ligo interferometer. If a preacher could consistently bring the power of God down to his congregation, then the power of God would be part of the physical world And we can do scientific studies of this phenomena.
Great point. But gravity and microwaves both existed long before they were discovered. A microwave oven is a little different because it is amplified by electricity but without this a "microwave" is just a spectrum of wavelengths. Science has done an amazing job of discovering different forces that can interact with our physical world, even to the point where a microwave can be manually controlled for intensity and time to heat our food perfectly. However, they were here long before we were and will still be there after we leave.
If a microwave, or any other invention that involves electricity were explained to a person 200 years ago they would say it were properties only "God" could perform.
God is such an ineffable and vague term. It is one of the oldest concepts to be translated through the years across virtually every known language. To define God in certain terms and proceed to describe how he doesn't exist because he doesn't fulfill these terms is not only fallacious, it is a pointless and meaningless waste of time.
To say that science describes how God works would be a little inaccurate but still much more semantically sound than saying "science disproves God's existence."
@Opabinia regalis There are many phenomenon that interact with the physical world. I believe that there are also a multitude of phenomenon that can be measured without emmitting photons (EEG/EKG, Neuro pathways and cognitive activity, quantum mechanics, theoretical particle physics etc.) But for the purposes of what your terms I'll say that there are many currently undiscovered phenomenon that can be measured by relating photon emitting objects.
Many uneducated people attribute this to "God" yet when a human figures out how to control this phenomenon it is credited as science. My point is that both are semantically similar, however they attribute the phenomenon to different sourcess. The phenomenon itself exists in either case. To say that one disproves the other is like saying a square is a rectangle. It is more accurate, and thus more useful, but the figure exists either way. The more the phenomenon is attributed to science the more it is susceptible to inaccuracy and invalidity. Sort of a dumb man's Occams Razor.
Great video
Thanks! Thanks for watching!
Many times I been accused of being a ontological naturalist on the basis of being an atheist. I don't categorically deny that supernatural is possible but I do think its current definition is non-cogitative and cannot be made sense of. I usually just say I am only methodological when it comes to naturalism. Is this good way to respond?
+TheAtheistPaladin "I usually just say I am only methodological when it comes to naturalism."
It is not at all clear what you mean by that. You should think of a better way to say it, at least.
Suppose there were a logically isolated place, meaning that nothing in that place can affect or be in any relation to anything in our world. By definition no investigation of nature could ever discover that place's existence or non-existence. It would be fair and coherent to call that place supernatural because it is outside of nature. Further, anyone who claims that it does not exist is doing so without evidence.
+TheAtheistPaladin I agree with Ansatz66 in that ontological naturalism seems to be a position which lacks foundation. You could say that you are skeptical (don't assert that they exist or don't exist) about supernatural entities, or simply say that you find the concept poorly defined and therefore do not take a position on the truth of their existence.
Separate from that is whether or not you want to be a methodological naturalist which concerns how you think philosophy should be done, not the kind of things that exist, and would not be determined by your beliefs about God.
Is such place said to be outside the realm of space-time? If so, I would argue that such a place has NEVER existed ANYWHERE.
One reason I'm a naturalist is that I find claims of entities that transcend the natural/physical, spacio-temporal world to be nonsensical.
Carneades.org there are two main arguments for ontological naturalism:
1. First point to the success of methodological naturalism (science) and argues that ontological naturalism should be adopted.
2. Argues from the law of conservation of energy and argues that our universe is causally closed, meaning that nothing supernatural could possibly interact with it because that would break the law of conservation of energy.
I believe there is good foundation for ontological naturalism and so do most contemporary philosophers.
What is s wind /air considered to be ? Natural or supernatural? I know some will say h2o but we actually made this up so to say we called these atoms names etc .we also made up the idea of atoms , but theses things it cannot be seen as material or matter .they seem to be more of a spiritual nature much like God the father.as far as I understand atoms are a theory.time and space also do not phage a natural composition so to say ,they are spiritual ,yet many use such things to measure the physical world .curious!
Air is natural. Last I heard, atoms were still matter. They are still real. They can't be seen by the naked human eye; but neither can viruses.
Thank you very much for this video!
We're yet to find out.
@@ItsSchwifty Hi Schwifty, indeed :) - also might you be bilingual? :)
@@kimberley1235 One year later, nope.
Not every naturalist is bad, they are individuals, they are not a diety.
I feel as if near death experiences weren’t considered when naturalism started to spring up.
A naturalistic approach would likely just be the brain misfiring while deprived of oxygen amidst dying, making whatever is seen seem to not be a dream - or perceiving themselves out of body using a still functioning part of the nervous system. It's not an after biological death experience, but some may be inclined despite that to construe it as a preview of an afterlife.
Well...if they're truly 'near death' then they're not something that represents what one 'experiences' after death are they? What specific things are you saying happened that make you think it was something other than what we experience when we dream?
NDE’s are easily explained by naturalism. They are “near death” not “afterlife” so they don’t offer any evidence of the supernatural.
I don't get it. Of course we should use science only, to determine the nature of everything. And to me, I see no difficulty or fuzziness about what's supernatural and what's not. Real stuff is that which can be detected by the senses, amplified by technology, or proven via mathematics. Everything else is supernatural, or my preferred definition, bull shit. What's the human spirit or "soul?" It's some superlative software running on a marvelous meat computer, or brain. (Protip: The software goes away when the meat computer dies and rots away to dust.)
So your own consciousness is supernatural? It cannot be detected by the senses.
Lucas Davenport mathematicd is fiction and so is morality. If you try to define consciousness as immaterial, well it is fiction as well.
Ian Wardell of course it can be detected by the sense, what do you think neuroscientists have been studying till now?
Water is made up of molecules, yet a single molecule cannot make a wave. But if you observe many molecules together you will observe wave. The same is with consciousness, it is emergent phenomenon from the interaction between neurons.
Well rationalguy the demarcation line is not that clear, or to be more precise, whether something can be declared supernatural or not is defined by the limitations in our observation. So we can not have absolute claims.
But we can have a really useful definition on what constitutes as supernatural.
The supernatural is the idea that phenomena or processes have the ability to manifest inside the Physical World without being contingent on its processes or fundamental entities.
So, in essence,the term supernatural is a label we use on claims which ignore known ways by which processes, entities and properties emerge in our world.
eg. Its a common claim by people is to assume mind properties in addition to nature (like god(s), mystical concept of consciousness, souls, ghosts).
That is a supernatural claim because in nature, there is only one known way to observe mind properties emerging and that way is.... complex physical structures like biological brains.
Assuming that brains are not needed (our mind is not contingent to our brains) that is a supernatural claim.
Assuming that advanced properties which can only be observed in complex biological structures, can also be displayed by really simple undetectable elements of nature,(eg, mind as a field or a mystical substance) is also a supernatural claim.
So we always have to be reminded of our observational "capabilities" in order to be sure, but we roughly agree that we can demarcate pretty well the supernatural.
Lucas Davenport" Morality or consciousness have not been ‘proven’ through the senses or mathematically. Try again "
-Now that is an argument from ambiguity. You are trying to "evaluate" abstract concepts with wrong mediums and "tools".
Mathematics provide proofs for relations and values ...not for existence.
Existence is verified or falsified ONLY by empirical experimentation.
Great example, the Higgs Boson. Higgs relations in his math pointed to a boson,which it was "proven" to be real by LHC....after 60 years.
Now those two abstract concepts are descriptive labels of real phenomena in phenomenon.
Morality is a label for a set of criteria we use in the evaluation of the quality in the behavior among thinking agents. Those qualities have real life implications (affect the groups and our's well being).
Consciousness is a also descriptive label of our world and more specifically, of a brain function. Its our ability to direct our attention towards environmental and organic stimuli.
There is nothing to be proven....they both are real processes and our senses inform us about them.
I guess most supernaturalist assume that consciousness and morality are entities on their own, but that is not the case. That misconception is the product of bad language mode!
Whose here cause of Red Dead?
Say, if you were a dogmatist, would you be a naturalist or theist?
+3DMint As a skeptic, I take my definition of dogmatist from Sextus Empiricus, and give it as one that holds any beliefs. So potentially you could be either or neither. ua-cam.com/video/YNFyQD8zxkM/v-deo.html
3DMint naturalism is not dogma. It based on experience.
Ontology must be rooted in revelation, and the only revelation we have today is Islamic sources. This is why Muslims are the only ones who have a clear concept of the soul, the afterlife, the unseen, the beginning and the end, etc. But it takes humility to accept this first, and then patience to take the time to study it second.
Out of millions of different and correlating perspectives, a word is the truth?
Halaqa your islamic sources are the same rebranded shit from the christian sources. Naturalism is the only rational view, which is based on the success of the scientific method.
@Ninja FEESE So therefore it is the truth?
@Ninja FEESE Potentially a book from god. But who decides which book is from god and which books is not? Why is just a few from god and others not? How can a book not be replicated?
@Ninja FEESE Who's law of non-contradiction?
Why are they correct?
Does reading something/someone outside of you telling you something is true, mean that information is truth?
so Mason dipper Pines is an ontological naturalist. got it lol
The sitting duck of philosophy.
D
Heh he reminds me of Kermit
It's not easy being green. :)
The true and real spirit.is the best teacher,bible is the complete and exact book of the universe,it depends in the explanation it matters,
Can you prove that?
@@TomAnderson_81 base on my experience,that is proof,and the bible is exact proof,
Luisa Mandac
Any writings, such as a comic book, a magazine, a newspaper, a school text, are not exactly proof. They are more like descriptions of things, beliefs, concepts, ideas, etc. A science book on, for example, cells, is not proof of cells. Only cells are proof of cells. A writing is a mere representation or description of, for example, cells.
So, the Bible cannot be proof but merely a “pointer” to the proof. If you claim it is 100% accurate then you carry a burden of proof. Meanwhile, according to gathered statistical data, here are mountains of biblical inaccuracies which leads many to believe that the Bible is not “the exact book of the universe”:
rationalwiki.org/wiki/Biblical_scientific_errors
www.discoveringislam.org/bible_scientific_errors.htm
www.extremelysmart.com/insight/mistaken/Bible_errors.php
religions.wiki/index.php/Scientific_inaccuracies_in_the_Bible
it seems that someone skiped the logic/falacy series.
This is a false distinction invented by philosophers. Naturalism requires only one supposition: that the world outside our heads is real. From there everything becomes a matter of observation, testing and testable prediction. So-called ontological naturalism is a conclusion, not an assumption. So-called methodological naturalism is better called empiricism; naturalists don’t necessarily insist upon a single methodology, they only require that any assertions of fact must be attained by a reliable method. If some method other than physical analysis
produces testable, predictable results, thats fine.
God is the owner of everything,believe it or not,.i have facts,
@human being we are human beings,we only have physical,material things,i believe in temporal things,but God is eternal,
@human beingdon 't a rgue.read the bible,the catechism,go to Jerusalem,and also nature
@human being i am sorry,when i was a kid i don't know about God
It is not magic when your Creator always was. *It is magic when matter makes itself exist and programs itself to be your father and mother.* That's 100% magic and 100% not true.
Naturalism is a 100% baseless belief in magic. It's such an absurd weird belief. It's the definition of cognitive dissonance.
This is special pleading. Everything has to follow Rule A, except for the thing I'm arguing.
Well your first claim (on a creator) is an ontological speculation about an unobservable entity!
The second claim is a straw man and an appeal to ridicule(Reductio ad absurdum).
The physical world is a fact and a conclusion of a Descriptive approach not a speculative one.
It exists and we are able to observe and interact with its existence!
We know matter exists. We don't say that matter "makes itself" though. What we observer is quantum fluctuations are a real phenomenon(particles pop in and out of existence/Nobel winning discovery).
We also know that fundamental particles "team up" and produce bigger structures due to the actions of known forces and their properties. If there was a god, it would use that exact mechanism to put up your parents. That is what we observer, parents consist from those fundamental particles. Those particles don't program themselves. Their existing properties define this "program".
"Naturalism is a 100% baseless belief in magic."
-Naturalism , is an INDEFENSIBLE belief ...not a 100% baseless belief! After all, we do know that nature and the processes in the realm are real.
The ontological position of naturalism "only the natural exist" is a problematic one and it has a burden.
Methodological Naturalism on the other hand is the most reasonable position (default position)there is, right in the middle of Naturalism and Supernaturalism (theism).
It is the acknowledgement of our limitations in our observations and methodologies. We are stuck in this empirical aspect of the world/self without having the knowledge or the way to investigate other (maybe) possible aspects.
So by avoiding any speculations beyond our observations we are trying to produce knowledge claims in agreement with those limitations.
Throughout history, whenever we sought to meaningfully understand, predict, or manipulate a phenomena, be it a volcanic eruption, the spreading of disease, the movement of galaxies, or the properties of electricity, the best explanations were always natural. It seems likely that this trend will continue. It is for this reason that most modern academics working in fields like philosophy, cosmology, neuroscience, etc., (people's whose job it is to explain phenomena and "fit the data") only consider natural explanations. The success of methodological naturalism doesn't deductively entail ontological naturalism, but it's about as strong of an evidential argument as you're ever going to get.