<HTML><FONT FACE=arial,helvetica><HTML><FONT SIZE=2 PTSIZE=10 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0"><BR>
Joe Campbell:<BR>
<BR>
Thanks for your thoughtful and friendly replies! <BR>
<BR>
I would love to respond on the Vision2020 list in more detail, but I have not found the time or energy to give a decent response, and I don't want to offer a half hearted effort.<BR>
<BR>
A. J. Ayer comes to mind as a philosopher who might be worth bringing into this discussion in regard to logical positivism, scientific method, and metaphysics and/or mysticism as forms of "knowledge," connecting this approach to the issues of the Philosophy of Mind as it impacts the problem of the knowledge of other minds (God's mind?). And what about Neutral Monism from Bertrand Russell? I find it odd that Russell's attempt to get around the Idealism/Materialism or Mind/Matter split receives such scant attention.<BR>
<BR>
Frankly, I think Plantinga's thinking to be a brilliant, clever and inspired effort to prove a thesis that can't be "proved" without forms of deception and obscurantism that are rather easily exposed.<BR>
<BR>
Anyway, maybe when I find more time or inspiration, I can respond on the list in more detail. <BR>
<BR>
Though many on Vision2020 find posts on complicated philosophy to be "inappropriate," I keep reminding people, everyone is a philosopher on theories of ethics and knowledge, whether they admit it or not, so you can either be a poor philosopher, or a good one, but no one can avoid being one. And how someone answers the basic questions of ethics and knowledge that philosophy poses will impact the most important decisions in anyone's life. Given the wisdom displayed by many of our political, religious and economic leaders, across the board, I think they reveal they are very poor philosophers!<BR>
<BR>
Oh wait! I forgot about those who think that ethics and knowledge is reducible to dollars and cents in the free marketplace! If an ethical value or form of knowledge sells, it deserves to rule our lives. They are winning the argument via the "might makes right" approach to ethics and knowledge, or perhaps the "popularity" approach to validating ethical theories and knowledge. History is written by the victors, as they say. Who cares if you are a poor philosopher, if you are filthy rich and/or powerful, ruling those who follow your "wisdom?"<BR>
<BR>
Consider, though, how those who seek to weaken the impact of scientific forms of knowledge on their favored theories of ethics and knowledge (fundamentalist thinking in Islam or Christianity or even many so called "New Age" religions, etc.), use the power of economic and technological means derived from scientific thinking to promote the very pet theories that science reveals are very questionable, like a God created universe that denies evolution of the human species.<BR>
<BR>
A lot could be said about this development in modern life!<BR>
<BR>
Ted Moffett<BR>
<BR>
Joe wrote:<BR>
<BR>
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></HTML>