Re: [asa] Re: Reductionism

Your option two below would presume, I think, a negative answer to the
question "has it been adequately investigated on empirical grounds?"
Your option (a) (accepting ignorance) might be subdivided into at least
two more --- 1> to stop at ignorance and throw up our hands, or 2> to
attempt other modes of explanation that aren't available to empirical
investigation. For example on the issue of human choice ("freewill") --
theology may make attempts to explain this in its own categories of
thought, but none of these may ever be empirically testable. But would
you say we haven't yet "earned" the right to propose theologically
revealed meanings or explanations to this question if the empirical
approach is not yet concluded? And if not, at what point would you ever
decide that the empirical approach is exhausted?

This line of thought shouldn't be taken as my concession that empirical
methods must always be a first (or most superior) line of investigation
in all matters of inquiry. But I'm still organizing my thoughts and am
not prepared to argue the other way either.

--Merv

PvM wrote:
> good question. What if we fail to find an explanation? We then have
> two options: a) accept our ignorance 2) propose an alternative that
> can be tested against the null hypothesis.
>
> On 6/16/07, Merv <mrb22667@kansas.net> wrote:
>> PvM wrote:
>> >
>> > No, I believe that we should at least attempt to reduce things to
>> > reason or scientific methodology before concluding that there is
>> > something non-physical involved.
>>
>> Merv asked: At what point prior to success would you say this
>> attempt has been
>> adequately made?
>>
>> --Merv

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sat Jun 16 21:11:23 2007