What is stated in [44520] seems to represent the essence of half of what "defines" my research orientation. The other half is the desire and inclination to understand things in a categorical manner. And these are the internalist approach and the methodological naturalist approach as they are understood and characterized in my CUP book.

I have come to realize that the "Guess-Compute-Compare" method, as Feynman puts it, rather than the "methodological naturalist" approach, is more appropriate and accurate a "term" that characterizes the "other half" of what "defines" my research orientation. Being a methodological naturalist does not necessarily mean commitment to deduction of definite predictions and pursuit of rigorous testability. (After all, many so-called natural sciences do not, including much of biology, as far as I know.) Adopting the "Guess-Compute-Compare" method, as Feynman puts it, does.