Chris Cogan objected to my statement that:
> >2) A majority of scientists believe that methodological naturalism is a
> >ground-rule for science, a strong line of demarcation. They believe
> >that any hypothesis about physical events or historical developments
> >which include the possibility of extra-natural causation must
> >_a_priori_ be rejected as unworthy of "scientific" consideration.
I'm afraid I can't participate right now in a debate regarding
methodological naturalism in science. Too many other things to do.
But I can at least point you to an old post of mine, if you're
interested in some thoughts about the interplay between science and
meta-scientific committments when confronting puzzling events:
http://www.calvin.edu/archive/asa/199702/0110.html
Loren Haarsma
Calvin College
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jun 09 2000 - 09:32:50 EDT