For example,suppose that the universe was in fact created by a supernatural god as told in some religions. Suppose for the moment that this scenario is the true one. Now, Rejecting the possibility that supernatural explanations are true will lead science to a wrong conclusion about the origin of the universe.

So, adapting a materialistic philosophy can make science deviating from truth. In this case we have two possibilities, the first is to say that the aim of science is not to discover the true nature of things but that it gives us just a possible materialistic model of how things work. The other is to allow the room of metaphysical explanations.

We can give similar scenarios in Biology say in the origin of life or origin of mind and Consciousness.

So, the question is:

How should the scientific method be treated? Is it a mean towards objective truth? or just a materialistic model-builder? Is it necessary that the scientific method exclude supernatural explanations?

closed as primarily opinion-based by virmaior Jun 5 '16 at 23:35

Many good questions generate some degree of opinion based on expert experience, but answers to this question will tend to be almost entirely based on opinions, rather than facts, references, or specific expertise. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

  • Maybe it's just the current wording, but the last paragraph reads like it's fishing for policy opinions about what we should do about the relationship between science and metaphysics. Please try to keep the question focused on a question about philosophy rather than just one that involves philosophy. – virmaior Jun 5 '16 at 23:36
  • @virmaior, I've changed it, If the changes still are not precises enough, tell me to try again. – Fawzy Hegab Jun 6 '16 at 0:51
  • Now it seems really broad. Also, it's still asking us to just offer our opinions. On what basis should we decide if it is a mean towards objective truth or materialistic model builder? / If on the other hand you referenced a specific thinker in philosophy of science or a scientist that likes to pontificate philosophically then one could answer whether that thinker takes it to be one of those things. – virmaior Jun 6 '16 at 1:10

Your question operates with some weighty terms like metaphysics, materialism, supernatural explanation, true explanation.

I would not equate science with materialism: Since the time of Faraday physics successfully operates with the field concept. And at least since the beginning of the 20th century we know that fields can propagate through empty space, in particular through space without masses.

I would characterize the position of science concerning supernatural phenomena as follows: Science does not accept supernatural argumentation as scientific explanation. Notably science does not operate with the concept of miracles.

Always phenomena exist which science - yet - cannot explain. Today the question about the origin of our world is an example. Here science has to refrain from premature answers and has to leave open the question for further research.

In my opionin so called "supernatural" explanations are no explanations at all. They are just ad-hoc answers. Of course the content of these answers could be true. But there lacks any general and accepted theory from which such answer could be derived. Moreover, in general the proposed supernatural answer cannot be tested. These two arguments speak against supernatural explanations.

Science is always at risk to deviate from the true explanation. But this problem is inherent to any human explanation. At least, science allows to recognize false explanations and to improve the answer. "We err upwards" (Gerhard Vollmer)

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.