Re: Rationale for scientific methodology

From: George Andrews Jr. (
Date: Wed Sep 20 2000 - 13:32:12 EDT

  • Next message: Lawrence Johnston: "The "God particle""

    george murphy wrote:

    > Guy Blanchet wrote:
    > <snip>

    > > Of course, the above becomes very academic unless it may be demonstrated that
    > > a model invoquing the supernatural may be successfully constructed. This is
    > > a subject that has got me going for the past 13 years. If you are interested
    > > in knowing more, I'll be pleased to pass on what I've found out. (Note: In
    > > my case, by supernatural, I mean the Biblical variety.)
    > The biblical variety of what? The Bible doesn't use the categories
    > of "natural" and "supernatural."
    > Shalom,
    > George

    Precisely; to have a natural model "invoquing the supernatural" seems to me to be
    doubly problematic in that it is a conflation of categories that are not well
    defined to begin with. If a supernatural event is defined to be an event that is
    inexplicable by natural causes - as observed through empirical investigation , then
    it follows (definitionally ) that it is not in the domain of science.

    George A.

    George A. Andrews Jr.
    Physics/Applied Science
    College of William & Mary
    Williamsburg, VA 23188

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Sep 20 2000 - 10:31:46 EDT