From: John W Burgeson (jwburgeson@juno.com)
Date: Thu Oct 09 2003 - 15:12:31 EDT
Phil is a very engaging speaker. I like him, even though I don't like
some of his positions. He is worth hearing. The last time I met him was
at the 1997 NTSE seminar in Austin, Texas. A description of that seminar
was subsequently published -- I think a few sites on the internet have
copies or you can read it on my site at
www.burgy.50megs.com/ntseoad.htm
An IBM colleague of mine, Randy Isaacs, made comments on a 1995 lecture
by Phil. His remarks are at:
www.burgy.50megs.com/randy.htm
His latest book, ASKING THE RIGHT QUESTIONS, is not up to the standards
of his earlier ones. REASON IN THE BALANCE is probably his best.
Phil's primary error, IMHO, is not understanding that philosophical
naturalism (the universe is all there is) and methodological naturalism
(science is a game which investigates causality as if no gods exist) are
two very separate ideas. To the extent he DOES know this, he makes the
error that most scientists don't understand the difference.
I was taught the difference over 50 years ago as a physics undergraduate
at Carnegie Tech. I think most budding scientists are taught it early on.
Burgy
www.burgy.50megs.com
________________________________________________________________
The best thing to hit the internet in years - Juno SpeedBand!
Surf the web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER!
Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today!
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Oct 09 2003 - 15:16:53 EDT