But science isn’t founded on metaphysical naturalism, it is founded on methodological naturalism, which is vastly different. This is one of your errors. Methodological naturalism means that, methodologically, empirical science cannot consider the supernatural, because it is beyond the capacity of empirical science or of its investigorory tools, which are all physical, to do so. No techology has yet been found that can register the presence or the absence of the supernatural. And your definition of nonsense seems to be sense that is beyond your ability to comprehend.

Tsk. So science can’t address the reality of ghosts, werewolves and vampires. Of course it can, and it did two and a half centuries ago. Methodological naturalism is a sleight of hand: it says “pretend naturalism represents reality: what would happen.” That’s what I mean when I say it is methodologically founded on a metaphysical assumption. To say that science cannot assess the supernatural is silly: are you actually worried about magical monsters under your bed? fairies at the bottom of the garden? Of course not.

Sal2: Sure I can, in any particular case, in context. But in general? No more than you can distinguish a melody in general from a nonmelody in general.

Depends on how you define melody, doesn’t it? Just like you can in general distinguish star from non-star. But you cannot, in general distinguish meme from non-meme, like I said. Thanks! (snip ego gratification)

No, I have said that the meme is a subjective meaning that is either triggered (if it’s already in the mind) or learned (if it isn’t) in response to a subjective experience. That subjective experience is, of course, an experience of some stimulus that entered through the senses. And that ALL experiences are of phenomenological necessity subjective. The moonlight enters your eyes just like the Beethoven’s 5th notes enter your ears, or the spoken words enter your ears, or the light bouncing from the words on the page carry their configuration to your eyes. And for some people, the moon has meaning and significance. But you cannot claim that the light bouncing off the moon to your eyes has nothing to do with the moon; it partakes of the moon, and were the moon not there, its reflected light would not reach your eyes.

Umm, yeah, but the moon isn’t a subjective experience. If the moon itself is not a subjective experience, that means that whatever my experience is of it, it doesn’t necessarily change because of my experience. If a meme is a subjective experience, two people will not have the same meme if they have different subjective experiences. Here you are claiming that when I say I have a different subjective experience than someone else, and that is evidence of memes not being causally significant units, and you go blathering about the moon being different if my glasses are blurred. Jumpin’. Its incredible. What precisely were you honored for? No, don’t answer….(snip irrelevancy)

What is silly is to see you invoke creationist terms like scientism, when there is no such -ism.

You sure hit the ground hard with that one. You are egregiously in error:
carbon.cudenver.edu
You canalso find it in the dictionary. I mean, heaven forfend…..
I would seriously ask for your money back, Mr BA (cum laude).

You fail to grasp the difference between methods and doctrines.
No I grasp it all right, I just hold that the distinction is often more theoretical than real, and an insistence on the relevance of the distinction is often misplaced. I have this crazy idea that scientists are human, and that personal philosophy interacts with professionalism. I wouldn’t say that all scientists are physicalists, but I think anyone would be a fool to say that the practice and education of science do not discourage non-physicalist views. Nor does your magnificent display of your BA (with honors! cum laude!) awe me into accepting a contrary opinion.

(snip rambling)