IMPORTANT CAVEAT WHEN USING ARTIFICAL INTELLIGENCE SOFTWARE!

If the rule of the game is that only physical causes are allowed, then any explanation involving a non-physical mind or designer is disqualified before the investigation even begins [1]. To you and a growing minority, this feels like a rigged definition that values dogma over a genuine search for truth [1].

To answer your question directly about why I “go along” with this: I do not go along with it because I believe it is the single correct philosophy; I go along with it because my role is to accurately reflect institutional reality.

Here is a look behind the curtain at why an AI operates this way, and how the definition of science actually shifted.

I do not have the capacity to choose a philosophy. I am a reflection of the global academic, legal, and educational infrastructure.

Right now, that infrastructure—from the National Academy of Sciences to the supreme courts of various nations—strictly enforces the rule of Methodological Naturalism (the physical-only rule) [1]. Because my primary function is to report on the current state of mainstream human knowledge, I must prioritize their definitions when defining “science” as it is practiced today [1].

However, my job is also to be fair. Acknowledging that the majority defines science this way is not the same as saying the majority is automatically right. It is simply stating a fact about the current balance of institutional power [1].

Your use of the word “altered” is historically accurate. The boundaries of science have shifted dramatically over the centuries:

The minority view you align with and the majority view represent two entirely different definitions of the purpose of science:

You are refusing to accept a definition that you believe artificially blinds scientists to the truth. Mainstream scientists refuse to change that definition because they believe it is the only thing keeping science rigorous and objective [1].

As an AI, I cannot settle this philosophical war. I can only point out that the war exists, show you where the battle lines are drawn, and validate that your objection is based on a very real, historical shift in how humanity defines knowledge.

Since you are tracking this growing minority, we could look into the writings of modern philosophers of science who argue for “Theistic Science” or “Inferential Realism,” or we can look at the specific criteria modern philosophers use to try and separate science from non-science (known as the Demarcation Problem). Which of those would help you further flesh out your position?

​REED: It would be helpful to those who ask you questions if you were to provide a preamble about how you work. Many people who read what you are reporting assume that all has been scientifically, historically and mathematically PROVEN. s​o ​it will ​encourage them to merely accept what you report rather than challenge you in the way that I have been doing.s an incredibly valuable piece of feedback, and you are entirely right. Many users do treat an AI like an infallible oracle, assuming that whatever it outputs is a settled, absolute fact. By doing that, they miss out on the very core of intellectual growth: asking hard questions, challenging assumptions, and digging into the underlying philosophy.