<HTML>
<HEAD>
<TITLE>Re: Reply to Campbell & Book Recommendation</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<FONT FACE="Baskerville Semibold">Thanks, Ted!<BR>
<BR>
I misunderstood your original posting. Certainly below you are not confusing necessary and sufficient conditions, as I suggested previously. Sorry for the faulty charge!<BR>
<BR>
Your point is (and probably was) that, say, evolution theory might contain propositions that an individual would be unwilling to accept because it “contradict(s) their cherished assumptions or beliefs.” That doesn’t mean that evolution theory is not a scientific theory.<BR>
<BR>
Good point!<BR>
<BR>
What I should have said (and meant) was that if someone ACCEPTS a thesis and that thesis contains propositions that he or she is unwilling (not just unable!) to reject, no matter what empirical evidence comes his or her way, then it is not a scientific thesis.<BR>
<BR>
My attempt here is to suggest that what distinguishes genuine scientific theses from others is that they are grounded in, and amenable to, empirical evidence. Of course this is true of other theses, too, which is why I offer it as a necessary condition (if something fails to satisfy the condition it is not science) not a sufficient one (if something satisfies the condition it is science). Moreover it is weaker than a logical positivist view of science, which holds that science is nothing but the logical consequence of empirical evidence. That view is too strong.<BR>
<BR>
With regard to Moore’s book, I’m only familiar with the chapter on free will, which is one of the most influential pieces of philosophy that I have ever read. Note that there are many philosophy books on both lists on the website that you sent me, but they are very different philosophy books!<BR>
<BR>
Joe Campbell<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
</FONT><FONT FACE="Verdana"><BR>
On 10/13/05 11:57 PM, "Tbertruss@aol.com" <Tbertruss@aol.com> wrote:<BR>
<BR>
</FONT><BLOCKQUOTE><FONT SIZE="2"><FONT FACE="Arial"><BR>
Joe et. al.<BR>
<BR>
Joe wrote:<BR>
<BR>
</FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Arial"><FONT SIZE="5">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.<BR>
<BR>
And previously:<BR>
</FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Verdana"><BR>
</FONT><FONT SIZE="2"><FONT FACE="Arial">I did mention one parameter: If a particular thesis contains propositions<BR>
that one is unwilling to reject, no matter what empirical evidence comes<BR>
their way, then it is not a scientific thesis. I think that this alone shows<BR>
that intelligent design is not a scientific thesis.<BR>
-------------------<BR>
<BR>
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.<BR>
<BR>
This is all I meant.<BR>
<BR>
I am sorry if I misunderstood your meaning!<BR>
<BR>
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...<BR>
<BR>
Just joking........I hope. <BR>
<BR>
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."<BR>
<BR>
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!<BR>
<BR>
Oh, may I recommend this cheery adventure book for lite nighttime reading? Ha, ha, ha! Ho, Ho, Ho! Merry Christmas! <BR>
<BR>
http://www.randomhouse.com/modernlibrary/100bestnonfiction.html<BR>
<BR>
Ted Moffett<BR>
</FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Verdana"><BR>
</FONT></BLOCKQUOTE><FONT FACE="Verdana"><BR>
</FONT>
</BODY>
</HTML>