>>You are quite welcome to criticize any field you choose to. However, if
>you >criticize a field that is not your own, you had better do your
>homework.
>
Chuck's response:
>Agreed. But I would add that philosophy of science is a different field
>from science, a field in which scientists, as a group, have no special
>expertise.
Agreed
>In fact, I would argue that questions of philosophy of science
>must be settled externally to science itself.
Ideally, yes. But the conclusions philosophers of science draw may be seen
as impractical, irrelevant, naive or destructive by the practitioners of
the sciences whose philosophical questions they try to "settle". J. P.
Moreland has addressed the question of whether creationism can be declared
nonscience, for example. His arguments in my view establish that with
science suitably defined, he's correct. But a practitioner of evolutionary
biology would probably object that Moreland's arguments have not shown him
how he can, empirically, include divine causation in his discipline.
Still, I agree that many scientists (as well as engineers) are not experts
in the philosophy of science, and it would be good for them to improve
their understanding of this field and how it applies to their discipline.
Bill Hamilton | Chassis & Vehicle Systems
GM R&D Center | Warren, MI 48090-9055
810 986 1474 (voice) | 810 986 3003 (FAX)
hamilton@gmr.com (office) | whamilto@mich.com (home)