[Vision2020] Reply to Campbell & Book Recommendation

[Tbertruss at aol.com]

Joe et. al.

Joe wrote:

I just wanted to be clear that I did not give a definition of ‘science.’ I 
merely gave one necessary condition for something’s being a scientific thesis. 
I did not give a sufficient condition. Thus, I did not assert that anything 
which passed my criterion was a scientific theory, as you suggest in the first 
paragraph below.

And previously:

I did mention one parameter: If a particular thesis contains propositions
that one is unwilling to reject, no matter what empirical evidence comes
their way, then it is not a scientific thesis. I think that this alone shows
that intelligent design is not a scientific thesis.
-------------------

It seemed you were suggesting in the statement above, that if the 
psychological disposition of a thesis proposer was such that they could not live with a 
certain result from empirical investigation of their thesis, then the thesis 
was not "scientific."  Certainly, the psychological disposition you outline 
above implies "bad faith" on the part of the thesis proposer, that they really do 
not want to follow what the methods of science may reveal, if these methods 
contradict their cherished assumptions or beliefs. In the mind of someone who is 
claiming to assert a scientific thesis who matches this description, their 
mindset may not really be that of a "scientist," in the ideal.  But this 
psychological condition does not necessarily render the thesis itself as not a 
scientific thesis.

This is all I meant.

I am sorry if I misunderstood your meaning!

As to the difference between a "necessary condition" and a "sufficient 
condition," that you reference above, I must confess I do not know what this means, 
at this moment.  After plowing through several books analyzing G. E. Moore's 
"Principia Ethica," my brain has turned into cottage cheese: tasty, but 
homogenized, thus kind'a the same all over the place...

Just joking........I hope.  

But it is interesting to see "Principia Ethica" on the list of Random House's 
best 100 nonfiction.  And also interesting to consider that as important as 
Moore's book is viewed, that just about nobody knows about it or reads it.  
This book is on the "boards" list, not the "readers" list!  Those intellectual 
elites!  Who do they think they are, anyway, telling the masses what they should 
read or think?  Why, they are almost as pushy as a preacher!  Some would say 
they are "preachers."

Why did G. E. Moore's "Principia Ethica" make this list?  Never mind!  I'm 
just glad it was on this list.  This means a few unsuspecting souls now also may 
have had their brain's turned into cottage cheese, if they read this title 
with avid enthusiasm!

Oh, may I recommend this cheery adventure book for lite nighttime reading?  
Ha, ha, ha!  Ho, Ho, Ho!  Merry Christmas!  

http://www.randomhouse.com/modernlibrary/100bestnonfiction.html

Ted Moffett
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20051014/5d280404/attachment.htm