Is “natural science” a logical argument?
A claim that “in natural science, natural phenomena and natural history should be explained by natural causes” is just a fallacious pseudo-argument. On the surface, the logic seems impressive. But when we look deeper, it vanishes into thin air. By carefully examining each use of “natural” we see a shift of meaning that hides (but only for awhile, until we discover the verbal illusion) an illogical circular argument, produced by using the same word in two different ways. One meaning of “natural” — which is used throughout this overview — is normal-appearing, in contrast with miraculous-appearing. In the sentence above, this meaning is used once, for natural causes. A second meaning, pertaining to nature, is used for natural phenomena (phenomena that occur in nature), natural history (the history of nature), and natural science (science that studies nature). But verbal ambiguity doesn’t even require a sentence. All by itself, the term “natural science” is ambiguous because it could ref
