Re: ID science (subtopic 2)

From: John Burgeson (burgythree@hotmail.com)
Date: Tue Apr 22 2003 - 10:32:25 EDT

  • Next message: John Burgeson: "Re: ID science (subtopic 2)"

    >>I said "the claim that MN is successful" has implications - not that MN
    >>itself does. & I should have been more precise & said something like "the
    >>considerable success of MN has limited implications ..." No method itself
    >>can say anything about the real world till it's tried in the real world.
            But then my point simply is that our ability to explain phenomena in the
    physical world in terms of natural processes doesn't mean that the physical
    world is all that exists.>>

    OK. That makes more sense to me, and I can, of course, agree. I'm wrestling
    with Tillich these days and sometimes fail to recognize when I'm in a
    totally different conversation.

    Thanks.

    Burgy

    www.burgy.50megs.com

    _________________________________________________________________
    Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online
    http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Tue Apr 22 2003 - 10:33:09 EDT