The Present Phase of Stagnation in the Foundations of Physics Is Not Normal

There is a big problem with talking about "materialistic science". If that phrase means anything, it means that the scientific method is going to be constrained by an additional condition - a condition that is adopted as an article of faith rather than being arrived at empirically - the condition that everything that happens in the world must be explicable in material terms.

The problem is that once you start constraining science by imposing articles of faith, it stops being science. You can no longer follow the data where they lead. A "geocentric scientist" develops epicycles because that's what the article of faith dictates, and misses the fact that the earth goes round the sun. A "creationist scientist" proposes that fossils were created six thousand years ago, and throws the data out of the window entirely. That's really not science at all.

If someone is accused of not accepting "geocentric science" or "creationist science", it only goes to show that the accuser doesn't really have a scientific approach at all. Just the same for "materialistic science".

Agreed but this is a discussion we have had here before - there is already a constraint in the accepted definition of science by most scientists: naturalism. This constraint is the fundamental assumption that all we know of, or can know of, has come about through natural causes. Natural causes means materialistic causes and thus explicitly excludes the so-called supernatural. So when a materialist talks about 120 years of paranormal investigation with no evidence, this means nothing that would be accepted as scientific evidence because it is already precluded by the constrains on science itself.

Catch-22 anyone? 

Just a reminder of these definitions from Wikipedia:

In philosophy, naturalism is the "idea or belief that only natural (as opposed to supernatural or spiritual) laws and forces operate in the world." Adherents of naturalism (i.e., naturalists) assert that natural laws are the rules that govern the structure and behavior of the natural universe, that the changing universe at every stage is a product of these laws.

"Naturalism can intuitively be separated into an ontological and a methodological component," argues David Papineau. "Ontological" refers to the philosophical study of the nature of reality. Some philosophers equate naturalism with materialism. For example, philosopher Paul Kurtz argues that nature is best accounted for by reference to material principles. These principles include mass, energy, and other physical and chemical properties accepted by the scientific community. Further, this sense of naturalism holds that spirits, deities, and ghosts are not real and that there is no "purpose" in nature. Such an absolute belief in naturalism is commonly referred to as metaphysical naturalism.

Assuming naturalism in working methods as the current paradigm, without the further consideration of naturalism as an absolute truth with philosophical entailment, is called methodological naturalism.

That's the belief of "some philosophers", according to your extract from Wikipedia. Obviously, that implies that others have different beliefs.

I think science has to proceed regardless of such philosophical constraints. Otherwise it won't be science.

Yeah that'd be nice but we all know that it won't because it's run by people.

That's the belief of "some philosophers", according to your extract from Wikipedia. Obviously, that implies that others have different beliefs.

I think science has to proceed regardless of such philosophical constraints. Otherwise it won't be science.

Some (probably most) philosophers and (definitely) most scientists, I suspect. Science will proceed but scientists will continue to work under the assumption that naturalism is a fundamental truth.

The point is that "naturalism" isn't necessarily the same as "materialism".

And my point was that (probably) most philosophers and (definitely) most scientists consider them to be the same.

I assumed when you said above "Natural causes means materialistic causes" that that was your opinion.

Oh dear. Let's just say that it is my opinion that many philosophers and scientists consider naturalistic and materialistic to be roughly equivalent. For the sake of this discussion, I don't care whether there is a semantic or philosophical difference; I care that science is being conducted under an assumption that naturalism - which, to most, means the same as materialism - is a fundamental truth.

My mistake for having succumbed to the temptation to discuss. (When will I ever learn?) I've now deleted the discursive posts.