Abstract
AbstractI present and evaluate three interpretations of methodological naturalism (MN), the principle that scientific explanations may only appeal to natural phenomena: as an essential feature of science, as a provisional guideline grounded in the historical failure of supernatural hypotheses, and as a synthesis of these two approaches. In doing so, I provide both a synoptic overview of current scholarship on MN, as well a contribution to that discussion by arguing in favor of a restricted version of MN, placing it on a firmer theoretical foundation than that supplied by previous studies, and replying to recent objections.
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Reference58 articles.
1. Applegate, K. (2013). A defense of methodological naturalism. Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith, 56(1), 37–45.
2. Bishop, R. C. (2013). God and methodological naturalism in the scientific revolution and beyond. Perspectives on Science and the Christian Faith, 65(1), 10–23.
3. Boucher, S. C. (2020). Methodological naturalism in the sciences. International Journal for Philosophy of Religion, 88(1), 57–80.
4. Boudry, M., & Fishman, Y. I. (2013). Does science presuppose naturalism (or anything at all)? Science & Education, 22(5), 921–949.
5. Boudry, M., Blancke, S., & Braeckman, J. (2010). How not to attack intelligent design creationism: Philosophical misconceptions about methodological naturalism. Foundations of Science, 15, 227–244.
Cited by
1 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献，注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献，订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献