Re: [asa] Polkinghorne and 'natural' Science

Chris, I was sending the text to Jon when your post came in. You'll note that I answered there your request for a list of things opposite to 'natural,' in my view. I don't think this is especially regarding Polkinghorne's quote about the age of the Earth, however it does certainly raise questions regarding the origins of humanity, which is not a topic only for natural science, but also social-humanitarian thought.
   
  Yes, I believe that widening the discussion of 'natural' to involve topics/concepts/spheres of knowedge as I have indicated can in a way transcend the natural/supernatural dichotomy. At the least, it can show respect for disciplines in the academy that simply don't fall into the easy-piecy definition of 'science' that a 'natural/supernatural' dichotomy presupposes.

  Yes, the refernce to 'reflexive science' was elusive, but there's teeth behind it in some prominent places of the academy (with the exception of natural sciences), let me assure you.
   
  Your second paragraph I accept in its entirety, even the fact that I was a bit uncharitable about American philosophy or lackthereof. I would note that it was pro-ID folks at the M.Polanyi Center - Baylor - who organized the conference on "The Nature of Nature" - perhaps they are being somehow coy, if not prudent to lack clarity on the nature of nature, to bolster the sloganeering involved in their cause. I recall someone saying that anyone who gets close to 'human nature' gets burned - perhaps this is why ID advocates have steered clear of the difference between human-made and non-human-made things.
   
  I receive your third paragraph as food for thought. Just what 'non-nautal methods' might entail is an open question. And reliability is certainly a factor. Could anyone practice it? We'll certainly see when the time comes.
   
  Sincerely,
   
  Gregory
   
  
Chris Barden <chris.barden@gmail.com> wrote:
  Gregory,

I would join Jon in asking for a list of things opposite to "natural",
in your view. I think that would better clarify your position and
allow the members of the list to evaluate how your paradigm would
interact with issues of interest, such as whether Polkinghorne was
right to (allegedly - haven't seen the quote) question whether the
history of Earth was sufficiently long to produce evolution. That was
the context in which this thread started, after all. Is there a
framework that transcends natural/supernatural which leads to a new
understanding of such issues? I am willing to "dignify or
acknowledge" anything that does so, but I haven't seen it yet except
as your elusive reference to "reflexive science".

For what it's worth, I regard most talking about "natural" to be
imprecise and in that I agree with you. It is, however, useful in a
casual sense. Americans, as you perhaps a little uncharitably noted,
are not known for their insistence on philosophical rigor. We are
instead known for a stubborn insistence on practicality and concision.
Such has been shown to be of use in mass communication -- which is
the real charisma (sloganeering?) behind ID, not its supposed clarity
about the nature of nature.

I would argue, stubbornly, that any science worth practicing must have
both an object of study and reliable (i.e. physical, within human
ability) methods for studying said object, irrespective of any
definition of "natural" we might choose. McGrath's findings cut both
ways. It may be that non-"natural" methods might be used to study
something, but would those methods be reliable? Could anyone practice
such a science?

Chris

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.

       
---------------------------------
Now with a new friend-happy design! Try the new Yahoo! Canada Messenger

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue Nov 20 12:42:49 2007