Re: [asa] on science and meta-science

Hi Schwarzwald,

I might get around to engaging with your post in a bit more detail later, but for now I want to raise one issue;

You wrote;
> * There's nothing about the methods commonly associated with
> "methodological naturalism" that makes its findings or methods
> exclusively compatible with naturalism anyway. Claiming that, say,
> "Water = H2O" is a naturalistic discovery is an empty statement, since
> nothing in the discovery or description is necessarily incompatible with
> a non-naturalistic perspective.

I feel I must have entirely missed the point here - for the simple reason that I don't believe anybody is arguing that MN is "exclusively" compatible with naturalism. Rather the point has been that MN is compatible with a metaphysic of a particularly Christian theistic sort.

So, taking the "Water = H2O" example: I wonder whatever gave you the idea - which you seem to me to be taking as your point of departure - that this claim is regarded as "incompatible with a non-naturalistic perspective".

Isn't the entire point of the theist's defence of MN precisely that an explanation like "Water = H20" can be arrived at according to the assumptions of MN whilst also being perfectly compatible with the theistic (non-natural) perspective?

As I say, I'm sure I must have missed the point, so I'll await clarification before responding further.

Blessings,
Murray

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue Nov 3 05:05:32 2009