At 11:51 AM 05/24/2000 -0400, Bertvan@aol.com wrote:
>You believe metaphysical constructs play a part in growing
>public antipathy to science. I believe greater cause of antipathy to science
>would be a public impression that science was substituting philosophical
>naturalism for methodological naturalism. I believe philosophy can not be
>excluded from science. The ideal might be for each scientist to discard his
>personal philosophy when doing science, but neither Dawkins nor Denton could
>do that. I don't believe they should. While disagreeing with you on some
>points, I can respect and understand your reasoning. I have no hope or
>desire to convert anyone to ID who is already committed to another position.
>I only urge tolerance and understanding of another view point.
I agree that substituting philosophical naturalism for methodological
naturalism is a problem. It is another way of my saying that it is
inappropriate to expound metaphysical paradigms as scientific. But the
solution to this is not to do the same by expounding a metaphysical
paradigm of ID and calling it science. They are the same mistake.
Why should people tolerate that which they believe is wrong?
Steven S. Clark, Ph.D.
Associate Professor of Human Oncology and
Member, UW Comprehensive Cancer Center
University of Wisconsin School of Medicine
600 Highland Ave, K4/432
Madison, WI 53792
Office: (608) 263-9137
FAX: (608) 263-4226
ssclark@facstaff.widc.edu
http://www1.bocklabs.wisc.edu/profiles/Clark,Steven.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed May 24 2000 - 13:28:06 EDT