Talk:Naturalism (philosophy)/Archive 3

This is an archive of past discussions about Naturalism (philosophy). Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Naturalism (philosophy). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:12, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

A secondary definition of the adjective "superior"

Greek: ανώτερος, -η, -ο: (μεταφυσική) προσωποκρατικού σκοπού· που λειτουργεί βάσει αξιών της προσωποσύνης
Πιστεύω σε μία ανώτερη δύναμη και όχι στην φυσιοκρατία.
superior: (metaphysics) of personocratic purpose· operating on the basis of the values of personhood
I believe in a superior power and not in naturalism.

Usually they mean that is superior power is personocratic, personhood-biased (fulfilling the goals of a cosmogonic person, persons or personhood itself [in atheistic religions or in theism and deism in which a divine personocratic (personocracy: the rule of person, -s and/or personhood; here used as metaphysical personocracy not leftist personocracy) field still exists]

(Not only East Asians believe in impersonal personocratic fields. These divine fields are impersonal because they are not persons. And they are personocratic because they are a supernatural bias which fulfils goals and ulterior goals which are values of persons. Even in Buddhism when one loses his/her individuality, that doesn't happen unbiasedly like a rationalist would say, but the whole universe is biased to fulfil and ulterior PERSONOCRATIC goal. A naturalist doesn't accept any magical = religious = metaphysical bias. Nature is nature and has it's laws. Religion is man-made, but the problem isn't the human race. Even a non-human civilization would still have a majority soothing personocratic opinion because: 1. primitive dogmas are older that science, 2. living beings don't want to die and might not be able to accept facts, 3. even educated people have emotional weaknesses and find excuses to imaginarily remain alive as immortals in some form (explicit [Egyptian body of the dead], implicit [impersonal energy in most Buddhist dogmas - at the final stage because reincarnation is not the final state (usually it is a failure or rarely a sacrifice of the self to help some purpose)]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:2149:824D:DA00:4DD6:AD85:B357:CEF5 (talk) 07:28, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Methodological naturalism's definition should be introduced

Here is what is called methodolocai naturalism, from the source cited with-in the section:

This self-imposed convention of science, which limits inquiry to testable, natural explanations about the natural world, is referred to by philosophers as "methodological naturalism" and is sometimes known as the scientific method. Methodological naturalism is a "ground rule" of science today which requires scientists to seek explanations in the world around us based upon what we can observe, test, replicate, and verify..

Let us introduce it into the article by a paraphrasing it like this: "Methodological naturalism requires scientists to seek explanations in the world around us based on what we can observe, test, replicate and verify. It is a self-imposed convention of science." --Ruhubelent (talk) 14:42, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Lackluster references

So there are a bunch of "references" that are not very useful. For example, what is "Sobottka 2005"? What paper, book, webpage, or whatever is it actually referring to? See also "Gauch 2002", "Gould 1965", "Stone 2008", Chen 2009, Durak 2008. I managed to tracked down "Heilbron 2003" and added a 'cite book'

'#cite_note-17' has the text: "See Georgi Plekhanov, "For the Sixtieth Anniversary of Hegel's Death" (1891). See also Plekhanov, Essays on the History of Materialism (1893) and Plekhanov, The Development of the Monist View of History (1895)." Perhaps all of those individual books should be separate refs?

(Feel free to remove this section when the refs are cleaned-up.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:F2C0:938A:AC00:8DDF:7299:96B9:35EB (talk) 16:50, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Clarifying the view quoted from Karl Popper

I have read Popper's The Logic of Scientific Discovery and in the quote he didn't talk about naturalism in the sense as methodological rule nor metaphysical principle, but about how to study the scientific method itself. The quote is from the chapter 10 The Naturalistic Approach to the Theory of Method, which according to this chapter and the chapter 4 The Problem of Demarcation means a view that the scientific method must be discovered by empirical study of real science or the behaviour of a scientist. He acknowledged the value to study these things, but held that methodology cannot be treated as empirical science. --2A00:1028:9192:4E22:79FE:F46F:3C66:B52C (talk) 15:10, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

eminent Mark Steiner

I don't think describing a philosopher who already has a wikilink as eminent is appropriate. We do not want to sprinkle the encyclopedia with laudatory terms. Larry Koenigsberg (talk) 18:55, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

I agree and disagree, if he isn’t very important in terms of the topic we should probably not mention home, but if he was we definitely should mention him Realfakebezalbob (talk) 18:15, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Article issues and classification

The article has unsourced statements from 2018 so fails the B-class criteria. Reassess the article to C-class. There is far too much-unsourced content, in sentences, paragraphs, and at least one section. -- Otr500 (talk) 06:08, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

God is just a Name

"God" is just a name. What is means depends on how you define it. If you want God to define as something being real (instead of a human idea) then you should define it as such. If you want God to define as all-encompassing then you should define it as such. So what about defining is as all that is and is not (Which the Rig Veda does). Which in the sense of the science of physics would translate as the Omniverse or just Reality. But then we run into a problem. How do we prove the Omniverse other then by logical reasoning?77.60.121.89 (talk) 13:45, 20 March 2023 (UTC)