Talk:Methodological materialism

This article looks as if it were created merely for the purpose of pushing a point-of-view.

The article is confusing the idea that there exist only matter and forces in the universe with a strawman to the effect that scientists do not believe that intelligence exists in the universe. The one does not imply the other: I program neural nets and, while they can do very interesting things, and could potentially build lego structures in the sand, these things don't require me to believe that there is anything in my computer but bits being turned on and off.

Thus the lego-in-the-desert analogy, which appears to be the sole reason that this article was created, is usless, since no scientist would ever say that the lego structure couldn't have been designed. The conclusion by scientists that the lego structure was designed in no way goes against the ideas of methodological materialism, and so the analogy is pointless.

The sentence "It may seem silly ... but many scientists suddenly agree..." is obviously written to try to connect the sillyness of the lego strawman with the scientists actual position in the reader's mind, but this connection exists only in th mind of the author.

If this article were to talk about methodological materialism in a neutral manner, it should almost certainly start with references to Hobbes and Descartes, and then go on to say that the relevence of this paradigm is that the scientific world restricts its hypotheses to things which are observable and testable, and which, specifically, don't require God as an explanation. If we can stop the spread of these silly analogies in these articles we'd all be much better off, I feel. — Asbestos | Talk 17:14, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm game. What do you suggest for revisions? David Bergan 17:59, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This article should be merged/redirected to Methodological naturalism. Is there an important distinction? --Rikurzhen 18:25, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)