বিষয়বস্তুতে চলুন

ব্যবহারকারী:সুমিত রায়/খেলাঘর: সংশোধিত সংস্করণের মধ্যে পার্থক্য

উইকিপিডিয়া, মুক্ত বিশ্বকোষ থেকে
বিষয়বস্তু বিয়োগ হয়েছে বিষয়বস্তু যোগ হয়েছে
সম্পাদনা সারাংশ নেই
সম্পাদনা সারাংশ নেই
১ নং লাইন: ১ নং লাইন:
[[দর্শন|দর্শনে]], '''নেচারালিজম বা প্রকৃতিবাদ বা স্বাভাবিকতা''' হল "একটি ধারণা বা মতবাদ যা অনুসারে কেবলমাত্র প্রাকৃতিক নিয়ম এবং বলই (অতিপ্রাকৃতিক অথবা আধ্যাত্মিক নয়) জগৎকে পরিচালিত করতে পারে।"<ref>Oxford English Dictionary Online [http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/125337?redirectedFrom=naturalism naturalism]</ref> প্রকৃতিবাদকে ধারণকারী অর্থাৎ নেচারালিস্ট বা প্রকৃতিবাদীগণ বলেন, প্রাকৃতিক নিয়মগুলোই সেই নিয়ম যা প্রাকৃতিক [[মহাবিশ্ব|মহাবিশ্বের]] গঠন ও আচরণকে নিয়ন্ত্রণ করে এবং পরিবর্তিত মহাবিশ্বের প্রতিটি ধাপই এই নিয়মগুলোর ফলাফল।<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10713a.htm|title=CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Naturalism|date=21 November 2009|accessdate=6 March 2012|quote=Naturalism is not so much a special system as a point of view or tendency common to a number of philosophical and religious systems; not so much a well-defined set of positive and negative doctrines as an attitude or spirit pervading and influencing many doctrines. As the name implies, this tendency consists essentially in looking upon nature as the one original and fundamental source of all that exists, and in attempting to explain everything in terms of nature. Either the limits of nature are also the limits of existing reality, or at least the first cause, [[cosmological argument|if its existence is found necessary]], has nothing to do with the working of natural agencies. All events, therefore, find their adequate explanation within nature itself. But, as the terms nature and natural are themselves used in more than one sense, the term naturalism is also far from having one fixed meaning.}}</ref>
[[File:BerlinWallMonumentWestView.jpg|সংযোগ=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:BerlinWallMonumentWestView.jpg|থাম্ব|বারলিন দেয়াল স্মৃতিস্তম্ভ (বাম দৃশ্য)- দেয়ালের বাম দিকে দেয়াল ছবি দিয়ে আবৃত যা ১৯৮৯ পরবর্তী আশা এবং আশাবাদের প্রতিফলন ঘটায় ]]
'''আশাবাদ''' একটি মানষিক মনোভাব। আশাবাদ এবং নৈরাশ্যবাদের মাঝে বৈপরীত্য বোঝানোর জন্য একটি সাধারণ প্রবাদ ব্যবহার করা হয়, তা হল এক গ্লাস জল অর্ধেক পূর্ণ আছে, যেখানে একজন আশাবাদী বলবেন গ্লাসটি অর্ধেক ভর্তি, সেখানে একজন নৈরাশ্যবাদী বলবেন গ্লাসটি অর্ধেক খালি।


"প্রকৃতিবাদকে সজ্ঞানগতভাবেই একটি অন্টোলজিভিত্তিক উপাদান এবং একটি পদ্ধতিগত উপাদানে ভাগ করা যেতে পারে।"<ref name="Stanford">{{Cite web|title=Naturalism|url=http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/naturalism/|last=Papineau|first=David|authorlink=David Papineau|work=[[Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy]]|date=22 February 2007}}</ref> অন্টোলজি বলতে সেই দার্শনিক শাখাকে বোঝায় যা বাস্তবতার প্রকৃতি নিয়ে আলোচনা করে। কিছু দার্শনিক প্রকৃতিবাদকে বস্তুবাদের সমার্থক দাবী করেন। যেমন, দার্শনিক পল কার্টজ বলেন, প্রকৃতিকে বস্তুর নীতি দিয়েই সবচেয়ে ভালভাবে ব্যাখ্যা করা যায়। এই নীতিগুলোর মধ্যে আছে ভর, শক্তি এবং সায়েন্স কমিউনিটি দ্বারা স্বীকৃত ভৌত ও রাসায়নিক ধর্মগুলো। আবার, প্রকৃতিবাদের এই ধারণাটি বলে, আত্মা, ডেইটি এবং ভূতরা সত্য নয় এবং প্রকৃতিতে এসবের কোণ "[[টেলিওলজি|উদ্দেশ্য]]" নেই। এরকম প্রকৃতিবাদের প্রতি চূড়ান্ত বিশ্বাসকে সাধারণভাবে মেটাফিজিকাল নেচারালিজম বা [[অধিবিদ্যীয় প্রকৃতিবাদ|অধিবিদ্যীয় প্রকৃতিবাদ]] বলা হয়।<ref name="KurtzDistinction">{{Cite journal|authorlink=Paul Kurtz|author=Kurtz, Paul|url=http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/kurtz_18_2.html|title=Darwin Re-Crucified: Why Are So Many Afraid of Naturalism?|journal=[[Free Inquiry]]|date=Spring 1998|volume=18|issue=2}}</ref>
আশাবাদ শব্দটি ইংরেজি "Optimism" এর পারিভাষিক শব্দ। Optimism শব্দটি এসেছে ল্যাতিন ''Optimum'' থেকে যার অর্থ হল "সর্বোত্তম"। "আশাবাদী হওয়া" হল একটি ধারণা যার দ্বারা কোন প্রদত্ত অবস্থায় সাম্ভাব্য সর্বোত্তম ফলাফল এর আশা করাকে বোঝায়। একে সাধারণত মনোবিজ্ঞানে ডিসপজিশনাল অপটিমিজম বা স্বভাবগত আশাবাদ বলা হয়। এটা তাই একটি বিশ্বাসকে প্রতিফলিত করে যা বলে ভবিষ্যতের অবস্থা সর্বোত্তম হবে বলে দেখা যাবে।<ref>http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/optimism</ref>


প্রকৃতিবাদকে
আশাবাদের তত্ত্বগুলোর মধ্যে ডিসপজিশনাল বা স্বভাবগত মডেল, ব্যাখ্যামূলক ধরণের মডেল অন্তর্ভূক্ত। এই দুটো তাত্ত্বিক ব্যবস্থাতেই আশাবাদ পরিমাপ করার পদ্ধতি বের করা হয়েছে, যেমন আশাবাদের উৎপত্তিগত সংজ্ঞা অনুসারে বিভিন্ন ধরণের জীবন অভিমুখিতা পরীক্ষা (Life Orientation Test), অথবা ব্যাখ্যামূলক ধরণের মডেল অনুসারে আরোপন রীতির প্রশ্নাবলি (Attributional Style Questionnaire) সাজিয়ে আশাবাদের পরীক্ষা নেয়া হয়।


Assuming naturalism in working methods is the current paradigm, without the unfounded consideration of naturalism as an absolute truth with philosophical entailment, called ''[[:en:Methodological_naturalism|methodological naturalism]]''.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/schafersman_nat.html|title=Naturalism is Today An Essential Part of Science|first=Steven D.|last=Schafersman|authorlink=Steven Schafersman|year=1996|quote=Methodological naturalism is the adoption or assumption of naturalism in scientific belief and practice without really believing in naturalism.}}</ref> The subject matter here is a philosophy of acquiring knowledge based on an assumed paradigm.
আশাবাদ ও নৈরাশ্যবাদের মধ্যকার ভিন্নতা কিছুটা উত্তরাধিকার সূত্রে আসে<ref name="Bates2015">{{cite journal|last1=Bates|first1=Timothy C.|title=The glass is half full and half empty: A population-representative twin study testing if optimism and pessimism are distinct systems|journal=[[The Journal of Positive Psychology]]|date=25 February 2015|doi=10.1080/17439760.2015.1015155|volume=10|pages=533–542}}</ref> এবং এটা কিছু মাত্রায় জীববিজ্ঞানগত বৈশিষ্ট্যকে প্রতিফলিত করে।<ref name="Sharot2011">{{cite journal|last1=Sharot|first1=Tali|title=The optimism bias|journal=Current Biology|date=December 2011|volume=21|issue=23|pages=R941–R945|doi=10.1016/j.cub.2011.10.030|url=http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960982211011912}}</ref> এটা একই সাথে সামাজিক উপাদানগুলো দ্বারাও প্রভাবিত হয়, যাদের মধ্যে পারিবারিক প্রভাব রয়েছে,<ref name="Bates2015" /> যা বলে এটা শেখাও যেতে পারে।<ref name="Vaughan 2000">{{cite book|first=Susan C.|last=Vaughan|title=Half Empty, Half Full: Understanding the Psychological Roots of Optimism|location=New York|publisher=Courtyard|year=2000|isbn=}}</ref> আশাবাদকে স্বাস্থ্যের সাথেও সম্পর্কযুক্ত করা যায়।<ref>{{Youtube|U9cGdRNMdQQ|Ron Gutman: The hidden power of smiling}}</ref>


With the exception of [[:en:Pantheism|pantheists]]—who believe that Nature and God are one and the same thing—[[:en:Theism|theists]] challenge the idea that nature contains all of reality. According to some theists, natural laws may be viewed as so-called secondary causes of god(s).
== মনোবিজ্ঞানগত আশাবাদ ==


In the 20th century, [[:en:Willard_Van_Orman_Quine|Willard Van Orman Quine]], [[:en:George_Santayana|George Santayana]], and other philosophers argued that the success of naturalism in science meant that scientific methods should also be used in philosophy. Science and philosophy are said to form a [[:en:Continuum_(theory)|continuum]], according to this view.
=== স্বভাবগত আশাবাদ ===
[[File:Оптимист_и_пессимист.jpg|সংযোগ=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:%D0%9E%D0%BF%D1%82%D0%B8%D0%BC%D0%B8%D1%81%D1%82_%D0%B8_%D0%BF%D0%B5%D1%81%D1%81%D0%B8%D0%BC%D0%B8%D1%81%D1%82.jpg|থাম্ব|220x220পিক্সেল|''একজন আশাবাদী এবং একজন নৈরাশ্যবাদী'', ভ্লাদিমির ম্যাকোভস্কি, ১৮৯৩ ]]
গবেষকগণ তাদের গবেষণা অনুযায়ী ভিন্ন ভিন্ন ভাবে আশাবাদকে অপারেশনালাইজ (সরাসরিভাবে পরিমাপ করা যায় না এমন বিষয়কে বিভিন্ন উপায়ে পরিমাপ করার ব্যবস্থা করা) করেন। বৈশিষ্ট্যের উপর ভিত্তি করে আশাবাদকে পরিমাপ করার কয়েকটি উপায় আছে, যেমন লাইফ ওরিয়েন্টেশন টেস্ট (LOT)।


== Origins and history ==
ডিসপোজিশনাল অপটিমিজম বা স্বভাবগত আশাবাদ এবং নৈরাশ্যবাদকে<ref>{{cite journal|url=|title=Dispositional optimism and physical well-being: the influence of generalized outcome expectancies on health|last1=Scheier|first1=M. F.|last2=Carver|first2=C. S.|date=1987|journal=Journal of Personality|doi=10.1111/j.1467-6494.1987.tb00434.x|pmid=|access-date=|volume=55|pages=169–210}}</ref> সাধারণভাবে ব্যক্তিকে একটি প্রশ্ন জিজ্ঞাসার মাধ্যমে পরিমাপ করা হয়, সেটা হল, ব্যক্তি ভবিষ্যৎ ফলাফলকে উপকারী হিসেবে দেখেন নাকি নেতিবাচক হিসেবে? LOT প্রত্যেক আলাদা আলাদা ব্যক্তির জন্য আলাদা আলাদা আশাবাদ ও নৈরাশ্যবাদের স্কোর প্রদান করে। আচরণগতভাবে এই দুটো স্কোর r = 0.5 এ কোরিলেট করে। এই স্কেলে আশাবাদী স্কোরগুলো সম্পর্ক,<ref>{{cite journal|title=Social relationships and health|url=http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/doi/10.1126/science.3399889|journal=Science|date=1988-07-29|pages=540–545|volume=241|issue=4865|doi=10.1126/science.3399889|first=J.|last=House|first2=K.|last2=Landis|first3=D|last3=Umberson}}</ref> উচ্চ [[সামাজিক মর্যাদা]],<ref>{{cite journal|title=Depression and socio-economic risk factors: 7-year longitudinal population study|url=http://bjp.rcpsych.org/content/190/4/293|journal=The British Journal of Psychiatry|date=2007-04-01|issn=0007-1250|pmid=17401034|pages=293–298|volume=190|issue=4|doi=10.1192/bjp.bp.105.020040|first=Vincent|last=Lorant|first2=Christophe|last2=Croux|first3=Scott|last3=Weich|first4=Denise|last4=Deliège|first5=Johan|last5=Mackenbach|first6=Marc|last6=Ansseau}}</ref> এবং প্রতিকূলতার সময় ভাল ও সুখের বিষয়গুলোর কম হারানোকে ভবিষ্যদ্বাণী করে।<ref>{{cite book|title=On the self-regulation of behavior|last1=Carver|first1=C. S.|last2=Scheier|first2=M. F.|publisher=Cambridge University Press.|year=1998|isbn=|location=New York|pages=}}</ref> স্বাস্থ্যরক্ষার আচরণগুলো আশাবাদের সাথে সম্পর্কযুক্ত যেখানে স্বাস্থ্যহানির আচরণগুলো নৈরাশ্যবাদের সাথে সম্পর্কযুক্ত।<ref>{{cite journal|title=Mental and physical health of spouse caregivers: The role of personality.|url=http://doi.apa.org/getdoi.cfm?doi=10.1037/0882-7974.7.3.367|journal=Psychology and Aging|pages=367–375|volume=7|issue=3|doi=10.1037/0882-7974.7.3.367|first=Karen|last=Hooker|first2=Deborah|last2=Monahan|first3=Kim|last3=Shifren|first4=Cheryl|last4=Hutchinson}}</ref>
The ideas and assumptions of philosophical naturalism were first seen in the works of the [[:en:Ionian_School_(philosophy)|Ionian School]] [[:en:Pre-Socratic_philosophy|pre-Socratic philosophers]]. One such was [[:en:Thales|Thales]], considered to be the father of science, as he was the first to give explanations of natural events without the use of supernatural causes. These early philosophers subscribed to principles of empirical investigation that strikingly anticipate naturalism.<ref>[[Jonathan Barnes]]'s introduction to Early Greek Philosophy (Penguin)</ref>


Naturalism, in classical Indian philosophies, was the foundation of two ([[:en:Vaisheshika|Vaisheshika]], [[:en:Nyaya|Nyaya]]) of six orthodox schools and one ([[:en:Carvaka|Carvaka]]) heterodox school of Hinduism.<ref>A Chatterjee (2012), [http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2014/entries/naturalism-india/ Naturalism in Classical Indian Philosophy], The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2014 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.)</ref><ref>Dale Riepe (1996), Naturalistic Tradition in Indian Thought, Motilal Banarsidass, ISBN 978-8120812932, pages 227-246</ref> The Vaisheshika school is traced to 2nd century BCE.<ref>Oliver Leaman (1999), ''Key Concepts in Eastern Philosophy.'' Routledge, ISBN 978-0415173629, page 269</ref><ref>J Ganeri (2012), The Self: Naturalism, Consciousness, and the First-Person Stance, Oxford University Press, ISBN 978-0199652365</ref>
কেউ কেউ বলেন, আশাবাদ এবং নৈরাশ্যবাদ উভয়ই একটি একই মাত্রার বা একই বিষয়ের দুই প্রান্ত, এদের মধ্যকার যেকোন পার্থক্যই [[সোশ্যাল ডিজায়ারেবিলিটি বায়াজ|সোশ্যাল ডিজায়ারেবিলিটির]] মত উপাদানকে প্রতিফলিত করে। তাদের কাছে আশাবাদ, নৈরাশ্যবাদের মডেল একমাতৃক এবং একটি নির্দিষ্ট স্কোর দ্বারাই সোশ্যাল ডিজায়ারেবিলিটি বা অন্যান্য একক বিষয়ের স্কোর দ্বারা আশাবাদ ও নৈরাশ্যবাদ উভয়কেই পরিমাপ করা উচিৎ। যাইহোক, কনফারমেটরি মডেলিং আবার দ্বিমাতৃক মডেলকে সমর্থন করে<ref>{{cite journal|title=Separating optimism and pessimism: A robust psychometric analysis of the Revised Life Orientation Test (LOT-R).|url=http://doi.apa.org/getdoi.cfm?doi=10.1037/1040-3590.18.4.433|journal=Psychological Assessment|pages=433–438|volume=18|issue=4|doi=10.1037/1040-3590.18.4.433|first=Philipp Yorck|last=Herzberg|first2=Heide|last2=Glaesmer|first3=Jürgen|last3=Hoyer}}</ref> এবং আশাবাদ ও নৈরাশ্যবাদের দুটো মাত্রা দুটো ভিন্ন ফলাফলকে ভবিষ্যদ্বাণী করে।<ref>{{cite journal|title=Distinguishing optimism from pessimism in older adults: Is it more important to be optimistic or not to be pessimistic?|url=http://doi.apa.org/getdoi.cfm?doi=10.1037/0022-3514.73.6.1345|journal=Journal of Personality and Social Psychology|pages=1345–1353|volume=73|issue=6|doi=10.1037/0022-3514.73.6.1345|first=Susan|last=Robinson-Whelen|first2=Cheongtag|last2=Kim|first3=Robert C.|last3=MacCallum|first4=Janice K.|last4=Kiecolt-Glaser}}</ref> জেনেটিক মডেলিং আশাবাদ ও নৈরাশ্যবাদের স্বাধীনতাকে নিশ্চিত করে, যেখানে দেখানো হয় আশাবাদ ও নৈরাশ্যবাদ দুটো আলাদা আলাদা স্বাধীন বৈশিষ্ট্য থেকে উত্তরাধিকার সূত্রে প্রাপ্ত হয় এবং এদের মধ্যকার কোরিলেশন বা সমন্বয় ঘটে যখন সাধারণ ওয়েল-বিইং ফ্যাক্টর বা মঙ্গলজনক উপাদান এবং পারিবারিক পরিবেশ ব্যক্তিকে প্রভাবিত করে।<ref name="Bates2015" />


The modern emphasis in methodological naturalism primarily originated in the ideas of medieval [[:en:Scholasticism|scholastic]] thinkers during the [[:en:Renaissance_of_the_12th_century|Renaissance of the 12th century]]:
=== ব্যাখ্যামূলক রীতি ===
: By the late Middle Ages the search for natural causes had come to typify the work of [[:en:Christian|Christian]] [[:en:Natural_philosopher|natural philosophers]]. Although characteristically leaving the door open for the possibility of direct divine intervention, they frequently expressed contempt for soft-minded contemporaries who invoked miracles rather than searching for natural explanations. The University of Paris cleric [[:en:Jean_Buridan|Jean Buridan]] (a. 1295-ca. 1358), described as "perhaps the most brilliant arts master of the Middle Ages," contrasted the philosopher's search for "appropriate natural causes" with the common folk's habit of attributing unusual astronomical phenomena to the supernatural. In the fourteenth century the natural philosopher [[:en:Nicole_Oresme|Nicole Oresme]] (ca. 1320–82), who went on to become a Roman Catholic [[:en:Bishop|bishop]], admonished that, in discussing various marvels of nature, "there is no reason to take recourse to the heavens, the last refuge of the weak, or demons, or to our glorious God as if He would produce these effects directly, more so than those effects whose causes we believe are well known to us."
এক্সপ্লানেটরি স্টাইল বা ব্যাখ্যামূলক রীতি হল আশাবাদের স্বভাবগত তত্ত্বের একটি বিশেষ ধরণ। লাইফ ওরিয়েন্টেশন বা জীবন অভিমুখিতাভিত্তিক পরিমাপের সাথে সম্পর্কের ক্ষেত্রে, এট্রিবিউশনাল স্টাইল থিওরি বা বৈশিষ্ট্য আরোপন রীতির তত্ত্বগুলো প্রস্তাব করে যে, আশাবাদ ও [[নৈরাশ্যবাদ]] হল কিভাবে মানুষ কোন ঘটনাকে ব্যাখ্যা করে তারই প্রতিফলন, অর্থাৎ ঘটনার উপর ব্যাখ্যার এট্রিবিউশন বা আরোপনের কারণেই ব্যক্তির মাঝে আশাবাদী ও নৈরাশ্যবাদী স্বভাবেই উদ্ভব হয়। এট্রিবিউশনাল স্টাইলের পরিমাপে ঘটনার উপর এক্সপ্লানেশন বা ব্যাখ্যার আরোপনের ক্ষেত্রে এই ব্যাখ্যাকে তিনটি মাত্রার উপর ভিত্তি করে পৃথক করা হয়। এগুলো হল, ব্যাখ্যাগুলোকে অভ্যন্তরীন (internal) নাকি বহিরাগত (external) কারণে টানা হয়েছে; ব্যাখ্যাগুলোকে স্থিতিশীল (stable) নাকি অস্তিতিশীল (unstable) হিসেবে দেখা হচ্ছে; এবং ব্যাখ্যাগুলোকে গ্লোবালি বা সার্বজনীনভাবে নাকি পরিস্থিতির উপর ভিত্তি করে নির্দিষ্টভাবে (situationally specific) দেখা হচ্ছে। অধিকন্তু, এই পরিমাপগুলো ইতিবাচক ঘটনা এবং নেতিবাচক ঘটনার জন্য বৈশিষ্ট্য আরোপনগুলোর মধ্যেও পার্থক্য সৃষ্টি করে।


: Enthusiasm for the naturalistic study of nature picked up in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries as more and more Christians turned their attention to discovering the so-called [[:en:First_cause|secondary causes]] that God employed in operating the world. The Italian Catholic [[:en:Galileo_Galilei|Galileo Galilei]] (1564–1642), one of the foremost promoters of the new philosophy, insisted that nature "never violates the terms of the laws imposed upon her."<ref>[[Ronald L. Numbers]] (2003). "Science without God: Natural Laws and Christian Beliefs." In: When Science and Christianity Meet, edited by David C. Lindberg, Ronald L. Numbers. Chicago: University Of Chicago Press, p. 267.</ref>
এই রীতি অনুযায়ী একজন আশাবাদী ব্যক্তি হলেন তিনি, যিনি ইতিবাচক ঘটনায় অভ্যন্তরীন, স্থিতিশীল ও সার্বজনীন ব্যাখ্যা আরোপ করবেন। অন্যদিকে নৈরশ্যবাদী তিনিই হন যিনি এই স্থিতিশীলতা, সার্বজনীনতা ও অভ্যন্তরীনতার বৈশিষ্ট্যগুলো নেতিবাচক ঘটনায় আরোপ করেন।<ref name="Gillham2001">{{cite book|last1=Gillham|first1=Jane E.|last2=Shatté|first2=Andrew J.|last3=Reivich|first3=Karen J.|last4=Seligman|first4=Martin E. P.|editor1-last=Chang|editor1-first=Edward C.|title=Optimism and Pessimism: Implications for Theory, Research, and Practice|date=2001|publisher=American Psychological Association|location=Washington, DC|pages=53–75|isbn=978-1-55798-691-7|chapter=Optimism, Pessimism, and Explanatory Style}}</ref> আশাবাদী ও নৈরাশ্যবাদী আরোপনগুলোর মডেলগুলো দেখায় যে এই আরোপনগুলো নিজেই একটি কগনিটিভ স্টাইল বা জ্ঞানীয় রীতি। যেসব ব্যক্তির সার্বজনীন ব্যাখ্যাগুলোর উপর মনোযোগ দেবার ঝোঁক থাকে তারা এটা সকল ধরণের ঘটনার উপরেই করেন, এবং এই জ্ঞানীয় রীতি একে অপরের মাঝে সমন্বয় তৈরি করে। অধিকন্তু, ইতিবাচক ঘটনায় ব্যক্তির আরোপন কিরকম আশাবাদী এবং নেতিবাচক ঘটনায় ব্যক্তির আরোপন কিরকম নৈরাশ্যবাদী তা ভিন্ন ব্যক্তির ক্ষেত্রে বিভিন্ন হয়, কিন্তু আশাবাদ ও নৈরাশ্যবাদের এই দুটি বৈশিষ্ট্যে গুলো আন-কোরিলেটেড বা অ-সমন্বিত।<ref>{{Cite journal|title=The structure of attributional style: Cognitive styles and optimism–pessimism bias in the Attributional Style Questionnaire|url=http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191886914001810|journal=Personality and Individual Differences|date=2014-08-01|pages=79–85|volume=66|doi=10.1016/j.paid.2014.03.022|first=Caimei|last=Liu|first2=Timothy C.|last2=Bates}}</ref>
During the [[:en:Age_of_Enlightenment|Enlightenment]], a number of [[:en:Philosophers|philosophers]] including [[:en:Francis_Bacon|Francis Bacon]] and [[:en:Voltaire|Voltaire]] outlined the philosophical justifications for removing appeal to supernatural forces from investigation of the natural world. Subsequent [[:en:Scientific_revolution|scientific revolutions]] would offer modes of explanation not inherently theistic for [[:en:Biology|biology]], [[:en:Geology|geology]], [[:en:Physics|physics]], and other natural sciences.


[[:en:Pierre_Simon_de_Laplace|Pierre Simon de Laplace]], when asked about the lack of mention of intervention by God in his work on [[:en:Celestial_mechanics|celestial mechanics]], is said to have replied, "I had no need of that hypothesis."<ref>[[W. W. Rouse Ball|Rouse Ball, W. W.]] [1908] (2003) "[http://www.maths.tcd.ie/pub/HistMath/People/Laplace/RouseBall/RB_Laplace.html Pierre Simon Laplace (1749–1827)]", in ''A Short Account of the History of Mathematics'', 4th ed., Dover, ISBN 0-486-20630-0</ref>
ব্যাখ্যামূলক রীতি এবং আশাবাদের সম্পর্কের ক্ষেত্রে অনেক বিতর্ক রয়েছে। কিছু গবেষক যুক্তি দেখান যে গবেষকগণ ব্যাখ্যামূলক রীতি বলতে যা জানে আশাবাদ আসলে তাকেই নির্দেশ করে।<ref>{{cite journal|first=C.|last=Peterson|title=The Future of Optimism|journal=American Psychologist|volume=55|issue=1|year=2000|pages=44–55|doi=10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.44}}</ref> আবার এটাও দেখা যায়, ব্যাখ্যামূলক রীতি স্বভাবগত আশাবাদ থেকে সম্পূর্ণ আলাদা,<ref>{{cite journal|first=L.|last=Abramson|first2=B.|last2=Dykman|first3=D.|last3=Needles|title=Attributional Style and Theory: Let No One Tear Them Asunder|journal=Psychological Inquiry|volume=2|issue=1|year=1991|pages=11–13|doi=10.1207/s15327965pli0201_2}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal|first=H.|last=Zullow|title=Explanations and Expectations: Understanding the ‘Doing’ Side of Optimism|journal=Psychological Inquiry|volume=2|issue=1|year=1991|pages=45–49|doi=10.1207/s15327965pli0201_13}}</ref> এবং এই দুটোকে একই অর্থে ব্যবহার করা উচিৎ নয়, কারণ তারা বড়জোড় সীমিতভাবে সমন্বিত। এই ধারণাগুলোর মাঝে সম্পর্ক খোঁজার জন্য আরও বেশি গবেষণার দরকার।<ref name="Gillham2001" />


According to [[:en:Steven_Schafersman|Steven Schafersman]], president of [[:en:Texas_Citizens_for_Science|Texas Citizens for Science]], an advocacy group opposing [[:en:Creationism|creationism]] in public schools,<ref>{{cite news|title=The God curriculum|url=http://www.telegraph.co.uk/arts/main.jhtml?xml=/arts/2007/04/07/smcreate07.xml&page=2|publisher=[[The Daily Telegraph|The Telegraph]]|date=July 4, 2007|accessdate=2008-12-26|location=London|first=Sally|last=Williams}}</ref> the progressive adoption of methodological naturalism—and later of metaphysical naturalism—followed the advances of science and the increase of its [[:en:Explanatory_power|explanatory power]].<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/schafersman_nat.html|title=Naturalism is Today An Essential Part of Science|first=Steven D.|last=Schafersman|authorlink=Steven Schafersman|year=1996|at=Section "The Origin of Naturalism and Its Relation to Science"|quote=Naturalism did not exist as a philosophy before the nineteenth century, but only as an occasionally adopted and non-rigorous method among natural philosophers. It is a unique philosophy in that it is not ancient or prior to science, and that it developed largely due to the influence of science.}}</ref> These advances also caused the diffusion of positions associated with metaphysical naturalism, such as [[:en:Existentialism|existentialism]].<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/schafersman_nat.html|title=Naturalism is Today An Essential Part of Science|first=Steven D.|last=Schafersman|authorlink=Steven Schafersman|year=1996|at=Section "The Origin of Naturalism and Its Relation to Science"|quote=Naturalism is almost unique in that it would not exist as a philosophy without the prior existence of science. It shares this status, in my view, with the philosophy of existentialism.}}</ref>
=== আশাবাদের উৎস্য ===
[[File:Optimistic_Personality.png|সংযোগ=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Optimistic_Personality.png|থাম্ব|আশাবাদী ব্যক্তিত্ব (<ref name="Bates2015" /> থেকে পরিবর্তিত)]]
সকল মনোবিজ্ঞানগত বৈশিষ্ট্যের মত, স্বভাবগত আশাবাদ ও নৈরাশ্যবাদের মধ্যকার ভিন্নতা<ref name="Bates2015" /> এবং এট্রিবিশনাল স্টাইল বা আরোপন রীতির ভিন্নতা<ref name="Schulman 1993 569–574">{{cite journal|first=P.|last=Schulman|first2=D.|last2=Keith|first3=M.|last3=Seligman|title=Is Optimism Heritable? A Study of Twins|journal=Behavior Research and Therapy|volume=31|issue=6|year=1993|pages=569–574|doi=10.1016/0005-7967(93)90108-7}}</ref> হল উত্তরাধিকার সূত্রে প্রাপ্ত। আশাবাদ, নৈরাশ্যবাদ উভয়ই পারিবারিক পরিবেশের মত পরিবেশগত উপাদান দ্বারা শক্তিশালীভাবে প্রভাবিত হয়।<ref name="Bates2015" /> এটাও প্রস্তাব করা হয়েছে যে আশাবাদ সম্ভবত সরাসরিভাবে উত্তরাধিকার সূত্রে প্রাপ্ত না হয়ে [[বুদ্ধিমত্তা]], [[মেজাজ]] ও [[মদ্যাসক্তি|মদ্যাসক্তির]] মত কোন বৈশিষ্ট্যকে উত্তরাধিকার সূত্রে অর্জনের মাধ্যমে পরোক্ষভাবে প্রাপ্ত হয়।<ref name="Schulman 1993 569–574" /> অনেক তত্ত্বই ধরে নেয় যে আশাবাদকে শিক্ষণের মাধ্যমে অর্জন করা বা শেখা সম্ভব,<ref name="Vaughan 2000" /> এবং গবেষণা থেকে পারিবারিক পরিবেশের একটি বিনয়ী ভূমিকা বের হয়ে আসে যেখানে পরিবারের সদস্যদের মধ্যে আশাবাদ বৃদ্ধি (বা হ্রাস) করা হয়, এবং নৈরাশ্যবাদ ও নিউরোটিসিজম হ্রাস (বা বৃদ্ধি) করা হয়।<ref name="Bates2015" />


The current usage of the term naturalism "derives from debates in America in the first half of the last century. The self-proclaimed 'naturalists' from that period included [[:en:John_Dewey|John Dewey]], [[:en:Ernest_Nagel|Ernest Nagel]], [[:en:Sidney_Hook|Sidney Hook]] and [[:en:Roy_Wood_Sellars|Roy Wood Sellars]]." For them nature is the only reality. There is no such thing as 'supernatural'. The scientific method is to be used to investigate all reality, including the human spirit: "So understood, 'naturalism' is not a particularly informative term... 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'."<ref>Papineau, David [http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/naturalism/ "Naturalism"], in "The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy"</ref>
[[নিউরোইমেজিং|ব্রেইন ইমেজিং]] এবং [[জৈব রসায়ন|জৈবরসায়ন]] নিয়ে করা কাজগুলো বলছে যে, একটি [[ফেনোটাইপিক বৈশিষ্ট্য|জীববিজ্ঞানগত বৈশিষ্ট্যের]] মাত্রায়, আশাবাদ ও নৈরাশ্যবাদ মস্তিষ্কের ব্যবস্থাগুলোর প্রতিফলন করে যা যথাক্রমে [[আশাবাদ পক্ষপাত|ইতিবাচক ও নেতিবাচক তথ্য]] সম্পর্কে বিশ্বাসকে প্রক্রিয়াকরণ ও সংঘবদ্ধ করে।<ref name="Sharot2011" />


=== পরিমাপ ===
=== Etymology ===
The term "methodological naturalism" for this approach is much more recent. According to [[:en:Ronald_Numbers|Ronald Numbers]], it was coined in 1983 by Paul de Vries, a [[:en:Wheaton_College,_Illinois|Wheaton College]] philosopher. De Vries distinguished between what he called "methodological naturalism," a disciplinary method that says nothing about God's existence, and "metaphysical naturalism," which "denies the existence of a transcendent God."<ref>[[Nick Matzke]]: [http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/03/on_the_origins.html On the Origins of Methodological Naturalism]. ''The Pandas Thumb'' (March 20, 2006)</ref> The term "methodological naturalism" had been used in 1937 by [[:en:Edgar_S._Brightman|Edgar S. Brightman]] in an article in ''The Philosophical Review'' as a contrast to "naturalism" in general, but there the idea was not really developed to its more recent distinctions.<ref>[http://www.calvin.edu/archive/asa/200603/0501.html ASA March 2006 – Re: Methodological Naturalism]</ref>


== Metaphysical naturalism ==
==== জীবন অভিমুখিতা পরীক্ষা ====
{{Main|Metaphysical naturalism}}Metaphysical naturalism, also called "ontological naturalism" and "philosophical naturalism", is a philosophical worldview and belief system that holds that there is nothing but natural elements, principles, and relations of the kind studied by the [[:en:Natural_sciences|natural sciences]], i.e., those required to understand our physical environment by [[:en:Mathematical_modeling|mathematical modeling]]. Methodological naturalism, on the other hand, refers exclusively to the methodology of science, for which metaphysical naturalism provides only one possible ontological foundation.
লাইফ ওরিয়েন্টেশন টেস্ট (LOT) বা জীবন অভিমুখিতা পরীক্ষা শেইয়ার এবং কারভার কর্তৃক ১৯৮৫ সালে আবিষ্কৃত হয়। এই পরীক্ষাটি আবিষ্কারের উদ্দেশ্য ছিল স্বভাবগত আশাবাদ পরিমাপ করা যার দ্বারা ইতিবাচক অথবা নেতিবাচক ফলাফলের আশা করা বোঝায়।<ref name="Gillham2001" /> এটা আশাবাদ ও নৈরাশ্যবাদ সংক্রান্ত সবচেয়ে বিখ্যাত পরীক্ষাগুলোর মধ্যে একটি। এখানে আটটা আইটেম এবং চারটা ফিলার আইটেম ছিল। চারটি ছিল ইতিবাচক আইটেম (যেমন "''নির্দিষ্ট কিছু সময়ে, আমি সাধারণত সবচেয়ে ভালটা আশা করি'' ") এবং চারটি ছিল নেতিবাচক আইটেম (যেমন "''যদি আমার সাথে কোন খারাপ কিছু হবার সম্ভাবনা থাকে, তাহলে সেই খারাপটাই হবে।'' ")।<ref name="ScheierCarver1985">{{cite journal|last1=Scheier|first1=Michael F.|last2=Carver|first2=Charles S.|title=Optimism, coping, and health: Assessment and implications of generalized outcome expectancies.|journal=Health Psychology|date=1985|volume=4|issue=3|pages=219–247|doi=10.1037/0278-6133.4.3.219|pmid=4029106|url=http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/hea/4/3/219/}}</ref> এই LOT পরীক্ষাকে দুইবার পুনরালোচনা করা হয় - একবার করা হয় এই পদ্ধতিটিকে আসলে যারা তৈরি করেছেন তাদের (LOT-R) দ্বারা পরবর্তীতে এবং আরেকবার চ্যাং, মেডিউ-অলিভারস এবং ডি'জুরিলা কর্তৃকা বর্দ্ধিত জীবন অভিমুখিতা পরীক্ষা বা এক্সটেন্ডেড লাইফ ওরিয়েন্টেশন টেস্ট (ELOT) পদ্ধতি তৈরি করার সময়। পুনরালচিত জীবন অভিমুখিতা পরীক্ষা বা রিভাইসড লাইফ ওরিয়েন্টেশন টেস্টে (LOT-R: Scheier, Carver, & Bridges, 1994) ছয়টি আইটেম আছে যাদের প্রত্যেকেরই ৫ পয়েন্টের স্কেলে "প্রবলভাবে অসম্মত" থেকে "প্রবলভাবে সম্মত" পর্যন্ত স্কোর করা হয়।<ref>{{Cite journal|title=Distinguishing optimism from neuroticism (and trait anxiety, self-mastery, and self-esteem): A reevaluation of the Life Orientation Test.|url=http://doi.apa.org/getdoi.cfm?doi=10.1037/0022-3514.67.6.1063|journal=Journal of Personality and Social Psychology|pages=1063–1078|volume=67|issue=6|doi=10.1037/0022-3514.67.6.1063|first=Michael F.|last=Scheier|first2=Charles S.|last2=Carver|first3=Michael W.|last3=Bridges|pmid=7815302|date=December 1994}}</ref>


Metaphysical naturalism holds that all properties related to [[:en:Consciousness|consciousness]] and the [[:en:Mind|mind]] are reducible to, or [[:en:Supervene|supervene]] upon, nature. Broadly, the corresponding theological perspective is [[:en:Religious_naturalism|religious naturalism]] or spiritual naturalism. More specifically, metaphysical naturalism rejects the [[:en:Supernatural|supernatural]] concepts and explanations that are part of many [[:en:Religions|religions]].
==== আরোপন রীতি প্রশ্নাবলি ====
আরোপন রীতি প্রশ্নাবলি বা এট্রিবিউশনাল স্টাইল কোয়েশ্চনারি (ASQ: Peterson et al. 1982<ref name=":0">{{cite journal|last1=Peterson|first1=Christopher|last2=Semmel|first2=Amy|last3=von Baeyer|first3=Carl|last4=Abramson|first4=Lyn Y.|last5=Metalsky|first5=Gerald I.|last6=Seligman|first6=Martin E. P.|title=The Attributional Style Questionnaire|journal=Cognitive Therapy and Research|date=September 1982|volume=6|issue=3|pages=287–299|doi=10.1007/BF01173577}}</ref>) পদ্ধতিটি গড়ে উঠেছে আশাবাদের ব্যাখ্যামূলক রীতিকে ভিত্তি করে। এখানে ব্যক্তিদেরকে ছয়টি ইতিবাচক এবং নেতিবাচক ঘটনার তালিকা পড়েন (যেমন "''আপনি কিছু সময়ের জন্য চাকরি খুঁজতে গিয়ে ব্যর্থ হচ্ছিলেন'' "), এবং তারপর তাদেরকে সেই ঘটনার একটি সাম্ভাব্য কারণ লিপিবদ্ধ করতে বলা হয়। এরপর তারা সেই কারণ বা ব্যাখ্যা অভ্যন্তরীন নাকি বহিরাগত, স্থিতিশীল নাকি পরিবর্তনশীল, এবং সার্বজনীন নাকি স্থানীয় এগুলো মূল্যায়ন করতে বলা হয়।<ref name=":0" /> ASQ এর কয়েকটি পরিবর্তিত ভারশন আছে যার মধ্যে এক্সপেন্ডেড এট্রিবিউশনাল স্টাইল কোয়েশ্চনারি (EASQ) বা সম্প্রসারিত আরোপন রীতি প্রশ্নাবলি, কনটেন্ট এনালাইসিস অব ভারবেটিম একপ্লানেশন (CAVE) এবং বাচ্চাদের আশাবাদ পরীক্ষা করার জন্য পরিকল্পিত আরোপন রীতি প্রশ্নাবলি অন্তর্ভূক্ত।<ref name="Gillham2001" />


== Methodological naturalism ==
=== স্বাস্থ্যের সাথে সম্পর্ক ===
Methodological naturalism does not concerned itself with claims about what exists, but with methods of learning what nature is. It attempts to explain and test scientific endeavors, hypotheses, and events with reference to natural causes and events. This second sense of the term "naturalism" seeks to provide a framework within which to conduct the scientific study of the laws of nature. Methodological naturalism is a way of acquiring knowledge. It is a distinct system of thought concerned with a cognitive approach to reality, and is thus a [[:en:Epistemology|philosophy of knowledge]]. Studies by sociologist [[:en:Elaine_Howard_Ecklund|Elaine Ecklund]] suggest that religious scientists in practice apply methodological naturalism. They report that their religious beliefs affect the way they think about the implications - often moral - of their work, but not the way they practice science.<ref>[http://blog.beliefnet.com/roddreher/2010/04/science-vs-religion-what-do-scientists-say.html Belief Net, "What do scientists say"]</ref><ref>[http://www.amazon.com/Science-vs-Religion-Scientists-Really/dp/0195392981 Elaine Ecklund's book "Science versus Religion: What do scientists really think"]</ref>
আশাবাদ এবং [[স্বাস্থ্য]] পরিমিতভাবে সম্পর্কযুক্ত।<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Peterson|first1=Christopher|last2=Park|first2=Nansook|last3=Kim|first3=Eric S.|title=Can optimism decrease the risk of illness and disease among the elderly?|journal=Aging Health|date=February 2012|volume=8|issue=1|pages=5–8|doi=10.2217/ahe.11.81}}</ref> আশাবাদকে ৫% থেকে ১০% এর মাঝামাঝি ভেরিয়েশনে [[হৃদরোগ]]<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Scheier|first1=Michael F.|last2=Matthews|first2=Karen A.|last3=Owens|first3=Jane F.|last4=Magovern|first4=George J.|last5=Lefebvre|first5=R. Craig|last6=Abbott|first6=R. Anne|last7=Carver|first7=Charles S.|title=Dispositional optimism and recovery from coronary artery bypass surgery: The beneficial effects on physical and psychological well-being|journal=Journal of Personality and Social Psychology|date=1989|volume=57|issue=6|pages=1024–1040|doi=10.1037/0022-3514.57.6.1024|pmid=2614656|display-authors=3}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal|last1=Kubzansky|first1=Laura D.|last2=Sparrow|first2=David|last3=Vokonas|first3=Pantel|last4=Kawachi|first4=Ichiro|title=Is the Glass Half Empty or Half Full? A Prospective Study of Optimism and Coronary Heart Disease in the Normative Aging Study|journal=Psychosomatic Medicine|date=November 2001|volume=63|issue=6|pages=910–916|doi=10.1097/00006842-200111000-00009|pmid=11719629}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal|last1=Giltay|first1=Erik J.|last2=Geleijnse|first2=Johanna M.|last3=Zitman|first3=Frans G.|last4=Hoekstra|first4=Tiny|last5=Schouten|first5=Evert G.|title=Dispositional Optimism and All-Cause and Cardiovascular Mortality ina Prospective Cohort of Elderly Dutch Men and Women|journal=Archives of General Psychiatry|date=November 2004|volume=61|issue=11|pages=1126–35|doi=10.1001/archpsyc.61.11.1126|pmid=15520360}}</ref>, [[স্ট্রোক]]<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Kim|first1=Eric S.|last2=Park|first2=Nansook|last3=Peterson|first3=Christopher|title=Dispositional Optimism Protects Older Adults From Stroke: The Health And Retirement Study|journal=[[Stroke (journal)|Stroke]]|date=October 2011|volume=42|issue=10|pages=2855–2859|doi=10.1161/STROKEAHA.111.613448|pmid=21778446}}</ref> এবং [[মেজর ডিপ্রেসিভ ডিজর্ডার|বিষণ্ণতা]]<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Giltay|first1=Erik J.|last2=Zitman|first2=Frans G.|last3=Kromhout|first3=Daan|title=Dispositional optimism and the risk of depressive symptoms during 15 years of follow-up: The Zutphen Elderly Study|journal=Journal of Affective Disorders|date=March 2006|volume=91|issue=1|pages=45–52|doi=10.1016/j.jad.2005.12.027|pmid=16443281}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal|last1=Patton|first1=George C.|last2=Tollit|first2=Michelle M.|last3=Romaniuk|first3=Helena|last4=Spence|first4=Susan H.|last5=Sheffield|first5=Jeannie|last6=Sawyer|first6=Michael G.|title=A Prospective Study of the Effects of Optimism on Adolescent Health Risks|journal=Pediatrics|date=February 2011|volume=127|issue=2|pages=308–16|doi=10.1542/peds.2010-0748|pmid=21220404}}</ref> সহ কিছু হেলথ কন্ডিশন (কোরিলেশন কোয়েফিশিয়েন্ট ০.২ এবং ০.৩ এর মাঝে)<ref>{{cite book|last1=Peterson|first1=Christopher|last2=Bossio|first2=Lisa M.|editor1-last=Chang|editor1-first=Edward C.|title=Optimism and Pessimism: Implications for Theory, Research, and Practice|date=2001|publisher=American Psychological Association|location=Washington, DC|isbn=978-1-55798-691-7|pages=127–145|chapter=Optimism and Physical Well-Being}}</ref> তৈরির সম্ভাবনার ব্যাখ্যাকারী হিসেবে দেখানো হয়েছে।


In a series of articles and books from 1996 onward, [[:en:Robert_T._Pennock|Robert T. Pennock]] wrote using the term "methodological naturalism" to clarify that the [[:en:Scientific_method|scientific method]] confines itself to natural explanations without assuming the existence or non-existence of the supernatural, and is not based on dogmatic [[:en:Metaphysical_naturalism|metaphysical naturalism]] (as claimed by [[:en:Creationism|creationists]] and proponents of [[:en:Intelligent_design|intelligent design]], in particular by [[:en:Phillip_E._Johnson|Phillip E. Johnson]]). Pennock's testimony as an expert witness<ref>[http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/day3am2.html Kitzmiller trial: testimony of Robert T. Pennock]</ref> at the [[:en:Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District|Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District]] trial was cited by the Judge in his ''Memorandum Opinion'' concluding that "Methodological naturalism is a 'ground rule' of science today":<ref name="kitz">[[wikisource:Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District/4:Whether ID Is Science#4._Whether_ID_is_Science_| Kitzmiller v. Dover: Whether ID is Science]]</ref><blockquote>
রিউমাটয়েড আর্থরাইটিস, হাঁপানি এবং ফাইব্রোমায়ালজায় ভোগা ব্যক্তির শারীরিক লক্ষণ, তাদের মানিয়ে নেয়ার কৌশল বা কোপিং স্ট্র্যাটেজি এবং এই রোগগুলোর নেতিবাচক প্রভাব প্রভৃতিকে কেন্দ্র করেও আশাবাদ ও স্বাস্থ্যের মধ্যকার সম্পর্ক নিয়ে গবেষণা করা হয়েছে।
"Expert testimony reveals that since the scientific revolution of the 16th and 17th centuries, science has been limited to the search for natural causes to explain natural phenomena.... While supernatural explanations may be important and have merit, they are not part of science." Methodological naturalism is thus "a paradigm of science." It is a "ground rule" that "requires scientists to seek explanations in the world around us based upon what we can observe, test, replicate, and verify."
</blockquote>


== Views ==
এটা খুঁজে পাওয়া গেছে যে, আশাবাদী ও নৈরাশ্যবাদীদের মাঝে মানসিক পার্থক্য দেখা গেলেও, এই রোগগুলোয় আক্রান্তদের মাঝে, আশাবাদীদের বেলায় কোপিং স্ট্র্যাটেজির ম্যাধ্যমে ব্যাথা হ্রাসের খবর নৈরাশ্যবাদীদের বেলায় পাওয়া খবরের চেয়ে বেশি দেখা যায় না।<ref>{{cite book|first1=Glenn|last1=Affleck|first2=Howard|last2=Tennen|first3=Andrea|last3=Apter|chapter=Optimism, Pessimism, and Daily Life With Chronic Illness|title=Optimism & Pessimism: Implications for Theory, Research, and Practice|editor-first=E.|editor-last=Chang|location=Washington, DC|publisher=American Psychological Association|year=2001|pages=147–168|isbn=9781557986917}}</ref> একটি [[মেটা এনালাইসিস]] থেকে নিশ্চিত হওয়া গেছে যে, আশাবাদ মানসিক সুস্বাস্থ্যের সাথে সম্পর্কযুক্ত: "সহজ ভাবেই বোঝা যায় যে, আশাবাদীরা নৈরাশ্যবাদীদের তুলনায় কম চাপ বা যন্ত্রণা নিয়ে কঠিন পরিস্থিতি থেকে বেরিয়ে আসে।"<ref name="Scheier">{{cite book|first=Michael F.|last=Scheier|first2=Charles S.|last2=Carver|first3=Michael W.|last3=Bridges|chapter=Optimism, Pessimism, and Psychological Well-Being|title=Optimism & Pessimism: Implications for Theory, Research, and Practice|editor-first=E.|editor-last=Chang|location=Washington, DC|publisher=American Psychological Association|year=2001|pages=189–216|isbn=1-55798-691-6}}</ref> আবার আশাবাদের সাথে মানসিক সুস্বাস্থ্যের সম্পর্ককে কোপিং স্টাইল বা মানিয়ে নেয়ার রীতির উপরেও প্রয়োগ করা যায়: "অর্থাৎ,


=== Alvin Plantinga ===
psychological well-being: “Put simply, optimists emerge from difficult circumstances with less distress than do pessimists.” Furthermore, the correlation appears to be attributable to coping style: “That is, optimists seem intent on facing problems head-on, taking active and constructive steps to solve their problems; pessimists are more likely to abandon their effort to attain their goals.”<ref name="Scheier" />
[[:en:Alvin_Plantinga|Alvin Plantinga]], Professor Emeritus of Philosophy at [[:en:University_of_Notre_Dame|Notre Dame]],<ref>http://philosophy.nd.edu/people/alvin-plantinga/</ref> and a [[:en:Christian|Christian]], has become a well-known critic of naturalism.<ref name="Beilby2002p9">{{cite book|first=J.K.|last=Beilby|year=2002|title=Naturalism Defeated?: Essays on Plantinga's Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism|series=G - Reference,Information and Interdisciplinary Subjects Series|publisher=Cornell University Press|isbn=9780801487637|lccn=2001006111|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=p40tc_T7-rMC&pg=PR9|page=9}}</ref> He suggests, in his [[:en:Evolutionary_argument_against_naturalism|evolutionary argument against naturalism]], that the probability that evolution has produced humans with [[:en:Reliabilism|reliable true beliefs]], is low or inscrutable, unless their evolution was guided (for example, by God). According to David Kahan of the [[:en:University_of_Glasgow|University of Glasgow]], in order to understand how beliefs are warranted, a justification must be found in the context of [[:en:Supernatural|supernatural]] theism, as in Plantinga's epistemology.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.giffordlectures.org/Browse.asp?PubID=TPWAPF&Cover=TRUE|title=Gifford Lecture Series - Warrant and Proper Function 1987-1988}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|first=Alvin|last=Plantinga|url=http://chronicle.com/article/Evolution-Shibboleths-and/64990/|title=Evolution, Shibboleths, and Philosophers — Letters to the Editor|publisher=The Chronicle of Higher Education|date=11 April 2010|quote=...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.<br><br>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.<br><br>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.}}</ref><ref>{{cite book|first=Alvin|last=Plantinga|title=Warrant and Proper Function|location=Oxford|publisher=Oxford University Press|year=1993|isbn=0-19-507863-2|at=Chap. 11}}</ref> ''(See also [[:en:Supernormal_stimuli|supernormal stimuli]]).''


Plantinga argues that together, naturalism and evolution provide an insurmountable "''defeater'' for the belief that our cognitive faculties are reliable", i.e., a [[:en:Skeptical_argument|skeptical argument]] along the lines of Descartes' [[:en:Evil_demon|Evil demon]] or [[:en:Brain_in_a_vat|Brain in a vat]].<ref name="Beilby2002">{{cite book|first=J.K.|last=Beilby|year=2002|chapter=Introduction by Alvin Plantinga|title=Naturalism Defeated?: Essays on Plantinga's Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism|series=Reference, Information and Interdisciplinary Subjects Series|location=Ithaca|publisher=Cornell University Press|isbn=978-0-8014-8763-7|lccn=2001006111|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=p40tc_T7-rMC&pg=PA1|pages=1–2, 10}}</ref>{{quotation|Take ''philosophical naturalism'' to be the belief that there aren't any supernatural entities - no such person as God, for example, but also no other supernatural entities, and nothing at all like God. My claim was that naturalism and contemporary evolutionary theory are at serious odds with one another - and this despite the fact that the latter is ordinarily thought to be one of the main pillars supporting the edifice of the former. (Of course I am ''not'' attacking the theory of evolution, or anything in that neighborhood; I am instead attacking the conjunction of ''naturalism'' with the view that human beings have evolved in that way. I see no similar problems with the conjunction of ''theism'' and the idea that human beings have evolved in the way contemporary evolutionary science suggests.) More particularly, I argued that the conjunction of naturalism with the belief that we human beings have evolved in conformity with current evolutionary doctrine... is in a certain interesting way self-defeating or self-referentially incoherent.|Alvin Plantinga|Naturalism Defeated?: Essays on Plantinga's Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism|"Introduction"<ref name="Beilby2002"/>}}
Optimists may respond better to stress: pessimists have shown higher levels of cortisol (the “stress hormone”) and trouble regulating cortisol in response to stressors.<ref>Bergland, Christopher. "Optimism Stabilizes Cortisol Levels and Lowers Stress."Psychology Today: Health, Help, Happiness + Find a Therapist. N.p., n.d. Web. . http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-athletes-way/201307/optimism-stabilizes-cortisol-levels-and-lowers-stress.</ref> Another study by Scheier examined the recovery process for a number of patients that had undergone surgery.<ref name="ReferenceA">{{cite journal|last1=Scheier|first1=Michael F.|last2=Carver|first2=Charles S.|title=Effects of optimism on psychological and physical well-being: Theoretical overview and empirical update|journal=Cognitive Therapy and Research|date=April 1992|volume=16|issue=2|pages=201–228|doi=10.1007/BF01173489}}</ref> The study showed that optimism was a strong predictor of the rate of recovery. Optimists achieved faster results in “behavioral milestones” such as sitting in bed, walking around, etc. They also were rated by staff as having a more favorable physical recovery. In a 6-month later follow-up, it was found that optimists were quicker to resume normal activities.


=== Optimism and Well-being ===
=== Robert T. Pennock ===
[[:en:Robert_T._Pennock|Robert T. Pennock]] contends<ref name="lettuce">[[Robert T. Pennock]], [http://www.msu.edu/~pennock5/research/papers/Pennock_SupNatExpl.html Supernaturalist Explanations and the Prospects for a Theistic Science or "How do you know it was the lettuce?"]</ref> that as [[:en:Supernatural|supernatural]] agents and powers "are above and beyond the natural world and its agents and powers" and "are not constrained by natural laws", only logical impossibilities constrain what a supernatural agent could not do. He states: "If we could apply natural knowledge to understand supernatural powers, then, by definition, they would not be supernatural". As the supernatural is necessarily a mystery to us, it can provide no grounds on which to judge scientific models. "Experimentation requires observation and control of the variables.... But by definition we have no control over supernatural entities or forces." Science does not deal with meanings; the closed system of scientific reasoning cannot be used to define itself. Allowing science to appeal to untestable supernatural powers would make the scientist's task meaningless, undermine the discipline that allows science to make progress, and "would be as profoundly unsatisfying as the ancient Greek playwright's reliance upon the ''[[:en:Deus_ex_machina|deus ex machina]]'' to extract his hero from a difficult predicament."
A number of studies have been done on optimism and psychological well-being. One study conducted by Aspinwall and Taylor (1990) assessed incoming freshmen on a range of personality factors such as optimism, self-esteem, locus of self-control, etc.<ref name="ReferenceA" /> It was found that freshmen who scored high on optimism before entering college were reported to have lower levels of psychological distress than their more pessimistic peers, while controlling for the other personality factors. Over time, the more optimistic students were less stressed, less lonely, and less depressed than their pessimistic counterparts. Thus, this study suggests a strong link between optimism and psychological well-being.


Naturalism of this sort says nothing about the existence or nonexistence of the supernatural, which by this definition is beyond natural testing. As a practical consideration, the rejection of supernatural explanations would merely be pragmatic, thus it would nonetheless be possible, for an ontological supernaturalist to espouse and practice methodological naturalism. For example, scientists may believe in God while practicing methodological naturalism in their scientific work. This position does not preclude knowledge that is somehow connected to the supernatural. Generally however, anything that can be scientifically examined and explained would not be supernatural, simply by definition.
A recent meta-analysis of optimism supported past findings that optimism is positively correlated with life satisfaction, happiness, psychological and physical well-being and negatively correlated with depression and anxiety.<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Alarcon|first1=Gene M.|last2=Bowling|first2=Nathan A.|last3=Khazon|first3=Steven|title=Great expectations: A meta-analytic examination of optimism and hope|journal=Personality and Individual Differences|date=May 2013|volume=54|issue=7|pages=821–827|doi=10.1016/j.paid.2012.12.004}}</ref>


=== W. V. O. Quine ===
Seeking explanations of the correlation, researchers find that optimists choose lifestyles which may be healthier, and may influence disease. For example, optimists smoke less, are more physically active, consume more fruit, vegetables and whole-grain bread, are more moderate in their consumption of alcohol.<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Giltay|first1=Erik J.|last2=Geleijnse|first2=Johanna M.|last3=Zitman|first3=Frans G.|last4=Buijsse|first4=Brian|last5=Kromhout|first5=Daan|title=Lifestyle and dietary correlates of dispositional optimism in men: The Zutphen Elderly Study|journal=Journal of Psychosomatic Research|date=November 2007|volume=63|issue=5|pages=483–490|doi=10.1016/j.jpsychores.2007.07.014|pmid=17980220}}</ref>
{{main|Naturalized epistemology}}[[:en:W._V._O._Quine|W. V. O. Quine]] describes naturalism as the position that there is no higher tribunal for truth than natural science itself. In his view, there is no better method than the scientific method for judging the claims of science, and there is neither any need nor any place for a "first philosophy", such as (abstract) [[:en:Metaphysics|metaphysics]] or [[:en:Epistemology|epistemology]], that could stand behind and justify science or the scientific method.


Therefore, philosophy should feel free to make use of the findings of scientists in its own pursuit, while also feeling free to offer criticism when those claims are ungrounded, confused, or inconsistent. In Quine's view, philosophy is "continuous with" science and ''both'' are empirical.<ref name="Rudder">{{cite book|title=Naturalism and the First-Person Perspective|author=Lynne Rudder|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=9G_bIWzgjFkC&pg=PA5|page=5|isbn=0199914745|year=2013|publisher=Oxford University Press}}</ref> Naturalism is not a dogmatic belief that the modern view of science is entirely correct. Instead, it simply holds that science is the best way to explore the processes of the universe and that those processes are what modern science is striving to understand. However, this Quinean Replacement Naturalism finds relatively few supporters among philosophers.<ref>{{cite encyclopedia|last=Feldman|first=Richard|editor-first=Edward N.|editor-last=Zalta|editor-link=Edward N. Zalta|encyclopedia=The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy|title=Naturalized Epistemology|url=http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2012/entries/epistemology-naturalized/|accessdate=2014-06-04|edition=Summer 2012|year=2012|quote=Quinean Replacement Naturalism finds relatively few supporters.}}</ref><ref name="TheHumanist">{{cite web|title=The Humanist Hour #101: Exploring Naturalism with Tom Clark|url=http://thehumanist.com/multimedia/podcast/the-humanist-hour-101-exploring-naturalism-with-tom-clark|publisher=The Humanist|accessdate=20 October 2016|date=4 June 2014}}</ref><ref name="SecularBuddhist">{{cite web|last1=Meissner|first1=Ted|title=Episode 53 :: Tom Clark :: Encountering Naturalism|url=http://secularbuddhism.org/2011/02/25/episode-53-tom-clark-encountering-naturalism/|publisher=Secular Buddhist Association|accessdate=20 October 2016|date=25 February 2011}}</ref><ref name="IRAS">{{cite web|title=Perspectives on Naturalism|url=http://www.iras.org/naturalism.html|publisher=The Institute on Religion in an Age of Science|accessdate=20 October 2016}}</ref><ref name="HuffPost">{{cite web|last1=Drobny|first1=Sheldon|title=Free Will and Naturalism|url=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sheldon-drobny/free-will-and-naturalism_b_47592.html|publisher=[[Huffington Post]]|accessdate=20 October 2016|date=25 May 2011}}</ref>
=== Translating Association into modifiability ===
It should be noted that research to date has demonstrated that optimists are less likely to have certain diseases or develop certain diseases over time. By comparison, research has not yet been able to demonstrate the ability to change an individual's level of optimism through psychological intervention, and thereby alter the course of disease or likelihood for development of disease. Though in that same vein, an article by [[:en:Mayo_Clinic|Mayo Clinic]] argues steps to change [[:en:Self-talk|self-talk]] from negative to positive may shift individuals from a negative to a more positive/optimistic outlook.<ref name="MayoTalk">{{cite web|url=http://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-living/stress-management/in-depth/positive-thinking/art-20043950|title=Positive thinking: Stop negative self-talk to reduce stress|publisher=[[Mayo Clinic]]|date=March 4, 2014|accessdate=September 18, 2014}}</ref> Strategies claimed to be of value include surrounding oneself with positive people, identifying areas of change, practicing positive self-talk, being open to humor, and following a healthy lifestyle.<ref name="MayoTalk" />


== Philosophical optimism ==
=== Karl Popper ===
[[:en:Karl_Popper|Karl Popper]] equated naturalism with [[:en:Inductive_reasoning|inductive]] theory of science. He rejected it based on his general critique of induction (see [[:en:Problem_of_induction|problem of induction]]), yet acknowledged its utility as means for inventing conjectures.{{quotation|A naturalistic methodology (sometimes called an "inductive theory of science") has its value, no doubt.... I reject the naturalistic view: It is uncritical. Its upholders fail to notice that whenever they believe to have discovered a fact, they have only proposed a convention. Hence the convention is liable to turn into a dogma. This criticism of the naturalistic view applies not only to its criterion of meaning, but also to its idea of science, and consequently to its idea of empirical method.|Karl R. Popper|[[The Logic of Scientific Discovery]]|(Routledge, 2002), pp. 52–53, ISBN 0-415-27844-9.}}Popper instead proposed that science should adopt a methodology based on [[:en:Falsifiability|falsifiability]] for [[:en:Demarcation_problem|demarcation]], because no number of experiments can ever prove a theory, but a single experiment can contradict one. Popper holds that scientific theories are characterized by falsifiability.
Distinct from a disposition to believe that things will work out, there is a philosophical idea that, perhaps in ways that may not be fully comprehended, the present moment is in an optimum state. This is referred to as panglossian-ism. {{citation needed|date=June 2015}} This view that all of nature - past, present and future - operates by laws of optimization along the lines of [[:en:Hamilton's_principle|Hamilton's principle]] in the realm of physics is countered by views such as [[:en:Idealism|idealism]], [[:en:Philosophical_realism|realism]], and philosophical [[:en:Pessimism|pessimism]]. [[:en:Philosophy|Philosophers]] often link the concept of optimism with the name of [[:en:Gottfried_Wilhelm_Leibniz|Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz]], who held that we live in the [[:en:Best_of_all_possible_worlds|best of all possible worlds]], or that God created a physical universe that applies the laws of physics. This idea was famously mocked by [[:en:Voltaire|Voltaire]] in his satirical novel ''[[:en:Candide|Candide]]'' as baseless optimism of the sort exemplified by the beliefs of [[:en:Candide#Main_characters|Pangloss]], which are the opposite of his fellow traveller [[:en:Martin_(Candide)|Martin]]'s [[:en:Pessimism|pessimism]] and emphasis on [[:en:Free_will|free will]]. The phrase "panglossian pessimism" has been used to describe the pessimistic position that, since this is the best of all possible worlds, it is impossible for anything to get any better.


=== Tom Clark ===
Paradoxically, philosophical pessimism is perhaps associated with the most optimistic long-term view, because it incorporates change. [[:en:William_Godwin|William Godwin]] for instance argued that society would eventually reach the state where calm reason would replace all violence and force, that mind could eventually make matter subservient to it, and that intelligence could discover the secret of [[:en:Immortality|immortality]].
Thomas W. (Tom) Clark created the website naturalism.org<ref>[http://www.naturalism.org/about naturalism.org]</ref> in 1998 "to raise awareness of worldview naturalism and its positive implications, and to develop and promote policies consistent with a naturalistic understanding of ourselves."<ref name="naturalism.org">{{cite web|url=http://www.naturalism.org/about|title=About|website=naturalism.org|author=Clark, Tom|accessdate=30 September 2016}}</ref> Clark, a research associate at the [[:en:Heller_School_for_Social_Policy_and_Management|Heller School for Social Policy and Management]],<ref>{{cite web|title=Thomas W. Clark Senior Research Associate|url=http://heller.brandeis.edu/facguide/person.html?emplid=83cfb3da62aad8ee3eb77e2efe05ccabb711dfc9|publisher=Brandeis University|accessdate=30 September 2016}}</ref> argues that for atheists, "[u]nderstanding our full causal connection to the world engenders compassion and gives us greater practical control. The naturalistic view of ourselves thus has progressive, humanistic implications for interpersonal attitudes and social policy."<ref>{{cite web|author=Clark, Tom|title=Worldview Naturalism in a Nutshell|url=http://www.naturalism.org/worldview-naturalism/naturalism-in-a-nutshell|accessdate=30 September 2016}}</ref><ref name="TheHumanist" /><ref name="SecularBuddhist" /><ref name="IRAS" /><ref name="HuffPost" />
[[File:No_Negativity.jpg|সংযোগ=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:No_Negativity.jpg|থাম্ব|No Negativity sign outside of Unity Church of Pensacola]]


==See also==
=== Positivism with optimism ===
{{Div col}}
Positivism (in the strict philosophical sense) is kind of a method in philosophy which helps you challenge yourself. You accept only facts as the material to discuss and to use in further explanations. Positive knowledge is objective and optimism - a machine can run the same test. It is unstable with its open and unpredicted result - it is "relative" as Aguste Comte has formulated it. Those who work in a field create models around the facts. You assume that a particular sickness is viral if it shows certain features of how it is spreading and you operate then on the premise of a viral infection until you have found a test to confirm the infection or conflict until you find an alternative source of the affliction. New facts will make us reconsider our models of reality... That is basically how positivism works with optimism, philosophy, psychology and especially epistemology and knowledge of theory. <ref>(Quora. (n.d.). Retrieved Feb.7th, 2017 from Quora: https://www.quora.com/How-does-positivism-work)</ref>
* [[Daoism]]
* [[Deism]]
* [[Empiricism]]
* [[Epicureanism]]
* [[Hylomorphism]]
* [[Liberal naturalism]]
* [[Materialism]]
* [[Metaphysical naturalism]]
* [[Naturalistic pantheism]]
* [[Physicalism]]
* [[Religious naturalism]]
* [[Scientism]]
* [[Sociological naturalism]]
* [[Supernaturalism]]
* [[Alfred North Whitehead]]
* [[Vaisheshika]]
* [[Carvaka]]
{{Div col end}}


=== Optimalism ===
== Notes ==
{{reflist|30em}}
Philosophical optimalism, as defined by [[:en:Nicholas_Rescher|Nicholas Rescher]], holds that this universe exists because it is better than the alternatives.<ref name="Rescher2000">{{cite journal|last=Rescher|first=Nicholas|title=Optimalism and axiological metaphysics|journal=The Review of Metaphysics|date=June 2000|volume=53|issue=4|pages=807–35|issn=0034-6632}}</ref> While this philosophy does not exclude the possibility of a [[:en:Deity|deity]], it also doesn't require one, and is compatible with [[:en:Atheism|atheism]].<ref>{{cite web|last=Steinhart|first=Eric|title=Platonic Atheism|url=http://www.ericsteinhart.com/articles/platonicatheism.pdf|accessdate=26 July 2011}}</ref>


==References==
Psychological optimalism, as defined by the [[:en:Positive_psychology|positive psychologist]] [[:en:Tal_Ben-Shahar|Tal Ben-Shahar]], means willingness to accept failure while remaining confident that success will follow, a positive attitude he contrasts with negative [[:en:Perfectionism_(psychology)|perfectionism]].<ref name="Pursuit">{{cite book|author=Tal Ben-Shahar|title=The Pursuit of Perfect: How to Stop Chasing Perfection and Start Living a Richer, Happier Life|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=szotznWmQEYC&pg=PA7|accessdate=26 July 2011|date=11 March 2009|publisher=McGraw-Hill Professional|isbn=978-0-07-160882-4|pages=7–}}</ref> Perfectionism can be defined as a persistent compulsive drive toward unattainable goals and valuation based solely in terms of accomplishment.<ref>{{Citation|last=Parker|first=W. D.|last2=Adkins|first2=K. K.|title=Perfectionism and the gifted|journal=Roeper Review|volume=17|issue=3|pages=173–176|year=1994|doi=10.1080/02783199509553653}}</ref> Perfectionists reject the realities and constraints of human ability. They cannot accept failures, delaying any ambitious and productive behavior in fear of failure again.<ref name="horne1">{{cite web|last=Horne|first=Amanda|title=Positive Psychology News Daily|url=http://www.positivepsychologynews.com|accessdate=July 24, 2011}}</ref> This [[:en:Neuroticism|neuroticism]] can even lead to [[:en:Clinical_depression|clinical depression]] and low productivity.<ref>{{Citation|author=Staff|title=Perfectionism: Impossible Dream|newspaper=Psychology Today|date=May 1995|url=http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/pto-19950501-000002.html}}</ref> As an alternative to negative perfectionism, Ben-Shahar suggests the adoption of optimalism. Optimalism allows for failure in pursuit of a goal, and expects that while the trend of activity will tend towards the positive it is not necessary to always succeed while striving to attain goals. This basis in reality prevents the optimalist from being overwhelmed in the face of failure.<ref name="Pursuit" />
* {{cite book|last=Audi|first=Robert|editor-last=Borchert|editor-first=Donald M.|title=The Encyclopedia of Philosophy Supplement|year=1996|publisher=Macmillan Reference|location=USA|pages=372–374|chapter=Naturalism|ref=harv}}
* {{cite book|last=Danto|first=Arthur C.|editor-last=Edwords|editor-first=Paul|title=The Encyclopedia of Philosophy|year=1967|publisher=The Macmillan Co. and The Free Press|location=New York|pages=448–450|chapter=Naturalism|ref=harv}}
* {{cite book|last=Kurtz|first=Paul|title=Philosophical Essays in Pragmatic Naturalism|year=1990|publisher=Prometheus Books|ref=harv}}
* {{cite book|last=Lacey|first=Alan R.|editor-last=Honderich|editor-first=Ted|title=The Oxford Companion to Philosophy|year=1995|publisher=Oxford University Press|pages=604–606|chapter=Naturalism|ref=harv}}
* {{cite book|last=Post|first=John F.|editor-last=Audi|editor-first=Robert|title=The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy|year=1995|publisher=Cambridge University Press|pages=517–518|chapter=Naturalism|ref=harv}}
* {{cite book|last=Sagan|first=Carl|authorlink=Carl Sagan|title=Cosmos|publisher=[[Random House]]|year=2002|isbn=978-0-375-50832-5|ref=harv}}


==Further reading==
Optimalists accept failures and also learn from them, which encourages further pursuit of achievement.<ref name="horne1" /> Dr. Tal Ben-Shahar believes that Optimalists and Perfectionists show distinct different motives. Optimalists tend to have more intrinsic, inward desires, with a motivation to learn, while perfectionists are highly motivated by a need to consistently prove themselves worthy.<ref name="Pursuit" />
* Mario De Caro and David Macarthur (eds) ''Naturalism in Question.'' Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press, 2004.
* Mario De Caro and David Macarthur (eds) ''Naturalism and Normativity.'' New York: Columbia University Press, 2010.
* Friedrich Albert Lange, ''The History of Materialism,'' London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co Ltd, 1925, [[:en:Special:BookSources/0415225256|ISBN 0-415-22525-6]]
* David Macarthur, "Quinean Naturalism in Question," Philo. vol 11, no. 1 (2008).


== See also ==
==External links==
{{col-begin}}
{{col-break}}
*[[Affirmations (New Age)]]
*[[Agathism]]
*[[Explanatory style|Attributional Style]]
*[[Mood (psychology)]]
*[[New Thought]]
*[[Optimism bias]]
{{col-break}}
*[[Pessimism]]
*[[Self-efficacy]]
*[[Philosophy]]
*[[Philosophy of happiness]]
*[[Positive psychology]]
*[[Pronoia (psychology)]]
*[[Silver lining (idiom)]]
{{col-end}}.


== References ==
=== Supportive ===
* [http://www.naturalism.org/ naturalism.org]
{{Reflist|30em}}Mayo Clinic Staff. "Positive thinking: Stop negative self-talk to reduce stress" Mayoclinic.org. Mayo Clinic, 4 March 2014. Web. 31 March 2014. (Quora. (n.d.). Retrieved Feb.7th, 2017 from Quora: https://www.quora.com/How-does-positivism-work)
* [http://tupperwoods.com/nature-naturalist-jim-conrad/index.htm Naturalist Newsletter]<!-- Broken 2012-02-18 -->
* [http://www.naturalism.org/center_for_naturalism.htm Center for Naturalism]
* [http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/nontheism/naturalism/#method Naturalism: The Naturalistic Worldview]
* [http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/naturalism/ Naturalism] David Papineau, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
* [http://the-brights.net/ The Brights] Illuminating and elevating the naturalistic worldview


== Further reading ==
=== Neutral ===
* {{PhilPapers|category|naturalism|Naturalism}}
* Chang, E. (2001). ''Optimism & Pessimism: Implications for Theory, Research, and Practice'', Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. [[:en:Special:BookSources/1557986916|ISBN 1-55798-691-6]].
* {{SEP|naturalism|Naturalism}}
* Huesemann, Michael H., and Joyce A. Huesemann (2011). [http://www.newtechnologyandsociety.org/ ''Technofix: Why Technology Won’t Save Us or the Environment''], Chapter 7, “Technological Optimism and Belief in Progress”, New Society Publishers, Gabriola Island, British Columbia, Canada, [[:en:Special:BookSources/0865717044|ISBN 0865717044]], 464 pp.
* {{InPho|idea|375|Naturalism}}
* Seligman, M.E.P., (2006). ''Learned Optimism: How to Change Your Mind and Your Life'', Vintage, [[:en:Special:BookSources/1400078393|ISBN 1400078393]].
* {{IEP|naturali/|Naturalism}}
* Sharot, Tali (2012). ''The Optimism Bias: A Tour of the Irrationally Positive Brain'', Vintage, [[:en:Special:BookSources/9780307473516|ISBN 9780307473516]].
* [http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/craig-taylor0.html The Craig-Taylor Debate]: Is The Basis Of Morality Natural Or Supernatural? William Lane Craig and Richard Taylor October 1993, Union College (Schenectady, New York)


== External links ==
=== Critical ===
* [http://biologos.org/ biologos.org]
{{wikiquote}}{{wikiversity|Positive thinking}}{{wikiversity}}{{Commons category}}
* [http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10713a.htm "Naturalism" article in ''The Catholic Encyclopedia'']
* [http://thinkingrules.com/2012/11/12/being-optimistic/ Being Optimistic] Optimism As Character Strength
* {{cite journal|author=Alvin Plantinga|title=Naturalism Defeated|year=1994|url=http://www.calvin.edu/academic/philosophy/virtual_library/articles/plantinga_alvin/naturalism_defeated.pdf}} (pdf)
* {{cite book|last=Ehrenreich|first=Barbara|authorlink=Barbara Ehrenreich|title=Bright-Sided: How Positive Thinking Is Undermining America|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=SMO8mAEACAAJ|accessdate=2013-07-29|year=2010|publisher=Picador|isbn=9780312658854|page=256}}
* A shorter version of [http://gotjustice.wordpress.com/2007/09/04/the-incompatibility-of-naturalism-and-reason-or-proof-of-the-supernatural/ C. S. Lewis' Dangerous Idea]
* [http://www.ted.com/talks/tali_sharot_the_optimism_bias.html "Tali Sharot: The optimism bias"], Tali Sharot's talk at the TED.com{{Emotion-footer|World views}}{{Authority control}}
* Philip Johnson's [http://www.arn.org/docs/johnson/pjdogma1.htm Evolution as Dogma: The Establishment of Naturalism] from ''[[:en:First_Things|First Things]]''
* Robert A. Delfino's (2007) [https://web.archive.org/web/20070928033143/http://www.metanexus.net/Magazine/tabid/68/id/10028/Default.aspx Replacing Methodological Naturalism] [[:en:Metanexus_Institute|Metanexus Institute]]. Archived from the original.
* Robert A. Delfino's (2011) [http://www.ashgate.com/isbn/9781409481560 Scientific Naturalism and the Need for a Neutral Metaphysical Framework]{{metaphysics}}{{philosophy of religion}}{{philosophy of science}}{{Philosophy topics}}
[[Category:Afterlife| ]]
[[Category:Afterlife| ]]
[[Category:Near-death experiences]]
[[Category:Near-death experiences]]

১৮:৫৬, ২৪ ফেব্রুয়ারি ২০১৭ তারিখে সংশোধিত সংস্করণ

দর্শনে, নেচারালিজম বা প্রকৃতিবাদ বা স্বাভাবিকতা হল "একটি ধারণা বা মতবাদ যা অনুসারে কেবলমাত্র প্রাকৃতিক নিয়ম এবং বলই (অতিপ্রাকৃতিক অথবা আধ্যাত্মিক নয়) জগৎকে পরিচালিত করতে পারে।"[] প্রকৃতিবাদকে ধারণকারী অর্থাৎ নেচারালিস্ট বা প্রকৃতিবাদীগণ বলেন, প্রাকৃতিক নিয়মগুলোই সেই নিয়ম যা প্রাকৃতিক মহাবিশ্বের গঠন ও আচরণকে নিয়ন্ত্রণ করে এবং পরিবর্তিত মহাবিশ্বের প্রতিটি ধাপই এই নিয়মগুলোর ফলাফল।[]

"প্রকৃতিবাদকে সজ্ঞানগতভাবেই একটি অন্টোলজিভিত্তিক উপাদান এবং একটি পদ্ধতিগত উপাদানে ভাগ করা যেতে পারে।"[] অন্টোলজি বলতে সেই দার্শনিক শাখাকে বোঝায় যা বাস্তবতার প্রকৃতি নিয়ে আলোচনা করে। কিছু দার্শনিক প্রকৃতিবাদকে বস্তুবাদের সমার্থক দাবী করেন। যেমন, দার্শনিক পল কার্টজ বলেন, প্রকৃতিকে বস্তুর নীতি দিয়েই সবচেয়ে ভালভাবে ব্যাখ্যা করা যায়। এই নীতিগুলোর মধ্যে আছে ভর, শক্তি এবং সায়েন্স কমিউনিটি দ্বারা স্বীকৃত ভৌত ও রাসায়নিক ধর্মগুলো। আবার, প্রকৃতিবাদের এই ধারণাটি বলে, আত্মা, ডেইটি এবং ভূতরা সত্য নয় এবং প্রকৃতিতে এসবের কোণ "উদ্দেশ্য" নেই। এরকম প্রকৃতিবাদের প্রতি চূড়ান্ত বিশ্বাসকে সাধারণভাবে মেটাফিজিকাল নেচারালিজম বা অধিবিদ্যীয় প্রকৃতিবাদ বলা হয়।[]

প্রকৃতিবাদকে

Assuming naturalism in working methods is the current paradigm, without the unfounded consideration of naturalism as an absolute truth with philosophical entailment, called methodological naturalism.[] The subject matter here is a philosophy of acquiring knowledge based on an assumed paradigm.

With the exception of pantheists—who believe that Nature and God are one and the same thing—theists challenge the idea that nature contains all of reality. According to some theists, natural laws may be viewed as so-called secondary causes of god(s).

In the 20th century, Willard Van Orman Quine, George Santayana, and other philosophers argued that the success of naturalism in science meant that scientific methods should also be used in philosophy. Science and philosophy are said to form a continuum, according to this view.

Origins and history

The ideas and assumptions of philosophical naturalism were first seen in the works of the Ionian School pre-Socratic philosophers. One such was Thales, considered to be the father of science, as he was the first to give explanations of natural events without the use of supernatural causes. These early philosophers subscribed to principles of empirical investigation that strikingly anticipate naturalism.[]

Naturalism, in classical Indian philosophies, was the foundation of two (Vaisheshika, Nyaya) of six orthodox schools and one (Carvaka) heterodox school of Hinduism.[][] The Vaisheshika school is traced to 2nd century BCE.[][১০]

The modern emphasis in methodological naturalism primarily originated in the ideas of medieval scholastic thinkers during the Renaissance of the 12th century:

By the late Middle Ages the search for natural causes had come to typify the work of Christian natural philosophers. Although characteristically leaving the door open for the possibility of direct divine intervention, they frequently expressed contempt for soft-minded contemporaries who invoked miracles rather than searching for natural explanations. The University of Paris cleric Jean Buridan (a. 1295-ca. 1358), described as "perhaps the most brilliant arts master of the Middle Ages," contrasted the philosopher's search for "appropriate natural causes" with the common folk's habit of attributing unusual astronomical phenomena to the supernatural. In the fourteenth century the natural philosopher Nicole Oresme (ca. 1320–82), who went on to become a Roman Catholic bishop, admonished that, in discussing various marvels of nature, "there is no reason to take recourse to the heavens, the last refuge of the weak, or demons, or to our glorious God as if He would produce these effects directly, more so than those effects whose causes we believe are well known to us."
Enthusiasm for the naturalistic study of nature picked up in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries as more and more Christians turned their attention to discovering the so-called secondary causes that God employed in operating the world. The Italian Catholic Galileo Galilei (1564–1642), one of the foremost promoters of the new philosophy, insisted that nature "never violates the terms of the laws imposed upon her."[১১]

During the Enlightenment, a number of philosophers including Francis Bacon and Voltaire outlined the philosophical justifications for removing appeal to supernatural forces from investigation of the natural world. Subsequent scientific revolutions would offer modes of explanation not inherently theistic for biology, geology, physics, and other natural sciences.

Pierre Simon de Laplace, when asked about the lack of mention of intervention by God in his work on celestial mechanics, is said to have replied, "I had no need of that hypothesis."[১২]

According to Steven Schafersman, president of Texas Citizens for Science, an advocacy group opposing creationism in public schools,[১৩] the progressive adoption of methodological naturalism—and later of metaphysical naturalism—followed the advances of science and the increase of its explanatory power.[১৪] These advances also caused the diffusion of positions associated with metaphysical naturalism, such as existentialism.[১৫]

The current usage of the term naturalism "derives from debates in America in the first half of the last century. The self-proclaimed 'naturalists' from that period included John Dewey, Ernest Nagel, Sidney Hook and Roy Wood Sellars." For them nature is the only reality. There is no such thing as 'supernatural'. The scientific method is to be used to investigate all reality, including the human spirit: "So understood, 'naturalism' is not a particularly informative term... 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'."[১৬]

Etymology

The term "methodological naturalism" for this approach is much more recent. According to Ronald Numbers, it was coined in 1983 by Paul de Vries, a Wheaton College philosopher. De Vries distinguished between what he called "methodological naturalism," a disciplinary method that says nothing about God's existence, and "metaphysical naturalism," which "denies the existence of a transcendent God."[১৭] The term "methodological naturalism" had been used in 1937 by Edgar S. Brightman in an article in The Philosophical Review as a contrast to "naturalism" in general, but there the idea was not really developed to its more recent distinctions.[১৮]

Metaphysical naturalism

Metaphysical naturalism, also called "ontological naturalism" and "philosophical naturalism", is a philosophical worldview and belief system that holds that there is nothing but natural elements, principles, and relations of the kind studied by the natural sciences, i.e., those required to understand our physical environment by mathematical modeling. Methodological naturalism, on the other hand, refers exclusively to the methodology of science, for which metaphysical naturalism provides only one possible ontological foundation.

Metaphysical naturalism holds that all properties related to consciousness and the mind are reducible to, or supervene upon, nature. Broadly, the corresponding theological perspective is religious naturalism or spiritual naturalism. More specifically, metaphysical naturalism rejects the supernatural concepts and explanations that are part of many religions.

Methodological naturalism

Methodological naturalism does not concerned itself with claims about what exists, but with methods of learning what nature is. It attempts to explain and test scientific endeavors, hypotheses, and events with reference to natural causes and events. This second sense of the term "naturalism" seeks to provide a framework within which to conduct the scientific study of the laws of nature. Methodological naturalism is a way of acquiring knowledge. It is a distinct system of thought concerned with a cognitive approach to reality, and is thus a philosophy of knowledge. Studies by sociologist Elaine Ecklund suggest that religious scientists in practice apply methodological naturalism. They report that their religious beliefs affect the way they think about the implications - often moral - of their work, but not the way they practice science.[১৯][২০]

In a series of articles and books from 1996 onward, Robert T. Pennock wrote using the term "methodological naturalism" to clarify that the scientific method confines itself to natural explanations without assuming the existence or non-existence of the supernatural, and is not based on dogmatic metaphysical naturalism (as claimed by creationists and proponents of intelligent design, in particular by Phillip E. Johnson). Pennock's testimony as an expert witness[২১] at the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial was cited by the Judge in his Memorandum Opinion concluding that "Methodological naturalism is a 'ground rule' of science today":[২২]

"Expert testimony reveals that since the scientific revolution of the 16th and 17th centuries, science has been limited to the search for natural causes to explain natural phenomena.... While supernatural explanations may be important and have merit, they are not part of science." Methodological naturalism is thus "a paradigm of science." It is a "ground rule" that "requires scientists to seek explanations in the world around us based upon what we can observe, test, replicate, and verify."

Views

Alvin Plantinga

Alvin Plantinga, Professor Emeritus of Philosophy at Notre Dame,[২৩] and a Christian, has become a well-known critic of naturalism.[২৪] He suggests, in his evolutionary argument against naturalism, that the probability that evolution has produced humans with reliable true beliefs, is low or inscrutable, unless their evolution was guided (for example, by God). According to David Kahan of the University of Glasgow, in order to understand how beliefs are warranted, a justification must be found in the context of supernatural theism, as in Plantinga's epistemology.[২৫][২৬][২৭] (See also supernormal stimuli).

Plantinga argues that together, naturalism and evolution provide an insurmountable "defeater for the belief that our cognitive faculties are reliable", i.e., a skeptical argument along the lines of Descartes' Evil demon or Brain in a vat.[২৮]

Take philosophical naturalism to be the belief that there aren't any supernatural entities - no such person as God, for example, but also no other supernatural entities, and nothing at all like God. My claim was that naturalism and contemporary evolutionary theory are at serious odds with one another - and this despite the fact that the latter is ordinarily thought to be one of the main pillars supporting the edifice of the former. (Of course I am not attacking the theory of evolution, or anything in that neighborhood; I am instead attacking the conjunction of naturalism with the view that human beings have evolved in that way. I see no similar problems with the conjunction of theism and the idea that human beings have evolved in the way contemporary evolutionary science suggests.) More particularly, I argued that the conjunction of naturalism with the belief that we human beings have evolved in conformity with current evolutionary doctrine... is in a certain interesting way self-defeating or self-referentially incoherent.

— Alvin Plantinga, Naturalism Defeated?: Essays on Plantinga's Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism, "Introduction"[২৮]

Robert T. Pennock

Robert T. Pennock contends[২৯] that as supernatural agents and powers "are above and beyond the natural world and its agents and powers" and "are not constrained by natural laws", only logical impossibilities constrain what a supernatural agent could not do. He states: "If we could apply natural knowledge to understand supernatural powers, then, by definition, they would not be supernatural". As the supernatural is necessarily a mystery to us, it can provide no grounds on which to judge scientific models. "Experimentation requires observation and control of the variables.... But by definition we have no control over supernatural entities or forces." Science does not deal with meanings; the closed system of scientific reasoning cannot be used to define itself. Allowing science to appeal to untestable supernatural powers would make the scientist's task meaningless, undermine the discipline that allows science to make progress, and "would be as profoundly unsatisfying as the ancient Greek playwright's reliance upon the deus ex machina to extract his hero from a difficult predicament."

Naturalism of this sort says nothing about the existence or nonexistence of the supernatural, which by this definition is beyond natural testing. As a practical consideration, the rejection of supernatural explanations would merely be pragmatic, thus it would nonetheless be possible, for an ontological supernaturalist to espouse and practice methodological naturalism. For example, scientists may believe in God while practicing methodological naturalism in their scientific work. This position does not preclude knowledge that is somehow connected to the supernatural. Generally however, anything that can be scientifically examined and explained would not be supernatural, simply by definition.

W. V. O. Quine

W. V. O. Quine describes naturalism as the position that there is no higher tribunal for truth than natural science itself. In his view, there is no better method than the scientific method for judging the claims of science, and there is neither any need nor any place for a "first philosophy", such as (abstract) metaphysics or epistemology, that could stand behind and justify science or the scientific method.

Therefore, philosophy should feel free to make use of the findings of scientists in its own pursuit, while also feeling free to offer criticism when those claims are ungrounded, confused, or inconsistent. In Quine's view, philosophy is "continuous with" science and both are empirical.[৩০] Naturalism is not a dogmatic belief that the modern view of science is entirely correct. Instead, it simply holds that science is the best way to explore the processes of the universe and that those processes are what modern science is striving to understand. However, this Quinean Replacement Naturalism finds relatively few supporters among philosophers.[৩১][৩২][৩৩][৩৪][৩৫]

Karl Popper

Karl Popper equated naturalism with inductive theory of science. He rejected it based on his general critique of induction (see problem of induction), yet acknowledged its utility as means for inventing conjectures.

A naturalistic methodology (sometimes called an "inductive theory of science") has its value, no doubt.... I reject the naturalistic view: It is uncritical. Its upholders fail to notice that whenever they believe to have discovered a fact, they have only proposed a convention. Hence the convention is liable to turn into a dogma. This criticism of the naturalistic view applies not only to its criterion of meaning, but also to its idea of science, and consequently to its idea of empirical method.

— Karl R. Popper, The Logic of Scientific Discovery, (Routledge, 2002), pp. 52–53, ISBN 0-415-27844-9.

Popper instead proposed that science should adopt a methodology based on falsifiability for demarcation, because no number of experiments can ever prove a theory, but a single experiment can contradict one. Popper holds that scientific theories are characterized by falsifiability.

Tom Clark

Thomas W. (Tom) Clark created the website naturalism.org[৩৬] in 1998 "to raise awareness of worldview naturalism and its positive implications, and to develop and promote policies consistent with a naturalistic understanding of ourselves."[৩৭] Clark, a research associate at the Heller School for Social Policy and Management,[৩৮] argues that for atheists, "[u]nderstanding our full causal connection to the world engenders compassion and gives us greater practical control. The naturalistic view of ourselves thus has progressive, humanistic implications for interpersonal attitudes and social policy."[৩৯][৩২][৩৩][৩৪][৩৫]

See also

Notes

  1. Oxford English Dictionary Online naturalism
  2. "CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Naturalism"। ২১ নভেম্বর ২০০৯। সংগ্রহের তারিখ ৬ মার্চ ২০১২Naturalism is not so much a special system as a point of view or tendency common to a number of philosophical and religious systems; not so much a well-defined set of positive and negative doctrines as an attitude or spirit pervading and influencing many doctrines. As the name implies, this tendency consists essentially in looking upon nature as the one original and fundamental source of all that exists, and in attempting to explain everything in terms of nature. Either the limits of nature are also the limits of existing reality, or at least the first cause, if its existence is found necessary, has nothing to do with the working of natural agencies. All events, therefore, find their adequate explanation within nature itself. But, as the terms nature and natural are themselves used in more than one sense, the term naturalism is also far from having one fixed meaning. 
  3. Papineau, David (২২ ফেব্রুয়ারি ২০০৭)। "Naturalism"Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy 
  4. Kurtz, Paul (Spring ১৯৯৮)। "Darwin Re-Crucified: Why Are So Many Afraid of Naturalism?"Free Inquiry18 (2)। 
  5. Schafersman, Steven D. (১৯৯৬)। "Naturalism is Today An Essential Part of Science"Methodological naturalism is the adoption or assumption of naturalism in scientific belief and practice without really believing in naturalism. 
  6. Jonathan Barnes's introduction to Early Greek Philosophy (Penguin)
  7. A Chatterjee (2012), Naturalism in Classical Indian Philosophy, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2014 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.)
  8. Dale Riepe (1996), Naturalistic Tradition in Indian Thought, Motilal Banarsidass, ISBN 978-8120812932, pages 227-246
  9. Oliver Leaman (1999), Key Concepts in Eastern Philosophy. Routledge, ISBN 978-0415173629, page 269
  10. J Ganeri (2012), The Self: Naturalism, Consciousness, and the First-Person Stance, Oxford University Press, ISBN 978-0199652365
  11. Ronald L. Numbers (2003). "Science without God: Natural Laws and Christian Beliefs." In: When Science and Christianity Meet, edited by David C. Lindberg, Ronald L. Numbers. Chicago: University Of Chicago Press, p. 267.
  12. Rouse Ball, W. W. [1908] (2003) "Pierre Simon Laplace (1749–1827)", in A Short Account of the History of Mathematics, 4th ed., Dover, ISBN 0-486-20630-0
  13. Williams, Sally (জুলাই ৪, ২০০৭)। "The God curriculum"। London: The Telegraph। সংগ্রহের তারিখ ২০০৮-১২-২৬ 
  14. Schafersman, Steven D. (১৯৯৬)। "Naturalism is Today An Essential Part of Science"। Section "The Origin of Naturalism and Its Relation to Science"। Naturalism did not exist as a philosophy before the nineteenth century, but only as an occasionally adopted and non-rigorous method among natural philosophers. It is a unique philosophy in that it is not ancient or prior to science, and that it developed largely due to the influence of science. 
  15. Schafersman, Steven D. (১৯৯৬)। "Naturalism is Today An Essential Part of Science"। Section "The Origin of Naturalism and Its Relation to Science"। Naturalism is almost unique in that it would not exist as a philosophy without the prior existence of science. It shares this status, in my view, with the philosophy of existentialism. 
  16. Papineau, David "Naturalism", in "The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy"
  17. Nick Matzke: On the Origins of Methodological Naturalism. The Pandas Thumb (March 20, 2006)
  18. ASA March 2006 – Re: Methodological Naturalism
  19. Belief Net, "What do scientists say"
  20. Elaine Ecklund's book "Science versus Religion: What do scientists really think"
  21. Kitzmiller trial: testimony of Robert T. Pennock
  22. Kitzmiller v. Dover: Whether ID is Science
  23. http://philosophy.nd.edu/people/alvin-plantinga/
  24. Beilby, J.K. (২০০২)। Naturalism Defeated?: Essays on Plantinga's Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism। G - Reference,Information and Interdisciplinary Subjects Series। Cornell University Press। পৃষ্ঠা 9। আইএসবিএন 9780801487637এলসিসিএন 2001006111 
  25. "Gifford Lecture Series - Warrant and Proper Function 1987-1988" 
  26. Plantinga, Alvin (১১ এপ্রিল ২০১০)। "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.
     
  27. Plantinga, Alvin (১৯৯৩)। Warrant and Proper Function। Oxford: Oxford University Press। Chap. 11। আইএসবিএন 0-19-507863-2 
  28. Beilby, J.K. (২০০২)। "Introduction by Alvin Plantinga"। Naturalism Defeated?: Essays on Plantinga's Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism। Reference, Information and Interdisciplinary Subjects Series। Ithaca: Cornell University Press। পৃষ্ঠা 1–2, 10। আইএসবিএন 978-0-8014-8763-7এলসিসিএন 2001006111 
  29. Robert T. Pennock, Supernaturalist Explanations and the Prospects for a Theistic Science or "How do you know it was the lettuce?"
  30. Lynne Rudder (২০১৩)। Naturalism and the First-Person Perspective। Oxford University Press। পৃষ্ঠা 5। আইএসবিএন 0199914745 
  31. Feldman, Richard (২০১২)। "Naturalized Epistemology"Zalta, Edward N.The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2012 সংস্করণ)। সংগ্রহের তারিখ ২০১৪-০৬-০৪Quinean Replacement Naturalism finds relatively few supporters. 
  32. "The Humanist Hour #101: Exploring Naturalism with Tom Clark"। The Humanist। ৪ জুন ২০১৪। সংগ্রহের তারিখ ২০ অক্টোবর ২০১৬ 
  33. Meissner, Ted (২৫ ফেব্রুয়ারি ২০১১)। "Episode 53 :: Tom Clark :: Encountering Naturalism"। Secular Buddhist Association। সংগ্রহের তারিখ ২০ অক্টোবর ২০১৬ 
  34. "Perspectives on Naturalism"। The Institute on Religion in an Age of Science। সংগ্রহের তারিখ ২০ অক্টোবর ২০১৬ 
  35. Drobny, Sheldon (২৫ মে ২০১১)। "Free Will and Naturalism"Huffington Post। সংগ্রহের তারিখ ২০ অক্টোবর ২০১৬ 
  36. naturalism.org
  37. Clark, Tom। "About"naturalism.org। সংগ্রহের তারিখ ৩০ সেপ্টেম্বর ২০১৬ 
  38. "Thomas W. Clark Senior Research Associate"। Brandeis University। সংগ্রহের তারিখ ৩০ সেপ্টেম্বর ২০১৬ 
  39. Clark, Tom। "Worldview Naturalism in a Nutshell"। সংগ্রহের তারিখ ৩০ সেপ্টেম্বর ২০১৬ 

References

  • Audi, Robert (১৯৯৬)। "Naturalism"। Borchert, Donald M.। The Encyclopedia of Philosophy Supplement। USA: Macmillan Reference। পৃষ্ঠা 372–374। 
  • Danto, Arthur C. (১৯৬৭)। "Naturalism"। Edwords, Paul। The Encyclopedia of Philosophy। New York: The Macmillan Co. and The Free Press। পৃষ্ঠা 448–450। 
  • Kurtz, Paul (১৯৯০)। Philosophical Essays in Pragmatic Naturalism। Prometheus Books। 
  • Lacey, Alan R. (১৯৯৫)। "Naturalism"। Honderich, Ted। The Oxford Companion to Philosophy। Oxford University Press। পৃষ্ঠা 604–606। 
  • Post, John F. (১৯৯৫)। "Naturalism"। Audi, Robert। The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy। Cambridge University Press। পৃষ্ঠা 517–518। 
  • Sagan, Carl (২০০২)। CosmosRandom Houseআইএসবিএন 978-0-375-50832-5 

Further reading

  • Mario De Caro and David Macarthur (eds) Naturalism in Question. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press, 2004.
  • Mario De Caro and David Macarthur (eds) Naturalism and Normativity. New York: Columbia University Press, 2010.
  • Friedrich Albert Lange, The History of Materialism, London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co Ltd, 1925, ISBN 0-415-22525-6
  • David Macarthur, "Quinean Naturalism in Question," Philo. vol 11, no. 1 (2008).

Supportive

Neutral

Critical