Sal2: What scientists do in their private lives is, well, done in their private lives. But when they enter the lab, they are supposed to check their biases, prejudices, assumptions and preconceptions at the door. Of course many do not, and these things find their way into their work. But then other scientists who do not share their predilections root them out. And science advances.

Usually. Sometimes it stands still for a long time. Thank you for agreeing with my point: you cannot claim that the methodological naturalism of science is entirely distinct from the dominant ontological naturalist culture of science. They are not distinct in practice: science is a social activity, and has metaphysical biases.

(snip)

Sal2: You get my point. The supernatural cannot, by definition, affect the natural world, else it would not be SUPERnatural, since it would possess natural-world causal efficacy. And that includes camera photon-popping and hallucination induction, which would have PET scan measurable effects.

Again, that is petetito principii. The supernatural CAN affect the natural world, but the WHOLLY supernatural cannot, by your definition. But I did not restrict my discussion to wholly supernatural entities and effects.

(snip)

Sal2: As I noted before, if you recognize something, and a word or thought you have associated with it comes to mind, that word or thought is a meme, and theoretically, a PET scan could register the neurological change concommitent upon such recognition. If you DON’T recognize it, well then you possess no meme associated with it.

Yes, which is why (vide supra) memes are not unitary causally efficaceous entities.