Re: [asa] on science and meta-science

From: Merv Bitikofer <>
Date: Mon Nov 09 2009 - 21:04:41 EST

Gregory Arago wrote:
> Keith writes: “Science is a methodology, a limited way of knowing
> about the natural world.”
> No, this is wrong, plain and simple. I side with Cameron; Keith’s view
> of science is not current with PoS if he really believes this. Science
> is limited, yes, of course it is and Cameron is not arguing with this
> and thus is frustrated at why Keith repeats and repeats this obvious
> statement to him. But science is *not* (ECHO THIS) simply a
> methodology! This is too simple. Here Keith is missing a larger
> discourse and I am at a loss of how to convey it to him (e.g. really
> read more PoS?).
> Does simply being a ‘natural scientist’ *necessarily* make one a
> ‘naturalist’ or *require* that he or she accept the ideology called
> ‘naturalism’ as the core guideline/strategy/method for ‘doing good
> science’? I would say ‘No.’ But who that is an NPS here would say
> otherwise? I’m afraid that a good many people have been led down the
> primrose path on this one and should instead come back to ‘reality’
> with the rest of us.
Gregory! Out of this tempest of invective against all things TE or MN, I
am still curious about a few things because I do really want to
understand your position. You say Keith's view of science is not current
with PoS. So what is the view of science that *is* current with PoS?


To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Mon Nov 9 21:05:03 2009

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Nov 09 2009 - 21:05:03 EST