To: tacticalogic
"Chemists, applied physicists, materials research, metallurgy, ceramics, botanists, pharmacology, there's all kinds of other fields of science - and you submit that Lewontin speaks for them all. Not likely." I think you are referring the fields of methodological science that do not commit the fallacy of assuming that the existence of natural, physical laws means that philosophical naturalism is therefor true. Those would be the technological and applied sciences. As opposed to the 'sciences' that claim to be able to see back into the unobservable past and concoct just-so naturalistic stories based on an 'a priori' commitment to philsophical naturalism..
"Yes, let's pretend your beliefs don't have any consequences."
Ah yes, you want to assume that Pascal's Wager isn't applicable.
132 posted on
09/30/2008 4:52:04 PM PDT by
GourmetDan
(Eccl 10:2 - The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left.)
To: GourmetDan
I think you are referring the fields of methodological science that do not commit the fallacy of assuming that the existence of natural, physical laws means that philosophical naturalism is therefor true. Those would be the technological and applied sciences. As opposed to the 'sciences' that claim to be able to see back into the unobservable past and concoct just-so naturalistic stories based on an 'a priori' commitment to philsophical naturalism.. I think I'm considering "all scientists". That's who you submit Lewontin's comments apply to. Put the goal post down, and leave it there.
Ah yes, you want to assume that Pascal's Wager isn't applicable
I just all 'em like I see 'em.
133 posted on
09/30/2008 5:00:32 PM PDT by
tacticalogic
("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson