Who here believes in "Scientism"?

[shunyadragon]

???

Can you explain how normal social science fails to meet the standards of methodological naturalism?

The use of basic sciences is increasing in recent history, the Social Sciences include such things as subjective behavior observations different philosophies of human behavior, and surveys that will not meet the Standards of ME

What is increasing in recent history of advances is the objective knowledge of the neurological function of the brain to understand human behavior and consciousness,

The Current of Consciousness: Neural Correlates and Clinical Aspects

In this review, we summarize the current understanding of consciousness including its neuroanatomic basis. We discuss major theories of consciousness, physical exam-based and electroencephalographic metrics used to stratify levels of consciousness, and ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Purpose of Review​

In this review, we summarize the current understanding of consciousness including its neuroanatomic basis. We discuss major theories of consciousness, physical exam-based and electroencephalographic metrics used to stratify levels of consciousness, and tools used to shed light on the neural correlates of the conscious experience. Lastly, we review an expanded category of ‘disorders of consciousness,’ which includes disorders that impact either the level or experience of consciousness.

Recent Findings​

Recent studies have revealed many of the requisite EEG, ERP, and fMRI signals to predict aspects of the conscious experience. Neurological disorders that disrupt the reticular activating system can affect the level of consciousness, whereas cortical disorders from seizures and migraines to strokes and dementia may disrupt phenomenal consciousness. The recently introduced memory theory of consciousness provides a new explanation of phenomenal consciousness that may explain better than prior theories both experimental studies and the neurologist’s clinical experience.

Summary​

Although the complete neurobiological basis of consciousness remains a mystery, recent advances have improved our understanding of the physiology underlying level of consciousness and phenomenal consciousness.

more to follow , , ,

Do you think social scientists commonly invoke supernatural or divine explanations for events?

No

Methodological naturalism just means the assumption that (for the purpose of scientific enquiry) events have natural explanations and causes rather than supernatural ones.

No that is not what Methodological Naturalism means.

 

[Augustus]

No that is not what Methodological NAturalism means.

Yes it is.

"methodological naturalism (MN), the principle that scientific explanations may only appeal to natural phenomena"

Methodological Naturalism, Analyzed - Erkenntnis

I 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...

link.springer.com

"The philosophical doctrine of methodological naturalism holds that, for any study of the world to qualify as "scientific," it cannot refer to God's creative activity (or any sort of divine activity)."

Alvin Plantinga, Methodological Naturalism - PhilPapers

The philosophical doctrine of methodological naturalism holds that, for any study of the world to qualify as "scientific," it cannot refer to God's creative activity (or any sort of divine activity). ...

philpapers.org

What do you think it means?

 

[shunyadragon]

Yes it is.

"methodological naturalism (MN), the principle that scientific explanations may only appeal to natural phenomena"

Methodological Naturalism, Analyzed - Erkenntnis

I 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...

link.springer.com

"The philosophical doctrine of methodological naturalism holds that, for any study of the world to qualify as "scientific," it cannot refer to God's creative activity (or any sort of divine activity)."

Alvin Plantinga, Methodological Naturalism - PhilPapers

The philosophical doctrine of methodological naturalism holds that, for any study of the world to qualify as "scientific," it cannot refer to God's creative activity (or any sort of divine activity). ...

philpapers.org

What do you think it means?

Exactly what it says.

 

[Augustus]

Methodological naturalism just means the assumption that (for the purpose of scientific enquiry) events have natural explanations and causes rather than supernatural ones.

No that is not what Methodological Naturalism means.

Yes it is.

"methodological naturalism (MN), the principle that scientific explanations may only appeal to natural phenomena"

What do you think it means?

Exactly what it says.

So you agree that it means exactly what I said it means and you you were wrong to claim it means something different. Excellent.

Now can you give a coherent explanation of how social science does not use methodological naturalism as defined above?

If you claim it does not use methodological naturalism, you are implicitly claiming it uses supernatural explanations. That it sometimes contains subjective evaluations does not mean it transgresses the boundaries of methodological naturalism.

There are certainly reasons to view social sciences as methodologically distinct and significantly less reliable than natural sciences (and a failure to sufficiently recognise this can be a marker of scientism), but the difference is not that social sciences stray from naturalistic explanations.

 

[shunyadragon]

So you agree that it means exactly what I said it means and you you were wrong to claim it means something different. Excellent.

I never considered it anything different

Now can you give a coherent explanation of how social science does not use methodological naturalism as defined above?

I did. there aspects of the Social Sciences that so not conform to the standards of Methodological Naturalism

If you claim it does not use methodological naturalism, you are implicitly claiming it uses supernatural explanations.

Absolutely no

That it sometimes contains subjective evaluations does not mean it transgresses the boundaries of methodological naturalism.

Subjective explanations in Social Sciences have nothing to do with supernatural claims.

There are certainly reasons to view social sciences as methodologically distinct and significantly less reliable than natural sciences (and a failure to sufficiently recognise this can be a marker of scientism), but the difference is not that social sciences stray from naturalistic explanations.

I would not say significantly less reliable, but yes cannot meet entirely meet the standards of ME at present.

Naturalism in the social sciences : a short review

“Naturalizing” social sciences ? Naturalism is a family of philosophical and scientific positions broadly stating that all observable phenomenon are part to the same causally integrated world. Natural scientist typically work toward explain those phenomenons by exposing and formalizing...

kairos-research.org

Yet, the life sciences exemplify how a naturalist approach can apply to such complex systems, differing significantly in their practice and structure to what we understand as “hard”, formal science. Physical scientists routinely study systems which respond to stimulation in a regular and predictable way, allowing them to state mathematically tractable laws which are a sufficient description of said system in a given context. A life scientist, on the other hand, is rarely in any position to mentally isolate two dynamics of the systems they study. On the contrary, living organism are organized at multiple imbricated scales, and explicative models must integrate these in the explanation of any phenomenon (Mitchell 2003).

The question of whether the natural sciences can indeed address the complexity of societies, or even of what it would mean, is therefore an open one. The purpose of the present article is to help answer it by presenting the main research programs associated to naturalism in the social sciences, their approach and their central results. This article is primarily intended as a map of naturalist social sciences one can access at any time or explore at their own pace, but it may also provide anyone who wants to build an ensemble vision of these disciplines with the means to do so. In any case, it lacks any central thesis, or any intended take-home message one is expected to receive by reading this article.

The disciplines reviewed here embody widely different approaches, and very different understanding of naturalism as a scientific philosophy. Evolutionary psychology bases its understanding of human behavior on the functional constraints of their past ecology, and typically aims to rebuild social sciences from the ground up based on their understanding of human psychology. Cliodynamics, on the other hand, grounds its approach directly in preexisting paradigms of history or social sciences, while introducing natural scientific standards for the formalization and test of theories. Cultural evolution, finally, studies human culture and societies as an evolutionary system, without any preferred scale of analysis or specific methodological standards. All of these approaches are explicit attempts at naturalizing the social sciences, all of them massively import concepts and methods from the life sciences, all of them are massively overstated in their scope by both opponents and sympathizers. While I cannot articulate an extensive review of these disciplines, much less in one single article, I hope to give the reader a perspective of their fundamental approaches, their relation to each other, and their central findings.

 

[Augustus]

I never considered it anything different

So when I said "Methodological naturalism just means the assumption that (for the purpose of scientific enquiry) events have natural explanations and causes rather than supernatural ones", and you replied "No that is not what Methodological Naturalism means." you knew I was correct but just disagreed with me to be obtuse?

I did. there aspects of the Social Sciences that so not conform to the standards of Methodological NAturalism

No you didn't. The article did not offer a supernatural explanation of consciousness. It does the exact opposite, while accepting we don't fully understand the physiological basis of consciousness.

"Although the complete neurobiological basis of consciousness remains a mystery, recent advances have improved our understanding of the physiology underlying level of consciousness and phenomenal consciousness."

If you think it does, try to explain in your own words how it was not compatible with methodological naturalism. Remember, MN is "the principle that scientific explanations may only appeal to natural phenomena"

 

[shunyadragon]

So when I said "Methodological naturalism just means the assumption that (for the purpose of scientific enquiry) events have natural explanations and causes rather than supernatural ones", and you replied "No that is not what Methodological Naturalism means." you knew I was correct but just disagreed with me to be obtuse?

No you are not correct. Mainly because your statements are incomplete, but partially true. You need make more complete statements, concering ME. The assumptions of ME involve falsifiability, and not assumptions that supernatural claims are false, In fact ME is neutral as to whether supernatural claims are true or false,.

No you didn't. The article did not offer a supernatural explanation of consciousness. It does the exact opposite, while accepting we don't fully understand the physiological basis of consciousness.

Yes I did and further posts will provide further explanations as the previous post.

"Although the complete neurobiological basis of consciousness remains a mystery, recent advances have improved our understanding of the physiology underlying level of consciousness and phenomenal consciousness."

If you think it does, try to explain in your own words how it was not compatible with methodological naturalism. Remember, MN is "the principle that scientific explanations may only appeal to natural phenomena"

I never said it was incompatible with Methodological Naturalism, I am provided explanations of the present limits of Social Sciences in terms of meeting the standards of Methodological Naturalism, and NOT that they are incompatible.

 

[Augustus]

No you are not correct. Mainly because your statements are incomplete.

Explain what was missing then, as later on you agreed with the exact same definition.

Seems you are just being obtuse otherwise.

Remember, MN is "the principle that scientific explanations may only appeal to natural phenomena"

Yes I did and further posts will provide further explanations as the previous post.

Why not just post a simple explanation in your own words now? Would take less time than multiple posts of walking back on your original error while also trying to claim it wasn't an error without any rational explanation for what you actually meant.

I never said it was incompatible with Methodological Naturalism, I am provided explanations of the present limits of Social Sciences in terms of meeting the standards of Methodological Naturalism, and NOT that they are incompatible.

What do you mean "meeting the standards"? The standard is they have naturalistic explanations rather than supernatural ones, regardless of the degree to which we can accurately identify these naturalistic explanations.

Your article met the standards of MN by giving a physiological underpinning of consciousness.

 

[shunyadragon]

The following is a more comprehensive explana tion of the relationship between hard sciences and Social Sciences. Posted n parts.

Part I

Naturalism in the social sciences : a short review

“Naturalizing” social sciences ? Naturalism is a family of philosophical and scientific positions broadly stating that all observable phenomenon are part to the same causally integrated world. Natural scientist typically work toward explain those phenomenons by exposing and formalizing...

kairos-research.org

“Naturalizing” social sciences ?​

Naturalism is a family of philosophical and scientific positions broadly stating that all observable phenomenon are part to the same causally integrated world. Natural scientist typically work toward explain those phenomenons by exposing and formalizing underlying causal relations, notably through building mechanical models and testing their predictions in experimental settings (Craver and Tabery 2019). While this perspective has been highly successful in identifying universal laws in the physical science, it is at the moment marginal in the social sciences and generally understood to be unadapted to the complexity of human beings.

Yet, the life sciences exemplify how a naturalist approach can apply to such complex systems, differing significantly in their practice and structure to what we understand as “hard”, formal science. Physical scientists routinely study systems which respond to stimulation in a regular and predictible way, allowing them to state mathematically tractable laws which are a sufficient description of said system in a given context. A life scientist, on the other hand, is rarely in any position to mentally isolate two dynamics of the systems they study. On the contrary, living organism are organized at multiple imbricated scales, and explicative models must integrate these in the explanation of any phenomenon (Mitchell 2003).

The question of whether the natural sciences can indeed address the complexity of societies, or even of what it would mean, is therefore an open one. The purpose of the present article is to help answer it by presenting the main research programs associated to naturalism in the social sciences, their approach and their central results. This article is primarily intended as a map of naturalist social sciences one can access at any time or explore at their own pace, but it may also provide anyone who wants to build an ensemble vision of these disciplines with the means to do so. In any case, it lacks any central thesis, or any intended take-home message one is expected to receive by reading this article.

The disciplines reviewed here embody widely different approaches, and very different understanding of naturalism as a scientific philosophy. Evolutionary psychology bases its understanding of human behavior on the functional constraints of their past ecology, and typically aims to rebuild social sciences from the ground up based on their understanding of human psychology. Cliodynamics, on the other hand, grounds its approach directly in preexisting paradigms of history or social sciences, while introducing natural scientific standards for the formalization and test of theories. Cultural evolution, finally, studies human culture and societies as an evolutionary system, without any preferred scale of analysis or specific methodological standards. All of these approaches are explicit attempts at naturalizing the social sciences, all of them massively import concepts and methods from the life sciences, all of them are massively overstated in their scope by both opponents and sympathizers. While I cannot articulate an extensive review of these disciplines, much less in one single article, I hope to give the reader a perspective of their fundamental approaches, their relation to each other, and their central findings.

 

[shunyadragon]

Explain what was missing then, as later on you agreed with the exact same definition.

Seems you are just being obtuse otherwise.

Remember, MN is "the principle that scientific explanations may only appeal to natural phenomena"

I believe the standard of falsification is what determines what is natural phenomenon,

Why not just post a simple explanation in your own words now? Would take less time than multiple posts of walking back on your original error while also trying to claim it wasn't an error without any rational explanation for what you actually meant.

No original error on my part. I object to your wording and I gave the explanation,

What do you mean "meeting the standards"? The standard is they have naturalistic explanations rather than supernatural ones, regardless of the degree to which we can accurately identify these naturalistic explanations.

Your article met the standards of MN by giving a physiological underpinning of consciousness.

I gave my explanation and it is not as simply as you assume, and I question seriously some of your statements in particular that I said Social sciences are incompatible with ME. . The series of articles I posting give a better explanation then my efforts..

Part II follows of: Naturalism in the social sciences : a short review

 

[Augustus]

The following is a more comprehensive explana tion of the relationship between hard sciences and Social Sciences. Posted n parts.

Part I

Naturalism in the social sciences : a short review

“Naturalizing” social sciences ? Naturalism is a family of philosophical and scientific positions broadly stating that all observable phenomenon are part to the same causally integrated world. Natural scientist typically work toward explain those phenomenons by exposing and formalizing...

kairos-research.org

“Naturalizing” social sciences ?​

Naturalism is a family of philosophical and scientific positions broadly stating that all observable phenomenon are part to the same causally integrated world. Natural scientist typically work toward explain those phenomenons by exposing and formalizing underlying causal relations, notably through building mechanical models and testing their predictions in experimental settings (Craver and Tabery 2019). While this perspective has been highly successful in identifying universal laws in the physical science, it is at the moment marginal in the social sciences and generally understood to be unadapted to the complexity of human beings.

Yet, the life sciences exemplify how a naturalist approach can apply to such complex systems, differing significantly in their practice and structure to what we understand as “hard”, formal science. Physical scientists routinely study systems which respond to stimulation in a regular and predictible way, allowing them to state mathematically tractable laws which are a sufficient description of said system in a given context. A life scientist, on the other hand, is rarely in any position to mentally isolate two dynamics of the systems they study. On the contrary, living organism are organized at multiple imbricated scales, and explicative models must integrate these in the explanation of any phenomenon (Mitchell 2003).

The question of whether the natural sciences can indeed address the complexity of societies, or even of what it would mean, is therefore an open one. The purpose of the present article is to help answer it by presenting the main research programs associated to naturalism in the social sciences, their approach and their central results. This article is primarily intended as a map of naturalist social sciences one can access at any time or explore at their own pace, but it may also provide anyone who wants to build an ensemble vision of these disciplines with the means to do so. In any case, it lacks any central thesis, or any intended take-home message one is expected to receive by reading this article.

The disciplines reviewed here embody widely different approaches, and very different understanding of naturalism as a scientific philosophy. Evolutionary psychology bases its understanding of human behavior on the functional constraints of their past ecology, and typically aims to rebuild social sciences from the ground up based on their understanding of human psychology. Cliodynamics, on the other hand, grounds its approach directly in preexisting paradigms of history or social sciences, while introducing natural scientific standards for the formalization and test of theories. Cultural evolution, finally, studies human culture and societies as an evolutionary system, without any preferred scale of analysis or specific methodological standards. All of these approaches are explicit attempts at naturalizing the social sciences, all of them massively import concepts and methods from the life sciences, all of them are massively overstated in their scope by both opponents and sympathizers. While I cannot articulate an extensive review of these disciplines, much less in one single article, I hope to give the reader a perspective of their fundamental approaches, their relation to each other, and their central findings.

That is discussing the degree to which social sciences can utilise the same methodologies as the natural sciences.

You are conflating "the methodologies of the natural sciences" with "methodological naturalism".

The article is not about whether or not the social science use MN (they do), but relates to a different philosophical question "The Unity of Science" i.e. the extent to which different sciences can be considered to form part of the same unified methodological and explanatory framework.

See for example:

The Unity of Science (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

plato.stanford.edu

 

[Augustus]

I gave my explanation and it is not as simply as you assume, and I question seriously some of your statements in particular that I said Social sciences are incompatible with ME. . The series of articles I posting give a better explanation then my efforts..

I agree the social sciences are qualitatively different from many of the natural sciences. This is not because they stray beyond methodological naturalism though, but because of the additional layers of complexity and subjectivity that they often entail and the fact that things can rarely be isolated and studied on their own merits.

Given this, it is strange that you are so blindly hostile to the concept of scientism given it was coined specifically to deal with the belief that the methods of the natural sciences could be effectively applied to (almost) all areas of human experience. It was originally targeted at the works of people like Auguste Comte, Hegel and Marx who thought there could be a "science of everything" or that things like history obeyed "scientific" laws.

Nowadays, it is commonly applied to the idea that the social sciences are generally reliable and that their methods can (currently) yield accurate results when expanded to ever more areas of life.

(I am talking about the philosophy of science, not bad faith creationist apologetics which are irrelevant with regard to scholarly and scientific discussions about scientific methods and their reliability in various domains. These are discussions that happen within the sciences and any attempt to dismiss them as "anti-science" is just ignorance and vapidity).

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I made no such claim. I do, however, believe that that is why YOU use the word. Whenever you use the word, you're being critical and expressing contempt.

As I said, I call that a belief. Believing in is a term for belief by faith such as believing in Santa Claus or the tooth fairy. I believe many things, but believe in nothing.

And that is my belief, although I'd word it even more strongly and substitute empiricism for science. Empiricism is not just the best way to acquire knowledge about reality. It's the only way, unless you want to add things like philosophy, mathematics, and formal logic, which are pure reason. Is 2=2=4 a statement about reality? That two apples and two more yield four apples is, but that's not pure reason, and reason is already a part of critical thinking and empiricism.

And knowledge is strictly defined as well. Knowledge here means the collection of demonstrably correct ideas. They are the ideas that predict outcomes, and doing that successfully is how one demonstrates that these ideas are correct.

Another feature of correct ideas is that though falsifiable in the sense that if they were incorrect, that could at least in principle be shown to be the case, but because they are correct, they cannot be falsified.

But the important point here is faith and intuition are not paths to knowledge. They may suggest areas worth testing, but it's the testing that generates knowledge, not the formulating of hypotheses.

And I doubt that you can rebut any of that. Find an idea that meets that definition of knowledge that was the result of anything other than empiricism, and you will have succeeded. Here's a chance for you to test my claim that one feature of correct ideas is that they are falsifiable in the Popperian sense of the word but cannot in fact be falsified. If I am wrong, you can falsify my claim. Just provide the example requested. If I am correct, you cannot do that.

No, I do not respect faith. It's guessing. It's a logical error that generates a non sequitur every time. The faith-based belief doesn't follow from any preceding argument or claim.

How do you know this: "...you're being critical and expressing contempt."
I mean I can't observe that as emperical as I understand the words. So please ecplain how you do it? Not claim that you do it, but how?

You: " Empiricism is not just the best way to acquire knowledge about reality." How do you know it is the best way?
When I search empriciricsm I get this explanation:
"In its most general terms, the dispute between rationalism and empiricism has been taken to concern the extent to which we are dependent upon experience in our effort to gain knowledge of the external world. It is common to think of experience itself as being of two kinds: sense experience, involving our five world-oriented senses, and reflective experience, including conscious awareness of our mental operations. The distinction between the two is drawn primarily by reference to their objects: sense experience allows us to acquire knowledge of external objects, whereas our awareness of our mental operations is responsible for the acquisition of knowledge of our minds. In the dispute between rationalism and empiricism, this distinction is often neglected; rationalist critiques of empiricism usually contend that the latter claims that all our ideas originate with sense experience. ..."

Rationalism vs. Empiricism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

plato.stanford.edu

So what is the external sensory experince of best?

You: "No, I do not respect faith."
So what is the external sensory experince of that?

As I try to replicate your claim, because that is a part of it.'; not just that you do it, but that others can do it, I struggle to do it in the examples above. I really need you to explain how you actually do it.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

More shotgun nonsense. Please respond to subject of the thread. Start a thread on each one of the above and I will address them individually,
Where are the Scientism scientists?

This is most definitely what you think, because of the nebulous shotgun approach to your responses to my posts without answering the specifics.
The only approach I want to address is Methodological Naturalism, and the"Scientism" strawman fallacy

Okay, then explain what methodlogical naturalism is and how it differs from Methodological Naturalism?

And since science is based on a modern global standard I will need more than you writing something as you.
I mean I can't find it when I google it as what you claim it is.

E.g. when I google "karl popper and methodological naturalism" I can't find anything.
If it is a modern global standard, then please give at least one link between the methodology of Popper and methodlogical naturalism.

As for scientism for the old defintion, as per render truth, how do you understand render truth? English is my 2nd language and I might overlook something. What I get when I google it, I get "to become in accordance with a fact or in reality" in the end.
And as far I can tell that is what science is about as for claims - to become in accordance with a fact or in reality.
At least that is how I understand the defintions of render and truth.

Edit - about truth.

The many meanings of truth - Understanding Science

undsci.berkeley.edu

That is a site written by in part by sceintists about what science is.
"You might have noticed that in this website, we talk about science providing us with “accurate” and “reliable” explanations. Even though science is often characterized as such, we do not describe it as a search for truth. Why not? After all, scientists strive to build knowledge about the natural world that corresponds to the way the world really works. Doesn’t that mean that they’re seeking the truth?

Science does try to build true knowledge of how the world works, but there are other sorts of knowledge that people also call “the truth. ...”

Now if you read it, you will notice they use correspondence. What is that to you?
Or what is true knowledge?

Edit 2 - it is fun to search that site. follow the link and choose falsifiable

Correcting misconceptions - Understanding Science

Many students have misconceptions about what science is and how it works. This section explains and corrects some of the most common misconceptions that students are likely have trouble with. If you are interested in common misconceptions about teaching the nature and process of science, visit...

undsci.berkeley.edu

I am really looking forward to you giving actual links to what science is and not just your own words.
I mean if we weren't here, science would still be science, so please explain what it is as not dependent on how you think.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

The why bring it up as a question if it is nonsense smoke screen to avoid the topic of the thread.




Clarification. Do you believe the universe is physical? Being from God could be a physical Creation.

Well, I don't think it is relevant if I believe anything about the universe other than as belief.
What is relevant is if you claim that the universe is physical and you can show so using science?
So do you claim that the universe is physical? If yes, then how do you know that using science?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

@shunyadragon
Now I am confused.
I found this site:

Our definition of science - The Science Council ~

Science is the pursuit and application of knowledge and understanding of the natural and social world following a systematic methodology based on evidence.

sciencecouncil.org

",,,
Objective observation: Measurement and data (possibly although not necessarily using mathematics as a tool)
Evidence
Experiment and/or observation as benchmarks for testing hypotheses
Induction: reasoning to establish general rules or conclusions drawn from facts or examples
Repetition
Critical analysis
Verification and testing: critical exposure to scrutiny, peer review and assessment ..."

Notice this one.
Induction: reasoning to establish general rules or conclusions drawn from facts or examples.

And then this one:

Karl Popper - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

"Popper is known for his rejection of the classical inductivist views on the scientific method in favour of empirical falsification."

And then there is the one from above about falsifiable

Correcting misconceptions - Understanding Science

Many students have misconceptions about what science is and how it works. This section explains and corrects some of the most common misconceptions that students are likely have trouble with. If you are interested in common misconceptions about teaching the nature and process of science, visit...

undsci.berkeley.edu

"Furthermore, it’s clear that evidence can play a role in supporting particular ideas over others — not just in ruling some ideas out, as implied by the falsifiability criterion. When a scientist says falsifiable, he or she probably actually means something like testable, the term we use in this website to avoid confusion. A testable idea is one about which we could gather evidence to help determine whether or not the idea is accurate."

So what is science? Now I am confused as I haven't been able to find a modern global standard for it.
In fact I have come to accept this:

The philosophy of science - Understanding Science

undsci.berkeley.edu

"Though they might seem elementary, these questions are actually quite difficult to answer satisfactorily. Opinions on such issues vary widely within the field (and occasionally part ways with the views of scientists themselves — who mainly spend their time doing science, not analyzing it abstractly). Despite this diversity of opinion, philosophers of science can largely agree on one thing: there is no single, simple way to define science!"

Indeed it seems to be so, as there doesn't seem to be a modern global standard for science.
But it could be, that you are not an indivudal and in fact you are a we for all scientists. Now i would need evidence for that, but until then I condsider you a single human with your indivudal understanding of science.
So great we of science, named shunyadragon, please settle once and for all what is The Modern Global Standard of Methodological Naturalism and Science. And do so with evidence and not just words about what you think/feel.

Edit - looked further and found this:
“Science can be viewed from various standpoints, not only from that of epistemology; for example, we can look at it as a biological or as a sociological phenomenon. As such it might be described as a tool, or an instrument, comparable perhaps to some of our industrial machinery. Science may be described as a means of production - as the last word in ‘roundabout production.”
― Karl Popper, The Logic of Scientific Discovery"

The Logic of Scientific Discovery Quotes by Karl Popper

21 quotes from The Logic of Scientific Discovery: ‘For myself, I am interested in science and in philosophy only because I want to learn something about ...

www.goodreads.com

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

How do you know this: "...you're being critical and expressing contempt."

I'm familiar with the poster.

You: "No, I do not respect faith."
So what is the external sensory experince of that?

Most of my experience of faith is other people writing about it. I experience how it manifests in the thought of others.

As I try to replicate your claim, because that is a part of it.'; not just that you do it, but that others can do it, I struggle to do it in the examples above. I really need you to explain how you actually do it.

Not respect faith? That a result of my experiences with faith. I didn't like the effect it had on me, and I often don't its effect in others.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I'm familiar with the poster.

Most of my experience of faith is other people writing about it. I experience how it manifests in the thought of others.

Not respect faith? That a result of my experiences with faith. I didn't like the effect it had on me, and I often don't its effect in others.

for the bold as far as I can tell it is not emperical as I can find an explanation of the word empirical. If you have another version please explain.

 

[shunyadragon]

Well, there are these versions of science according to wiki:
Naturalism's axiomatic assumptions
Coherentism
Anything goes methodology
Sociology of scientific knowledge methodology
Continental philosophy

Philosophy of science - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Now remeber this. This is not about what I think, so if you answer as if it matters what I think about it, it really doesn't matters. What matters is that you have explain how this is the case. And if I died right after written this, it would still be there.
At least that is how I understand the universe to work.

So explain current approaches.

The article you cite is excellent, but it is very general and broad and covers philosophies not generally accepted in science and some like logical positivitism that no longer accepted by science.

The Social science methodology is discussed in detail in later posts, and acknowledged to have separate Methodology that not meets the standards of Methodological Naturalism. Nonetheless as the objective knowledge of human behavior and neurological scientific knowledge Methodological Naturalism is increasing used in Social Sciences as described in the later more extensive article.

Again, again and again it has everything to do with what you think and your attitude toward Methodological NAturalism, which you reject based on a vague nebulous ontological philosophy,

 

[shunyadragon]

@shunyadragon
Now I am confused.
I found this site:

Our definition of science - The Science Council ~

Science is the pursuit and application of knowledge and understanding of the natural and social world following a systematic methodology based on evidence.

sciencecouncil.org

",,,
Objective observation: Measurement and data (possibly although not necessarily using mathematics as a tool)
Evidence
Experiment and/or observation as benchmarks for testing hypotheses
Induction: reasoning to establish general rules or conclusions drawn from facts or examples
Repetition
Critical analysis
Verification and testing: critical exposure to scrutiny, peer review and assessment ..."

Notice this one.
Induction: reasoning to establish general rules or conclusions drawn from facts or examples.

And then this one:

Karl Popper - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

"Popper is known for his rejection of the classical inductivist views on the scientific method in favour of empirical falsification."

And then there is the one from above about falsifiable

Correcting misconceptions - Understanding Science

Many students have misconceptions about what science is and how it works. This section explains and corrects some of the most common misconceptions that students are likely have trouble with. If you are interested in common misconceptions about teaching the nature and process of science, visit...

undsci.berkeley.edu

"Furthermore, it’s clear that evidence can play a role in supporting particular ideas over others — not just in ruling some ideas out, as implied by the falsifiability criterion. When a scientist says falsifiable, he or she probably actually means something like testable, the term we use in this website to avoid confusion. A testable idea is one about which we could gather evidence to help determine whether or not the idea is accurate."

So what is science? Now I am confused as I haven't been able to find a modern global standard for it.
In fact I have come to accept this:

The philosophy of science - Understanding Science

undsci.berkeley.edu

"Though they might seem elementary, these questions are actually quite difficult to answer satisfactorily. Opinions on such issues vary widely within the field (and occasionally part ways with the views of scientists themselves — who mainly spend their time doing science, not analyzing it abstractly). Despite this diversity of opinion, philosophers of science can largely agree on one thing: there is no single, simple way to define science!"

Indeed it seems to be so, as there doesn't seem to be a modern global standard for science.
But it could be, that you are not an indivudal and in fact you are a we for all scientists. Now i would need evidence for that, but until then I condsider you a single human with your indivudal understanding of science.
So great we of science, named shunyadragon, please settle once and for all what is The Modern Global Standard of Methodological Naturalism and Science. And do so with evidence and not just words about what you think/feel.

Edit - looked further and found this:
“Science can be viewed from various standpoints, not only from that of epistemology; for example, we can look at it as a biological or as a sociological phenomenon. As such it might be described as a tool, or an instrument, comparable perhaps to some of our industrial machinery. Science may be described as a means of production - as the last word in ‘roundabout production.”
― Karl Popper, The Logic of Scientific Discovery"

The Logic of Scientific Discovery Quotes by Karl Popper

21 quotes from The Logic of Scientific Discovery: ‘For myself, I am interested in science and in philosophy only because I want to learn something about ...

www.goodreads.com

It is very obvious you are confused by a negative arrogant biased agenda against science with pejorative accusations of Scientism,

All these sources are excellent to consider, but unfortunately your vague nebulous very biased beliefs against Methodological Naturalism leads you to a shotgun approach of references without an objective consideration of their context in the actual applications of science where the rubber meets the ground in reality,