Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: tacticalogic; betty boop
I doubt we have much further to debate.

In my view, science is out-of-bounds to theorize about meaning. That is the domain of theology and philosophy and is appropriate according to the rules of engagement of the forum, e.g. at home, in church, on Free Republic, in an eighth grade public classroom.

As I said before, my beef with science is that it should pitch methodological naturalism and instead only declare the axioms or postulates that are appropriate for a particular investigation.

108 posted on 10/25/2009 12:38:47 PM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies ]


To: Alamo-Girl
As I said before, my beef with science is that it should pitch methodological naturalism and instead only declare the axioms or postulates that are appropriate for a particular investigation.

I a sense, I beleive they have. Methodological naturalism declares a set of axioms that are appropriate for all investingations. The proposition at hand seems to be that biology should be exempt so that philosophical arguments can be entered against ToE.

109 posted on 10/25/2009 3:42:05 PM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson