Re: [asa] Natural Agents - Cause and Effect, Non-Natural Agents

From: D. F. Siemens, Jr. <>
Date: Wed Apr 15 2009 - 13:59:34 EDT

Fact is that I don't read your posts. I made an exception on this one
because I saw my name. As to a philosophical foundation of science, yes,
there is one, but it is not looked at in the doing. That the universe is
regular and rational, that it matches human reason, are metaphysical and
epistemological, but are obviously minimal. Metaphysical naturalism and
theism are, in contrast, all encompassing.
Dave (ASA)

On Wed, 15 Apr 2009 00:04:51 -0700 (PDT) Gregory Arago
<> writes:
Hi Dave,

You suggest that philosophy can be 'added to scientific understanding.'
What I'm looking for from you, as perhaps the lone philosopher active
here, is more of the opposite; showing how science is added to
philosophical understanding. That would help to balance some of the 'oh,
that's just philosophy' sentiments. Didn't you enjoy the Grant quotes
from my previous post?

You add: "ID and metaphysical naturalism (philosophical naturalism,
scientism) belong to philosophy, not science."

Actually, Keith Miller himself called MN a philosophical assumption.

Are you suggesting there is no philosophical assumption in your
'interpretation' of MN?

Instead of MN one could call it methods of studying nature, and only
nature (MSN-ON). This would distinguish two things: 1) the discussion
belongs *only* in natural sciences, i.e. the sciences that (among other
things use methods to) study nature, and 2) it would remove the
ideological connontation of the -ism implied in 'naturalism,' which is
sometimes (but not always) inconsistent with theology and transcendence
or immanence of non-natural or divine action. Oh, yes, and I guess 3) it
would pluralize the word 'methods,' thus indicating what HPS has
'discovered' - there is no single 'scientific method,' but multiple
methods use in various places and situtations.

Such a move, done intentionally with an aim to improve one's grammar,
would satisfy all of the parties who have spoken in this thread. And,
thank goodness, it would exclude me, because you would just be speaking
about natural sciences and not all sciences. It would then allow people
space to discuss the non-natural agents that have so obviously been
mainly avoided, but you'd have no human-social scholars to entertain you.
: - (


Now with a new friend-happy design! Try the new Yahoo! Canada Messenger
Click here for great travel deals to beautiful London!

To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Wed Apr 15 14:26:35 2009

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Apr 15 2009 - 14:26:35 EDT