RE: [asa] YEC--What can we offer them?

From: Gregory Arago <>
Date: Sat Jun 30 2007 - 00:41:51 EDT

Hello Kenneth,

Nice to meet you. No, I don't include (the)
supernatural in my work. But then I also do not oppose
natural with only supernatural. I would ask you if it
makes sense to do so. Are there not other concepts
(and let us please distinguish between 'natural' as a
concept and 'natural' as an experience or percept, if
we would speak about this) that could count as
foundations for methodological alternatives to
'nature-only' investigations?

For example, let us just speak of ourselves. Surely
yes, we are natural beings. But we are also much more
than just that. On the basis of the 'more than
natural,' what I've referred to here as extra-natural
or supra-natural, we can also study human beings from
a sociological perspective. Physical or natural
reductionism thereby need not taint our work.

Hopefully this helps with semantics and respectively
different disciplinary pov's.


--- "Meyer, Kenneth A" <>

You claim that you don't deal with only natural or
physical things in your academic work and thus cannot
be limited by even methodological naturalism. How
precisely do you include the
supernatural in your academic work? Have you
published work that
includes supernatural things in your field of
sociology that might give an example of how you are
not, in fact, limited by methodological
> Sincerely,
> Ken M.
> --- G. Arago wrote:
> I can tell you plainly that I don't deal with only
'natural' or 'physical' things in my academic work. So
how I am supposedly limited to either philosophical or
methodological naturalism? What a giant fig leaf!! Why
wear that uniform?

      Ask a question on any topic and get answers from real people. Go to Yahoo! Answers and share what you know at

To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sat Jun 30 00:42:25 2007

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sat Jun 30 2007 - 00:42:25 EDT