From: Howard J. Van Till (hvantill@chartermi.net)
Date: Sat Apr 19 2003 - 10:41:01 EDT
>From: George Murphy <gmurphy@raex.com>
> John Burgeson wrote:
>>
>> 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."
>
> If I may butt in here, it seems to me that the claim that MN is successful
does
> have limited implications for the character of reality. It suggests that
> the physical
> world has no "gaps" in the sense that the term is used when referring to a
> "God of the Gaps."
Agreed. MN is a statement about the character of science as currently
practiced.
However, the additional observation that MN has a very successful track
record has implications regarding the character of reality.
Howard Van Till
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 19 2003 - 11:11:20 EDT