I have defined science by its subject matter, which is data that can, in
principle, be detected by physical devices. Is that consistent with
methodological naturalism? And, if so, why use an "ism" in the definition of
>===== Original Message From John W Burgeson <firstname.lastname@example.org> =====
>Moorad wrote: "Just because the subject matter of science does not
>include these categories, it is absurd to say that science declares them
>to be nonsensical. "
>I think we can all agree on that, Moorad. But then you continue to
>write: "Methodological naturalism goes beyond science and it is a
>philosophy of science that is nihilistic in nature since it excludes
>other disciplines---those dealing with the
>non-physical, not detectable by physical devices."
>I would agree that it excludes other disciplines -- and this by
>definition. But in doing so it is simply defining what science is --
>nothing more. How can this be nihilistic? The baseball rules book
>defines what baseball is -- it "excludes" such other human activities as
>TV watching, fishing, and mall shopping. Yet one would hardly call it
>"nihilistic" because this is so.
>John Burgeson (Burgy)
> (science/theology, quantum mechanics, baseball, ethics,
> humor, cars, God's intervention into natural causation, etc.)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Dec 24 2001 - 18:53:19 EST