Re: 1. a couple of questions, 2. Re: design: purposeful or

Brian D Harper (
Fri, 07 Mar 1997 08:47:56 -0500

At 05:41 AM 3/7/97 +0800, Steve Jones wrote:
>On Mon, 03 Mar 1997 11:33:18 -0500, Brian D Harper wrote:
>>SJ>I really cannot follow Brian's thinking. He must be a genius!
>BH>What exactly is it that's hard to follow? It seems obvious to me,
>>but previous experience has taught me that what's obvious to me may
>>not be obvious to someone else. Maybe it helps to modify what I
>>wrote above slightly:
>BH>But if MN has nothing to do with whether nature is all there is
>>then MN provides no reason to *ASSUME* nature is all there is.
>>Or maybe like this: But if MN has nothing to do with whether
>>nature is all there is then one can accept MN without assuming that
>>nature is all there is.
>SJ>Where did I say that "MN has nothing to do with whether nature is all
>there is"? A feature of Brian's posts is that he often subtly
>re-words what I say. If I am not careful, I find myself defending
>terminology that Brian has inserted into the debate. I would suggest
>to Brian that he do what I do and quote his opponents *actual
>words*, not a paraphrase of what he thinks they said.


Okay, here are your actual words:

From: "Stephen Jones" <>
To: "" <>
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 97 19:31:20 +0800
Reply-To: "Stephen Jones" <>
Priority: Normal
Subject: Re: a couple of questions


BH>The difference is that "the principle that science can study only
>the things that are accessible to its instruments and techniques"
>has nothing to do with whether "nature is all there is".

SJ>Agreed. But Brian needs to read a bit more carefully. I only said
that methodological naturalists "must *ASSUME* that
nature is all there is in doing science."

Now, what is it you were saying?

Brian Harper
Associate Professor
Applied Mechanics
The Ohio State University

"Should I refuse a good dinner simply because I
do not understand the process of digestion?"
-- Oliver Heaviside