Naturalism (philosophy) (English Wikipedia)

"Simple Random Sampling". Archived from the original on 2 January 2018. Retrieved 6 January 2018. A simple random sample (SRS) is the most basic probabilistic option used for creating a sample from a population. Each SRS is made of individuals drawn from a larger population, completely at random. As a result, said individuals have an equal chance of being selected throughout the sampling process. The benefit of SRS is that as a result, the investigator is guaranteed to choose a sample which is representative of the population, which ensures statistically valid conclusions.

books.google.com

Hankinson, R. J. (1997). Cause and Explanation in Ancient Greek Thought. Oxford University Press. p. 125. ISBN 978-0-19-924656-4.
Abizadeh, A. (2018). Hobbes and the Two Faces of Ethics. Cambridge University Press. p. 23. ISBN 978-1-108-41729-7. Retrieved 14 June 2023.
The Nineteenth Century and After, Vol. 151, 1952, p. 227: "the Continental materialism of Moleschott and Buchner".
Stone 2008, p. 2: Personally, I place great emphasis on the phrase "in principle", since there are many things that science does not now explain. And perhaps we need some natural piety concerning the ontological limit question as to why there is anything at all. But the idea that naturalism is a polemical notion is important" Stone, J.A. (2008). Religious Naturalism Today: The Rebirth of a Forgotten Alternative. G – Reference, Information and Interdisciplinary Subjects Series. State University of New York Press. p. 2. ISBN 978-0-7914-7537-9. LCCN 2007048682.
Lynne Rudder (2013). Naturalism and the First-Person Perspective. Oxford University Press. p. 5. ISBN 978-0199914746.
Beilby, J.K. (2002). Naturalism Defeated?: Essays on Plantinga's Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism. G – Reference, Information and Interdisciplinary Subjects Series. Cornell University Press. p. ix. ISBN 9780801487637. LCCN 2001006111.
Beilby, J.K., ed. (2002). "Introduction by Alvin Plantinga". Naturalism Defeated?: Essays on Plantinga's Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism. Reference, Information and Interdisciplinary Subjects Series. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. pp. 1–2, 10. ISBN 978-0-8014-8763-7. LCCN 2001006111.
Oppy, Graham; Trakakis, N. N. (11 September 2014). Twentieth-Century Philosophy of Religion: The History of Western Philosophy of Religion. Routledge. ISBN 978-1-317-54638-2.

calvin.edu

"ASA March 2006 – Re: Methodological Naturalism". Archived from the original on 1 August 2012. Retrieved 18 June 2006.

cambridge.org

ebooks.cambridge.org

Papineau, David (2011). "The Rise of Physicalism". In Gillett, Carl; Loewer, Barry (eds.). Physicalism and its Discontents. Cambridge. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511570797. ISBN 9780521801751. Archived from the original on 1 June 2016. Retrieved 9 January 2018.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)

chronicle.com

Plantinga, Alvin (11 April 2010). "Evolution, Shibboleths, and Philosophers — Letters to the Editor". The Chronicle of Higher Education. ...I do indeed think that evolution functions as a contemporary shibboleth by which to distinguish the ignorant fundamentalist goats from the informed and scientifically literate sheep.

According to Richard Dawkins, 'It is absolutely safe to say that, if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid, or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that).' Daniel Dennett goes Dawkins one (or two) further: 'Anyone today who doubts that the variety of life on this planet was produced by a process of evolution is simply ignorant—inexcusably ignorant.' You wake up in the middle of the night; you think, can that whole Darwinian story really be true? Wham! You are inexcusably ignorant.

I do think that evolution has become a modern idol of the tribe. But of course it doesn't even begin to follow that I think the scientific theory of evolution is false. And I don't.

doi.org

Papineau, David (2011). "The Rise of Physicalism". In Gillett, Carl; Loewer, Barry (eds.). Physicalism and its Discontents. Cambridge. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511570797. ISBN 9780521801751. Archived from the original on 1 June 2016. Retrieved 9 January 2018.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)
Gould 1965, pp. 223–228. Gould, S. J. (1965). "Is uniformitarianism necessary?". American Journal of Science. 263 (3): 223–228. Bibcode:1965AmJS..263..223G. doi:10.2475/ajs.263.3.223.
Fitelson, Branden; Sober, Elliott (1998). "Plantinga's Probability Arguments Against Evolutionary Naturalism". Pacific Philosophical Quarterly. 79 (2): 115–129. doi:10.1111/1468-0114.00053.

giffordlectures.org

"Gifford Lecture Series – Warrant and Proper Function 1987–1988". Archived from the original on 4 January 2012. Retrieved 14 January 2012.

griffith.edu.au

ict.griffith.edu.au

Vaccaro, Joan. "Reality". Retrieved 22 December 2017.
Vaccaro, Joan. "Objectiveism". Retrieved 22 December 2017. Objective reality exists beyond or outside our self. Any belief that it arises from a real world outside us is actually an assumption. It seems more beneficial to assume that an objective reality exists than to live with solipsism, and so people are quite happy to make this assumption. In fact we made this assumption unconsciously when we began to learn about the world as infants. The world outside ourselves appears to respond in ways which are consistent with it being real. The assumption of objectivism is essential if we are to attach the contemporary meanings to our sensations and feelings and make more sense of them.

harvard.edu

ui.adsabs.harvard.edu

Gould 1965, pp. 223–228. Gould, S. J. (1965). "Is uniformitarianism necessary?". American Journal of Science. 263 (3): 223–228. Bibcode:1965AmJS..263..223G. doi:10.2475/ajs.263.3.223.

lambda-diode.com

Durak 2008. Durak, Antoine Berke (6 June 2008). "The nature of reality and knowledge".

loc.gov

lccn.loc.gov

Stone 2008, p. 2: Personally, I place great emphasis on the phrase "in principle", since there are many things that science does not now explain. And perhaps we need some natural piety concerning the ontological limit question as to why there is anything at all. But the idea that naturalism is a polemical notion is important" Stone, J.A. (2008). Religious Naturalism Today: The Rebirth of a Forgotten Alternative. G – Reference, Information and Interdisciplinary Subjects Series. State University of New York Press. p. 2. ISBN 978-0-7914-7537-9. LCCN 2007048682.
Whitehead 1997, p. 135. Whitehead, A.N. (1997) [1920]. Science and the Modern World. Lowell Lectures. Free Press. ISBN 978-0-684-83639-3. LCCN 67002244.
Beilby, J.K. (2002). Naturalism Defeated?: Essays on Plantinga's Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism. G – Reference, Information and Interdisciplinary Subjects Series. Cornell University Press. p. ix. ISBN 9780801487637. LCCN 2001006111.
Beilby, J.K., ed. (2002). "Introduction by Alvin Plantinga". Naturalism Defeated?: Essays on Plantinga's Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism. Reference, Information and Interdisciplinary Subjects Series. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. pp. 1–2, 10. ISBN 978-0-8014-8763-7. LCCN 2001006111.

lyceumphilosophy.com

Chen 2009, pp. 1–2. Chen, Christina S. (2009). Larson, Thomas (ed.). "Atheism and the Assumptions of Science and Religion". Lyceum (2): 1–10.

msu.edu

Pennock, Robert T. (10 June 2015). "Supernaturalist Explanations..." msu.edu. Archived from the original on 10 June 2015. Retrieved 16 June 2021.
T., Robert (10 June 2015). "Supernaturalist Explanations..." msu.edu. Archived from the original on 10 June 2015. Retrieved 16 June 2021.

ncse.com

Scott, Eugenie C. (2008). "Science and Religion, Methodology and Humanism". NCSE. Retrieved 20 March 2012.

oed.com

"naturalism". Oxford English Dictionary Online.

pandasthumb.org

Nick Matzke: On the Origins of Methodological Naturalism Archived 2006-09-03 at the Wayback Machine. The Pandas Thumb (March 20, 2006)

philpapers.org

Fitelson, Branden; Sober, Elliott (1998). "Plantinga's Probability Arguments Against Evolutionary Naturalism". Pacific Philosophical Quarterly. 79 (2): 115–129. doi:10.1111/1468-0114.00053.

robertpriddy.com

Priddy, Robert (1998). "Chapter Five, Scientific Objectivity in Question". Science Limited.

secularhumanism.org

Kurtz, Paul (Spring 1998). "Darwin Re-Crucified: Why Are So Many Afraid of Naturalism?". Free Inquiry. 18 (2). Archived from the original on 18 October 2012. Retrieved 6 April 2011.

stanford.edu

plato.stanford.edu

Papineau, David (22 February 2007). "Naturalism". In Edward N. Zalta (ed.). Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. According to philosopher Steven Lockwood, naturalism can be separated into an ontological sense and a methodological sense.
Chatterjee, A (2012). "Naturalism in Classical Indian Philosophy". In Zalta, Edward N. (ed.). The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2014 Edition).
William Edward Morris, "David Hume", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (21 May 2014), Edward N. Zalta (ed.)
Rohlf, Michael (28 July 2020). "Immanuel Kant". Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University.
Papineau, David "Naturalism", in "The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy"
Papineau, David "Naturalism", in The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, quote, "The great majority of contemporary philosophers would happily... reject 'supernatural' entities, and allow that science is a possible route (if not necessarily the only one) to important truths about the 'human spirit'."
Quine has argued that "Epistemology, or something like it, simply falls into place as a chapter of psychology." The Quinean view that we should abandon epistemology for psychology, however, is not widely accepted by contemporary naturalists in epistemology. See Feldman, Richard (2012). "Naturalized Epistemology". In Zalta, Edward N. (ed.). The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2012 ed.). Retrieved 4 June 2014. Quinean Replacement Naturalism finds relatively few supporters.

stephenjaygould.org

Schafersman 1996, Methodological naturalism is the adoption or assumption of naturalism in scientific belief and practice without really believing in naturalism. Schafersman, Steven D. (1996). "Naturalism is Today An Essential Part of Science". Archived from the original on 5 July 2019. Retrieved 3 November 2010.
Schafersman 1996. Schafersman, Steven D. (1996). "Naturalism is Today An Essential Part of Science". Archived from the original on 5 July 2019. Retrieved 3 November 2010.

stillnessspeaks.com

Sobottka 2005, p. 11. Sobottka, Stanley (2005). "Consciousness" (PDF).

talkorigins.org

"Kitzmiller v. Dover: Day 3, AM: Robert Pennock (continued)". www.talkorigins.org.
"Kitzmiller v. Dover: Day 3, AM: Robert Pennock (continued)". www.talkorigins.org.

web.archive.org

Kurtz, Paul (Spring 1998). "Darwin Re-Crucified: Why Are So Many Afraid of Naturalism?". Free Inquiry. 18 (2). Archived from the original on 18 October 2012. Retrieved 6 April 2011.
Schafersman 1996, Methodological naturalism is the adoption or assumption of naturalism in scientific belief and practice without really believing in naturalism. Schafersman, Steven D. (1996). "Naturalism is Today An Essential Part of Science". Archived from the original on 5 July 2019. Retrieved 3 November 2010.
Papineau, David (2011). "The Rise of Physicalism". In Gillett, Carl; Loewer, Barry (eds.). Physicalism and its Discontents. Cambridge. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511570797. ISBN 9780521801751. Archived from the original on 1 June 2016. Retrieved 9 January 2018.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)
Nick Matzke: On the Origins of Methodological Naturalism Archived 2006-09-03 at the Wayback Machine. The Pandas Thumb (March 20, 2006)
Schafersman 1996. Schafersman, Steven D. (1996). "Naturalism is Today An Essential Part of Science". Archived from the original on 5 July 2019. Retrieved 3 November 2010.
"Simple Random Sampling". Archived from the original on 2 January 2018. Retrieved 6 January 2018. A simple random sample (SRS) is the most basic probabilistic option used for creating a sample from a population. Each SRS is made of individuals drawn from a larger population, completely at random. As a result, said individuals have an equal chance of being selected throughout the sampling process. The benefit of SRS is that as a result, the investigator is guaranteed to choose a sample which is representative of the population, which ensures statistically valid conclusions.
Pennock, Robert T. (10 June 2015). "Supernaturalist Explanations..." msu.edu. Archived from the original on 10 June 2015. Retrieved 16 June 2021.
"Gifford Lecture Series – Warrant and Proper Function 1987–1988". Archived from the original on 4 January 2012. Retrieved 14 January 2012.
T., Robert (10 June 2015). "Supernaturalist Explanations..." msu.edu. Archived from the original on 10 June 2015. Retrieved 16 June 2021.