Why "Naturalism is Useful"?

One of the biggest concerns I run across in these internet discussions is the proposal that the practice of science operates under various metaphysical assumptions or axioms - materialism, reductionism, causality, repeatability, philosophical naturalism, etc.  It is then argued that the body of knowledge reflects these underlying assumptions, rather than some sort of independent truth about the nature of reality.  My perspective is different.

I doubt most scientists and science types give much thought to philosophy or to adopting these assumptions.  I'm not a materialist or a reductionist or a philosophical naturalist.  At best, the assumption which underlies the practice of science is "(methodological) naturalism is useful".  Materialism, physicalism, reductionism, holism, causality, consistency, etc. are merely the result of our observations, not the cause.

"Methodological naturalism" means that knowledge is built from reference to events and experiences.  "Useful" means that this knowledge is progressive, it distinguishes between ideas which are true or false, it allows us to make predictions, it tightly constrains the possibilities, it generates novel information and observations.  Most claims which are regarded as supernatural or paranormal are actually ordinary naturalism claims, as they are generated by reference to experiences or events.

From this perspective, there isn't anything which makes an experience or event "supernatural" or "paranormal" beforehand.  Nor are we prevented from including paranormal claims under the practice of science.  The title of this blog is just an indication that discussions about "reductionist, materialist science" aren't relevant or of interest.

Linda