Are you seriously suggesting that "atomic theory" rests on the concept of the existence of the supernatural? Really!?
No, funnily enough, I'm not. I'm suggesting that between being suggested by Democritus in 2500 years ago and finally being vindicated by Dalton in the 19th century, the theory lay fallow, dismissed and rejected.
Hence, when you said:
What is the point of bothering with such a thing despite this centuries long history of intellectual ineffectiveness?
My answer was the this is precisely what happened to atomic theory, among others.
The earliest Greek philosophers were naturalists. It was this naturalistic strain of thinking that has become science as we know it.
Just think what your definition of naturalism consists of and then tell me precisely which early Greek philosophers you think this is true of.
The accumulative nonsense of speculation that does not work, does not work. If some people believed it long ago does not mean it is good and useful today. That does not excuse clinging to nonsense in this day and age.
Speculation =/= supernaturalism.
I literally have no idea what you think you are doing here. Do you?
And of course a lot of old woo has been abandoned.
Can be found doing very nicely in neurocomputational accounts of taste and smell for example.
Aristotle's many mistakes,
His 'practical syllogism is the very heart of folk psychology and specifically Dennett's account of intentionality.
the Universe is not made of Earth, Wind, water and fire, the four humors theory of medicine. Witches and magic.
Well that is a long list of Boo Woo, so you must be right.
This started out as a question of what is metaphysical naturalism. It is the abandonment of the concept of the supernatural because that is not a useful idea in any way.
Still waiting on a definition that excludes the examples given above.
Tarski's work on logic does not support supernaturalism or other similar bad ideas.
No, but the Banach Tarski paradox is, by your definition, supernatural.
The existence of say, magic and occultism.
Has sod all to do with B/T
Leucippus and Democritus speculated about atoms and turned out to be more right than wrong. But the fact that they were to an extent hypothesizing does not mean we have to accept all hypotheses of the past as successful or even meaningful. Real science means abandoning disproven or useless hypotheses, metaphysics then, by that metric obviously is not a good thing if metaphysics cannot abandon notably useless ideas like the existence of the supernatural. Which cannot be demonstrated to exist, doesn't lead to understanding anything and which is used to support bad ideas like bad theology.
You entirely misunderstood me. IN fact, you have done little else, because you are without doubt but hopelessly out of your depth.
So stop with the strawman nonsense,
Point out any straw man I have used please.
and your sneers at my understanding of science.
I'm not sneering I'm pointing out the self evident fact that you don't understand what science is or how it works. I wish you did.
Metaphysical naturalism is the concept that useless claims such as the existence of supernaturalism have outlived any possible utility and should be chucked into the dungheap of humanities bad ideas that just don't work.
No it isn't. That's just your opinion with the words metaphysical naturalism stuck in front of them.
Supernaturalism has no utility except as a lazy prop for bad theology. If you can prove otherwise, put your proof right here --->
Now, it's funny you should mention straw men. You have this entire thread; find a single point at which I argue in favour of supernaturalism beyond pointing out that your definition of naturalism puts some aspects of pure maths in the same category as a belief in God.
Show us why supernaturalism is a good idea.
Why? it's your attempt to put words in my mouth. Ironically.
Oh, and another way you are religious in your approach - you ignore the inconvenient.