Re: The Wedge of Truth : Splitting the Foundations of NaturalismbyPhillip E...

From: Howard J. Van Till (hvantill@novagate.com)
Date: Thu Jun 29 2000 - 13:22:51 EDT

  • Next message: Joel Cannon: "Re: The Wedge of Truth : Splitting the Foundations of Naturalism (fwd)"

    Bryan,

    I don't see it as special pleading at all. Rather, it is a call to be clear
    about what questions are on the table. If one's questions are limited to
    matters of material mechanism alone, then shave away. If, however, one's
    questions include typical human concerns about meaning, purpose,
    significance, and the like, then one must be careful with the razor, lest it
    eliminate a fruitful set of considerations.

    Newton and Galileo did not use Ockham's razor to eliminate questions of
    meaning or purpose. I would suggest that what they did instead was to show
    that these questions had to be considered in the context of being better
    informed about the character of the world in which they lived. I presume we
    are both eager to do that, right?

    Howard Van Till

    ----------
    >From: Bryan Cross <crossbr@SLU.EDU>
    >To: asa@calvin.edu
    >Subject: Re: The Wedge of Truth : Splitting the Foundations of
    NaturalismbyPhillip E...
    >Date: Thu, Jun 29, 2000, 10:58 AM
    >

    > That looks like special pleading to me. If a group of neuroscientists
    discovered
    > that determinism is true, and thus that free choice is an illusion, or that
    > consciousness is an illusion, being reducible to patterns of axonal spikes or
    some
    > other brain phenomena, would we conclude that because their findings eliminate
    > features of our existence that give us meaning, therefore those
    neuroscientists
    > must not be whole persons, somehow scant of skill and vision? With this
    rejoinder,
    > opponents of Galileo and Newton could have protected the meaning and comfort
    > procured by the richness of the scholastic worldview. We could preserve all
    our pet
    > theories that way, but that's special pleading, any way you slice it. To be
    > successful, any preservation of teleology must not rest on ad hoc restrictions
    on
    > the application of the principle of parsimony. If "whole person" is defined
    (at
    > least in part) as someone who at all costs protects and preserves that which
    gives
    > us meaning, then the restriction below looks to me like special pleading.
    >
    > - Bryan
    >
    >
    > "Howard J. Van Till" wrote:
    >
    >> But Ockham's razor must be used by whole persons with the requisite skill
    >> and breadth of vision. If wielded by the scant of skill or vision it can cut
    >> off the very considerations that give meaning to the entirety of life's
    >> experiences.
    >>
    >> Howard Van Till
    >>



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jun 29 2000 - 13:27:20 EDT