[Vision2020] Eugenie Scott's Talk at U of I

[Michael]

 Ok, John.  I'm keeping my patience, but perhaps there's a way to get
scientists to start taking some more philosophy courses?  Particularly
analytic Philosophy of Science; would be a humbling yet rewarding
experience. I think this would make the world a better place :-) (and a
safer place for those who wish to challenge the dictates of Science; might
have saved the life of Galileo).   

 

 

I Originally Wrote:

 

> Me: 

> Johnson argues FOR this alternative. I'd assume 

> Johnson would have addressed other proposed 

> possibilities in his argument, at least implicitly. 

> What else would he have been arguing about? Whatever 

> Johnson's arguments are, we know that Scott did not 

> deal with them; she merely cried "false alternative" 

> and listed other logical possibilities (which I 

> believe included ancient Hindu metaphysics, and > all-is-one). 

 

John Writes:

 

Your willingness to blindly accept the authority of Johnson is remarkable,
and a little scary. 

 

 

Me:

 

For the sake of argument, I'm perfectly happy assuming Johnson's arguments
don't work. I have no idea how much agreement I will ultimately have with
him. But alas, we don't know what they would even be since Scott decided to
create a straw man to refute instead of the real guy.  I have my own
criticisms of the Creationism movement, none of which Scott touched on.
This was the least of my criticisms of Scott and I don't see how you can
dodge the facts here, John. My criticism is now well qualified and
explained, tight as a submarine, and yet you now resort to hyper-rhetoric:
'A little scary.'   In any case, your statement here is entirely false. 

 

 

I Originally Wrote: 

 

> As for your last question, I don't know the history 

> that well. However, if Lamarkianism was the only 

> plausible scientific hypothesis and/or relevantly 

> interesting hypothesis for western culture at the 

> time, then there would be no false alternative 

> fallacy behind the intuitive impulse of limiting the 

> debate to Lamarkianism and Creationism. 

 

 

John Writes:

 

So, by that logic, Darwin actually proved creationism by publishing The
Origin of Species, because it disproved Lamarckism. Agreed? 

 

 

Me:

? ?  If the Origin of Species was allowed into the discussion at all there
would have been by default three options.

 

So what of Scott failing her own test? What of her brash reductionism of
Mind?

 

Thanks!

Michael Metzler

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20051111/d16bba6f/attachment.htm