Is naturalism falsifiable?

Question

From Wikipedia:

In philosophy, naturalism is the idea or belief that only natural laws and forces (as opposed to supernatural ones) operate in the universe.[1]

Naturalism is not so much a special system as a point of view or tendency common to a number of philosophical and religious systems; not so much a well-defined set of positive and negative doctrines as an attitude or spirit pervading and influencing many doctrines. As the name implies, this tendency consists essentially in looking upon nature as the one original and fundamental source of all that exists, and in attempting to explain everything in terms of nature. Either the limits of nature are also the limits of existing reality, or at least the first cause, if its existence is found necessary, has nothing to do with the working of natural agencies. All events, therefore, find their adequate explanation within nature itself. But, as the terms nature and natural are themselves used in more than one sense, the term naturalism is also far from having one fixed meaning.

— Dubray 1911

Is naturalism falsifiable, that is, is there any empirical test that could possibly show naturalism to be false?

---

Related: Is watching an amputated limb regrow proof of the supernatural?

Answer 1

The naysayers aren't trying hard enough to imagine a scenario where people would agree that naturalism is falsified. What you have to do is paint a picture where the evidence of a spiritual, supernatural reality unbound by any laws of nature is completely overwhelming.

Naturally this picture will be very far from any current evidence of supernatural phenomena. "Some guy said he saw a ghost" is not anywhere in the ballpark of the standard of evidence you have to imagine. We should not confuse the fact that naturalism has not been falsified, with the possibility that some hypothetical set of evidence could falsify it.

Imagine if:

• ghosts suddenly start appearing in great numbers to everyone, as common as rats
• they emit no EM radiation whatsoever, perceivable only by human eyes
• all our other scientific instruments also fail to detect anything about them
• they tell us things only the deceased could possibly know
• God himself comes down as a holy ghost everyone can see
• God tells us the afterlife is real and offers to take anyone there and back
• God explains how he made the laws of nature, such as QM and GR, which did not exist previously, and demonstrates his ability to make any QM or GR experiment come out any way he wants
• God allows us to run every empirical test we wish, gives us every piece of scientific equipment we ask for, to analyze himself or the ghosts and try to show they are made of simpler parts or follow some equation. Nothing works. They just do not operate according to any identifiable laws.

I think we can agree that at this point, virtually no one is going to still persist in claiming naturalism is correct. This hypothetical set of empirical observations would almost completely falsify naturalism. There might be a determined contrarian or two who still thinks these spirits and God could be explained by some natural laws, despite all evidence that they can't be, but the vast majority of former believers in naturalism would be converted.

So yes, such an extreme amount of evidence would falsify naturalism.

The fact that no evidence of that sort has ever arisen may simply be because naturalism is actually correct. That is, it may be falsifiable, but no evidence to falsify it will be found in this universe, because it isn't false.

Answer 2

That's the problem with ontological frameworks: any challenge to the framework must come from outside of it, and can therefore be discarded as non existent.

Take the existence of ghosts, for exemple: when people who believe in them argue with naturalists, those will usually dismiss the evidence presented to them as being anecdotal and most probably mistake. For them, the believers only saw some light or heard a noise and wrongfully attributed it to be signs of a ghost (supposing they are in good faith).

Naturalists will ask for what, as naturalists, they consider to be valid evidence, it is to say empirical data, measurable, reproducible ways to observe and identify a ghost.

But, if we ever managed to produce such evidence, ghost would then have become a natural phenomenon, something we can reliably produce and control. They would have the same fate as lightnings, which used to be seen as the weapon of Zeus and can now be controlled with rods or safely exhibited in science museum.

So, either there is no natural evidence, and supernatural can be dismissed as nonexistent, or there is and its not supernatural anymore.

Note that non naturalists have the same problem. They regularly use the gap argument, which goes along the line of "ok, you have explained this phenomenon naturally, but there is still some others you can't explain and those must be supernatural". Since we will never be able to explain everything, non naturalists will never run out of things they can claim to be supernatural and their framework is just as unfalsifiable for the same reason.

That's why prudent people prefer to speak of "methodological naturalism", it is to say not a position on the actual state of things but more of an attitude facing the unexplained: instead of waving one's hand saying "this must be supernatural, we can't explain it", say "there is probably a natural explanation, let's investigate".

Considering that simply declaring something is unexplainable and not inquire is the best way to never find any explanation, methodological naturalism on the other hand has led to a continuous flow of scientific progress. It might not be true, or even provable to be true, but it's definitely useful.

Answer 3

Whether (philosophical) naturalism is falsifiable depends on one's definition of the supernatural, and whether we can find a way to test, demonstrate, reproduce, etc. supernatural claims.

In theory, if we can demonstrate supernatural claims (and they'd still fall within our definition of supernatural), then that would falsify naturalism.

If we cannot demonstrate supernatural claims (perhaps because our definition of supernatural is very closely tied to not being demonstrable), then naturalism cannot be falsified, but also shouldn't be falsified, because it's rejecting claims that cannot be demonstrated.

But how would we demonstrate supernatural claims? The problem is that our observations are bound to the natural world. One could certainly conceive of a device that would allow us to clearly observe ghosts or other supernatural entities. One could also conceive of natural explanations for this, e.g. what we're observing may just be sufficiently advanced technology or natural phenomena we don't yet understand, but many people may nonetheless deem this to meet the burden of falsification, be sufficiently convinced of the supernatural and abandon philosophical naturalism. But the bigger question is: if we can clearly observe ghosts, would they still classify as supernatural? Opinions would probably be divided on this, and it's a crucial part of whether philosophical naturalism is and should be falsifiable.

---

Methodological naturalism, on the other hand, isn't a claim, it's a methodological foundation. As such, it wouldn't be subject to falsification. If supernatural claims are demonstrated, however, then we may reject methodological naturalism and extend our methodology to include those demonstrated supernatural claims.

---

Naturalism can mean one of 2 things:

• Philosophical naturalism, which is a "worldview that holds that there is nothing but natural elements, principles, and relations".

• Methodological naturalism, is a methodology/framework for acquiring knowledge, where you proceed as if no supernatural forces are interfering with the results, regardless of whether or not you believe in supernatural forces.

Both are based on the epistemology that claims should be e.g. testable, reproducible, verifiable and/or falsifiable, which supernatural claims have not shown to be (and arguably might not be by definition). Philosophical naturalism concludes that therefore we shouldn't believe them, whereas methodological naturalism concludes that we should exclude them from consideration when analysing natural phenomena.

A quote from armand's answer demonstrates why this makes sense:

if we ever managed to produce [measurable, reproducible evidence of ghosts], ghost would then have become a natural phenomenon, something we can reliably produce and control

That is to say: naturalists don't reject the existence of ghosts simply because they're supernatural, but rather because they don't meet our standards of evidence. Once they meet our standards of evidence, they would arguably (but perhaps not necessarily) be considered a natural phenomenon. Being a natural phenomenon isn't explicitly a criterion of our standards of evidence, but meeting our standards of evidence and being a natural phenomenon do go hand-in-hand.

---

All of scientific discovery (at least in mainstream science) is based on methodological naturalism. That is, conducting science as if no supernatural forces are interfering with the results, regardless of whether or not you believe in supernatural forces. When we see a domino being knocked over, we don't say "well, it must've been God" as the explanation, we look around for a natural explanation for what could've knocked it over.

If science weren't based on this, we'd still believe that supernatural forces cause lightning and make us sick, and therefore the fields of climatology and microbiology (and most other scientific fields) wouldn't exist.

Answer 4

Yes, naturalism is falsifiable. As an example, the historian Josephus described a series of supernatural omens surrounding the Temple in Jerusalem, shortly before the Roman-Jewish War. One of these was that large numbers of people supposedly saw armies of chariots battling in the sky over the city. If this had actually been observed, then it would have falsified naturalism.

Over the course of history, what has happened has been that naturalistic explanations have gradually succeeded in more and more areas. Newton showed that the same law of gravity that applied on the surface of the earth also applied to the moon. The Frankenstein story deals with the extension of naturalism to include life and consciousness. Modern cosmology has extended naturalism back in time to a fraction of a second after the big bang.

One can easily imagine a human historical experience in which this process of expansion failed. I don't know any modern person who believes that Josephus's omens were real, but many modern people do think that naturalism fails to be all-encompassing. For instance, many people believe in an afterlife, miracles from the Bible, or the need for some non-natural explanation of the origin of the world. These beliefs can tested empirically in some cases. For example, if the ghost of my dead grandmother shows up and says things to me that I know are true, but that no living person could know, then I would conclude that naturalism was falsified in the case of what happens after you die.

It is not necessary to have a perfect definition of naturalism in order to envision observations that would falsify naturalism. This is similar to many other problems in philosophy. For example, Dennett makes a convincing argument that we know whether our free will has been thwarted in various examples (e.g., a lobotomy), regardless of our difficulties in formulating exactly what free will is or resolving various paradoxes, such as reconciling free will with the determinism of classical physics.

Answer 5

It has been said that bumblebees should not be able to fly, based on their body mass and their wings. This is, of course, untrue: bumblebees follow natural laws and their flight makes sense from a naturalistic perspective.

However, let us say that we studied bees up and down, backwards and forwards, in wind tunnels, with high motion cameras, in every possible way and determined that in fact, they can't fly. No naturalistic explanation is available, no naturalistic explanation is possible. In fact, we discover that if you clip a bumblebees wings, as long as you leave enough wing to move any air whatsoever, the bumblebee flies as if the wing weren't damaged at all.

Such a finding, if sufficiently rigorous, would definitely put a serious dent in naturalism... especially if bumblebees were the only insect about which this were true.

The reason these would be tough is because in the case of the bumblebee, we have close anatomical relatives (like the carpenter bee) that have flight that makes sense. Everything else, everywhere, would be seen to observe the fundamental laws of physics but for some unknown, and possibly unknowable reason, Bumblebees would not. Not because we don't understand flight, but because even when we do things that absolutely should affect their flight it just doesn't. They would be an exception, and far from proving the rule, exceptions to your rules mean your rules are incomplete.

Answer 6

Naturalism is essentially a belief in a bottom up organization to reality. E.g. at the base we have simple components and processes, and as those interact we get more complex levels higher up that 'emerge' purely from these simpler lower level systems.

As such, naturalism is refuted whenever we encounter phenomena that must be explained in a top down manner, which is quite possible. Top down means that higher level phenomena cannot be explained as emerging from lower level phenomena.

An example from computer science: say the bottom level process is a simple finite automata, and the number of states is small. Say, just for example, the laws of physics can be represented by a small finite automata. Now we observe a phenomena that cannot be explained by such a simple finite automata, but instead can easily be explained by a Turing machine, such as your computer. Since Turing machines cannot be produced by finite automata we've falsified this CS form of naturalism.

Answer 7

Naturalism is based on a definition of ”existence” as something, whose effects one can actually tell. So falsifiability is not even relevant yet, as falsifiability itself is based on the notion of existence.

Existence is defined that way, because if you cannot tell the effects of something, then even though by other definitions it may very well still ”exist”, ultimately it is verifiably useless. (A special case would be if you cannot tell yet. But even then, acting on it would be irrational, as any other thing could also exist, but you have nothing to base your decision on, which one of those possibilities to act on. As we just established one cannot tell.)

Ultimately, the error here lies in the popular notion of “it being about truth”. This is what ultimately lead to the invalid extension of naturalism into a -ism, aka a belief, with the declaration of absolutes and platitudes that are “not even wrong”, and hence don’t even qualify for being considered for falsifiabilty.

It is about usefulness. The above definition of existence is simply a useful one! And by extension, naturalism without the -ism, is useful.

Or in simple terms:

Why waste time and energy on dealing with things that might be possible, as long as you can never tell? Especially as long as you can never tell which one of all of them will actually be real.

If you enjoy imagining such things, then of course feel free to do so. As enjoyment itself can be useful. Provided it isn’t at the detriment of your actual life. Because otherwise pushing a button that gives you the feeling of happiness while your body wastes away in negligence, would make sense. ^^ (Again, we made the useful experience that neglecting your actual life and body results in ”paying the price” later. What price in terms of wasted life you consider worth it, and what you consider “wasted”, is of course your choice, as it is based or the current state of your mind. E.g. what experiences trigger what in you, due to what experiences you had in the past.)

Answer 8

Let me put it this way -- naturalism is the belief that nature is all that is. By saying this, naturalism is unverifiable. One would have to know every single detail about the natural world in order to make this claim. Science does not study the supernatural realm, but just because I cannot study it in a natural manner doesn't mean that the supernatural world does not exist. Atheists prematurely claim that "since I can't study it [the supernatural realm], it must not exist."

Answer 9

IS THERE ANY EMPIRICAL TEST THAT COULD POSSIBLY SHOW NATURALISM TO BE FALSE? The following syllogism has much to reveal about this query:

1. If Naturalism is scientific, then it is falsifiable;
2. But Naturalism is not falsifiable, therefore it is not scientific, but opinion.

Explanation: Science progresses by the Scientific Method which requires (1) observability, (2) repeatability, and (3) falsifiability. So for the Naturalistic philosophy to be considered scientific it must be falsifiable.

However, to be falsifiable it must be open to the consideration of spiritual (Divine) intervention (interface, interruption), and the acceptance of creative miracles as evidence of a Spirit realm. But this, Naturalism advocates refuse to do, dismissing any miracle observable in the Earth as something to be put on the "physical science" ledger. (See previous Answers on this posting.) A sort of Catch 22.

Hence, Naturalism is unfalsifiable, therefore not scientific. It falls under the category of OPINION, limited to dialogues in a university faculty room...or to small talk around around a wood stove in the back room of a country store.

If however, glimpses into the historicity of verifiable--and falsifiable--miracles were ventured, then the possible veracity or falseness of the philosophy of Naturalism could be addressed. If not, then the research into Naturalism's truthfulness is an exercise in Begging the Question.

Eventually an honest inquirer would come across the creative miracle demonstrated by The Empty Tomb of a radical rabbi in the Mideast who claimed to be from the spirit realm. If His declaration is true--as many eye-witnesses avowed--then indeed, Naturalism is definitely falsified! No matter how upsetting, and mind-boggling that may be to our progressive minds.

The questioner asked concerning the existence of an empirical proof, but empirical proofs only deal with the physical and this query ventures into the spiritual realm where empirical proofs are useless. Unless...the intrusion of the Almighty Spirit being is recognized, with accompanying creative miracles performed in the physical sphere of reality: deeds that have characteristics that can only be attributed to a God. Then Naturalism can be falsified.

The problem arises when Creative deeds are done, which can only be attributed to a supranatural Being, and they are dismissed out of hand by the prejudiced mind or biased community of philosophers. There is no miracle they would accept, even if a person were raised from the dead right in front of them. [Ask Jesus how He knows that to be true!] This being the case, Naturalism is not falsifiable...and therefore, not a scientific philosophy.

Naturalism is not falsifiable only because of the attitude of the modernist atheistic hardened mind-set.