From: John Burgeson (burgythree@hotmail.com)
Date: Fri Apr 18 2003 - 16:37:14 EDT
Replying to Howard:
>>Here's my preferred meaning: MN is not a statement about the character of
>>reality, but a statement about the way science is currently done.>>
Agreed. If it WERE a statement about the reality of nature, it would be
methodological atheism."
>>In the formulation of scientific theories, only the action of natural
agents shall be considered. By "natural agent" we here mean any agent --
whether it be an inanimate object, an insentient living organism, or a
sentient/rational being -- that is a member of our universe. The action of
divine agents, for instance, whether coercive (supernatural) or non-coercive
(persuasive), is explicitly excluded from scientific theorizing. The action
of sentient beings with free will is not excluded, provided that they are
members of this universe. [Think of the way that the human behavioral
sciences are conducted. This way of defining MN includes these as authentic
sciences.]>>
OK, I can agree with that definition. Unlike the tighter definition, which
would exclude all creaturely actions, that definition allows for a wider
definition of science. Which, I think, is "good."
>>It seems to me that stating the MN principle this way allows us to deal
>>directly with the way in which science and ID relate. This is the form of
>>MN that ID rejects.>>
Here we diverge. If you substitute for "ID" in the above the words "the
current ID movement as promoted by Johnson, Dembski, Wells, etc." then I
would agree. But I'd like to address the general idea, not a particular
incanation of it which both you and I see as fatally flawed.
>>The biologically relevant action that ID most commonly labels "intelligent
>>design" is non-natural action by an unembodied agent that IS NOT a member
>>of this universe. Much confusion arises, however, when such action is
>>compared to the action of sentient, choice-making agents who ARE members
>>of this universe. Intelligent agents, as ID proponents use the term,
>>includes both agents who ARE members of this universe and those who ARE
>>NOT. >>
Same comment as the above.
>>Perhaps this is why we are in this particular discussion. The question is
>>whether or not action by sentient, choice-making agents who are members of
>>this universe is or is not excluded by MN.>>
And I think we are agreed that if the IA is a sentient choice-making member
of this universe that actions by it/them are included in the MN principle.
>>re we making any progress?>>
I think so. But we need to focus AWAY from the Johnson/Dembski/Wells crowd
and towards the general concept.
I asked you if you had read Ratzsch's last book on the subject? I purchased
my own copy which just arrived so I can take Iliff's library copy back and
start marking my own.
Burgy
www.burgy.50megs.com
_________________________________________________________________
Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Fri Apr 18 2003 - 16:37:41 EDT