[asa] Re: Silent MNism was [Definition for MN in PSCF 2007]

Hello Steve,
   
  Yeah, MN is a cracked philosophy. I don't use the MN/PN dichotomy. It is mainly a crutch for TEs to support their view that 'natural evolution' is more important than 'cultural evolution' or 'social evolution'. When closer to the reality of everyday life, few things could be further from the truth.
   
  Please note that probably no one will raise the issue of 'natural sciences' in relation to 'social-humanitarian sciences' simply because natural scientists are not trained to think about the differences and similarities between the two. Yet meaning, purpose, value, ethics...none of these things is in the domain of natural sciences. So really, the problem with 'evolutionism' that ID, as an example, is railing against in its 'culture war' (e.g. the question of teleology), is happening entirely outside of natural science. It is a token gesture that IDists are presenting their 'theory' in biology (and Dembski promises in mathematics!), when the action is really happening elsewhere. Few will believe this though.
   
  Have they heard of the linguistic-/hermeneutic turn?
   
  Suggestions for non-pro-MN points of view? Well, if the persons are not natural scientists, then to face up to the sovereignty of their spheres and not let natural sciences dictate to them what 'science' is and is not. Biology/biologists is/are living a bit big for its/their...The philosophers and sociologists of science are the ones who have played the demarcation game most successfully, not the natural scientists. Such holistic understanding is especially important in our epoch of fragmented knowledges and atomistic thinking.
   
  Out of curiosity, are you a natural scientist, Steve?

  Good wishes,
  G. Arago
   
  
Steve Martin <steven.dale.martin@gmail.com> wrote:
     
  Hi Greg,
   
  I *think* what you are saying is that a) MN doesn't work / can't be supported in those disciplines and that b) "MN is an acceptable methodology" in the natural sciences. Is this what you are saying?
   
  re: my reading of other views on MN, I have read some of Plantinga's stuff as well. Do you have other suggestions for a non-pro-MN points of view?
  
thanks,
 
   
  On 11/29/07, Gregory Arago <gregoryarago@yahoo.ca> wrote: Natural sciences require (the flawed ideology of) methodological naturalism; non-natural sciences don't. When people speak of MN, in the sense that de Vries meant it, they are referring ONLY to natural sciences.
   
  Can this be accepted?>?
   
  G. Arago
   
  p.s. to Poe and Mytyk - 'ideas' don't 'evolve'; they are not biological 'things' ( e.g. 'res cogitans')

       
---------------------------------
Ask a question on any topic and get answers from real people. Go to Yahoo! Answers.

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Thu Nov 29 20:10:17 2007