quote:
crashfrog: I don't have to provide evidence for a naturalistic paradigm.
Phsopho: Yes, you do. Especially when that naturalistic paradigm is assumed, not proven.
You'll not be able to advance this argument any further without more clarity. Crashfrog made it pretty clear that for him the naturalistic paradigm is the default because it requires no supernatural entities. Phospho is really just saying "no" but giving no clearly argued reason for this. Simply saying to each other "prove it" and "don't need to" is pretty pointless.
A more constructive approach could be taken by considering not absolute positions of what holds and does not hold, but a process-oriented view. Are we using an inductive strategy that can reliably
lead to truth, and if so, is my "working hypothesis"
of the moment compatible with that process?
I'll put my cards on the table and say that I think the naturalistic hypothesis is entirely compatible with "inference to the best explanation." It may be that the "best explanation" turns out to be a supernatural one. But that does not mean that adopting a "supernatural" paradigm during the inductive process is compatible with a reliable inductive strategy.
In other words, asking one or other to prove a paradigm as true is simply neither useful
or necessary - in fact it may even be incompatible with a suitable strategy. The really interesting question is whether the inductive strategy can be improved or not.
I suppose it could be said that believers in supernaturalism claim to have found - through the Bible perhaps - a more
efficient strategy for reaching the truth. That may well be so. The question remains, however, as to which strategy is appropriate for science.
In this context, then, crashfrog need not prove the chosen paradigm tombe true, only that choosing that paradigm is compatible with an appropriate inductive strategy.
™ Version 4.2