@ Samurai
You had a couple of simple logical errors in your
tract.
First of all, nobody is “authorized” to say that something is natural or not. Scientists don’t have some board of directors meeting in secret and defining things as being “natural” or “supernatural”. That makes no more sense than saying, in regards to math, “Who authorizes this particular number to be positive?” Positive and negative are defined such that we can look at any number and see, by virtue of the properties of the number itself, whether they are one or the other (or, as in the case of zero, its properties tell us that it is neither). Similarly, “natural” and “supernatural” are terms that, by their definitions, delineate two categories of phenomena: those that are observed with our senses and instruments, and those that are not.
From this, we can then progress to understanding that nature (which does not have a “self”, by the way, either its’ or hers’) need merely provide the background for scientific investigation, and does not (and indeed, can not) act in any conscious or participatory capacity. Nature does not have a goal, or a mind it simply is, in the same sense that Mt. Everest is, or that Alma Cogan isn’t. Nature does not “settle the problem” nature contains the information that we need to increase our understanding of a problem, and perhaps, to eventually describe a possible solution.
Your largest logical mistake is this: “Since natural explanation is invoking/appealing the presence and participation of nature, then, logically and strictly speaking, nature itself/herself should settle this problem. So, logically and reasonably speaking, nature MUST DIRECTLY communicates to human scientists or vise versa and guarantees that what human scientists are seeing/observing are really caused by nature.”
You jump from “We must get our answers from nature,” to “Nature must TALK to us in order for us to get answers.” Feel free to enumerate the steps that you took to get from A to Z here, but if you feel that there is no other possible way to get information from the world around us, then by all means show your work.
Here a quick analogy. Suppose you wanted to know how your neighbor lived. Perhaps you want to know how big his bedroom is, or how many movies he owns. According to your logic, the ONLY way to find out is to ask your neighbor. Of course, upon thinking about it, it’s clear that we have other options. We can enter the house and look around we can count all of his movies. Perhaps he doesn’t even keep his movies all at the house perhaps some are in storage. That makes the analogy even better, because science is constantly revising and updating its conclusions based on what, ladies and gentlemen? New information. New discoveries. New understanding of old discoveries, even.
To be less hypothetical, how do you determine the height of a mountain? Do you ask the mountain to please tell you how tall it is? What if it’s shy? Or self-conscious? Or, and this may be a stretch, what if it doesn’t talk at all? You measure, you observe nature (which is how science obtains information, not from some bizarre “Where is the rebel base?” Q&A session with Demeter), and you use the conclusions from your observation to make new predictions about the world.
Finally, you suggest that “we cannot simply label science explanation as natural’,” unless we have “nature’s guarantee.” This is, on its face, absurd. Science offers no guarantee. Science (and evolution, lest you attempt to argue that evolution does not count) simply says “This is the best information that we have right now. These are the best predictions that we can make based on our current models.” There is no guarantee that every conclusion is right, and you’ll be hard pressed to find a single scientist (and by that I mean a professional scientist, not someone who “took sciences calluses in the college”) who would suggest otherwise.
In conclusion, Sam, not a bad first effort at writing philosophically. Go back, correct your mistakes, give it some more thought, and then go for draft #2. You might want to expand on that idea of inter-relation as well, since what you intend with that term is by no means clear. Make sure to remember that just because something makes sense in your own head, that doesn’t mean it is similarly obvious to other people. Show ALL the steps that you use to get from one idea to the next, and do try to support them with an understanding of the subject on which you write, as well as the rules and forms of both logic and grammar. This will make your next draft much easier to read, not to mention less likely to be dismissed out of hand. Take special care as well in your opening paragraphs, as they are the building blocks for the rest of your paper. In this case, your early errors are so utterly fatal (from a logical standpoint) as to completely invalidate your conclusions.
