Coherence: What constitutes "natural" causes and events in science?

In this series of questions on the definition of science, many readers have defined science as the study of "natural" causes and events [1]. My question is:

What constitutes "natural" causes and events?

I ask because while the argument is that "natural" is all-inclusive of science, we do make a distinction between, for example, "naturally occuring" and "man-made".

So when you say "natural" causes and events, what exactly does that include and what does it not include?

Coherence: What constitutes "natural" causes and events in science?headache

OK, I see where you are going with this line of questioning and believe I can offer some agreement and light in the debate as to what constitutes 'nature' in scientific enquiry.

I trained as a research psychologist and have always preferred social science and philosophy to 'natural' or 'hard' science. Bear in mind my particular kind of experience will affect my thinking on the matter.

Natural science typically suggests something of the physical world. In John Locke's essay on empiricism he points out that there is a 'veil of perception' that prevents of from experiencing reality directly. Your senses 'could' be fooled by simple observation of natural phenomenon. However, Locke did suggest some ground rules for sifting out the illusion from reality. In short he suggested that those materials that can be perceived by more than one physical sense can be considered more real and those sensed by increasing numbers are increasingly 'real'.

FirstPrevious12 3 4 5 Next End

Coherence: What constitutes "natural" causes and events in science?

Topic