Seriously?Jim B. wrote:So you're saying that the two are the same?
I spent most of my last but one post pointing out that I do not thnk they are the same.
Well done, Jim, loks like you have learnt something.MN is a methodological approach, it's not about ontology or what really is.
Very good!It's about what scientists have to assume for the sake of doing their research.
Very clever, Jim. See, you can get this stuff.Physicalism is a metaphysical thesis. It's about what really is (purportedly), the actual nature of reality in its entirety.
Now if you can just get your head around the fact that I do not think they are the same thing, we will have achieved something.
Correct! In fact, I would say for our discussion physicalism is near enough the same as metaphysical naturalism (or philosophical naluralism).In that sense it's more akin to metaphysical naturalism, not methodological naturalism.
Again, very good.Let's say you're a geologist who's also a Christian who believes in immaterial souls. To do your geological research, you'd have to be a methodological naturalist, while at the same time you are NOT a physicalist because you do not subscribe to the thesis that all of reality is physical or supervenes on the physical. Your metaphysical worldview does not have to impinge on your activity as a scientist.
Or things that supervene on the physical.Maybe you're saying that science is restricted to investigating physical things.
No, it is not.I would agree with that but that's not physicalism.
Which brings us back to JBSptfn's claim that IMS "is stuck in the science=physicalism only program". See, the truth is that IMS believes science uses MN. Because it does. But JBSptfn has presented this straw man. And given he has now abandoned this thread, I think it is clear he knew it was a straw man.
No. But no one said it did - apart from JBSptfn's straw man.restricting your field of study to physical things does not necessitate a metaphysical thesis.
Because JBSptfn made that straw man about physicalism. There is a relationship between science and physicalism, and I was trying to show that. Here is how I finished my last post on the first page:Agreed. So why do you keep saying that science is r4estricted to physicalism? Why not say it's restricted to MN?
That does not mean physicalism is necessarily true, only that science is restricted to it. This is generally called methodological naturalism.