On Thu, 20 Mar 1997 00:29:39 -0500, Brian D Harper wrote:
[...]
>SJ>Where did I say that "MN has nothing to do with whether nature is all
>there is"? A feature of Brian's posts is that he often subtly
>re-words what I say. If I am not careful, I find myself defending
>terminology that Brian has inserted into the debate. I would suggest
>to Brian that he do what I do and quote his opponents *actual
>words*, not a paraphrase of what he thinks they said.
>BH>Sigh.....
>
>Okay, here are your actual words:
[...]
>BH>The difference is that "the principle that science can study only
>the things that are accessible to its instruments and techniques"
>has nothing to do with whether "nature is all there is".
>SJ>Agreed. But Brian needs to read a bit more carefully. I only said
>that methodological naturalists "must *ASSUME* that
>nature is all there is in doing science."
>
>SJ>How does Brian get:
>
>BH>"MN has nothing to do with whether nature is all there is"
>
>from
>
>SJ>methodological naturalists "must *ASSUME* that nature is all
>there is in doing science."?
BH>Terribly sorry, Steve. My fault entirely.
Agreed. But somehow I don't think this is an apology.
BH>I wrote:
>
>The difference is that "the principle that science can study only
>the things that are accessible to its instruments and techniques"
>has nothing to do with whether "nature is all there is".
>
>And you wrote "Agreed".
Agreed.
BH>For some reason I re-interpreted this to mean that you agreed
>with what I wrote. Tell me, just what was it you were agreeing
>with?
That "the principle that science can study only the things that are
accessible to its instruments and techniques" has nothing to do with
whether "nature is all there is".
The first ("that science can study only the things that are
accessible to its instruments and techniques" is a statement about
*science* (ie. methodological naturalism). The second (that "nature
is all there is") is a statement about *reality* (ie. metaphysical
naturalism). Clearly one can be a methodological naturalist and
*assume* in doing science that "nature is all there is" without being
a metaphysical naturalist and believing that "nature *really is* all
there is".
I don't know how I can make my position any clearer. I am not
prepared to go over this endlessly to gratify Brian's apparent desire to
catch me in a verbal trap. I am sure other Reflectorites are
getting a bit tired of this thread - I certainly am.
God bless.
Steve
-------------------------------------------------------------------
| Stephen E (Steve) Jones ,--_|\ sejones@ibm.net |
| 3 Hawker Avenue / Oz \ Steve.Jones@health.wa.gov.au |
| Warwick 6024 ->*_,--\_/ Phone +61 9 448 7439 (These are |
| Perth, West Australia v my opinions, not my employer's) |
-------------------------------------------------------------------