Replies

And to get even more precise, the laws of identity and non-contradiction are involved, as well as ontological presuppositions, which takes things a little beyond modern "science" understood in the empiricist sense. Dare I say it? It may come as a surprise to liberals that their own positions on these matters are operations of metaphysics. The ontological materialism behind liberal utilitarianism requires just as much of a leap of "faith" and wanderings into areas of "beliefs" as the religious issues referenced by Kerry. But that would get them even more befuddled than they are now. So I will hold this ace in reserve. [irony]

Of course by definition metaphysics is involved in all considerations, including science and empiricism, as well as correct and erroneous ideas, so I'm not sure why you're invoking it here. Even an ignorant liberal only needs look up the word "metaphysics" to quell his surprise.

I disagree with your allusion that Kerry's leap of faith is just like any other philosophical stance. You're leaning toward a (self-contradictory) nihilist view by insinuating that all possible positions are equally arbitrary.

I will say that Kerry can only defend his own position by asserting that his views on abortion are mere arbitrary stipulations of the Church that cannot be defended on rational evidentiary grounds. Otherwise, he would be able to pursue his claimed anti-abortion beliefs without even referencing the Church. Unless, of course, he can defend the position that Church stipulations are the rational means of obtaining truth--a rather difficult argument to make.

These statements about the nature of human life or the human person which pop up in pro-abortion discourse are ontological propositions. Liberals tend to be rather underendowed (and underwhelming) in this area of cognitive exercise.

Too verbose. Lets just agree liberals are stupid.

All "science" involves a certain set of ontological presuppositions about the nature of reality.

Does science need to be in quotes? Science only needs the recognition of the validity of one's own sensory perceptions along with the fallibility of their interpretation. Science is a weak conduit to knowledge, where doubt, beyond the most obvious introspective epistemological truths, is ever present. However, it is the only conduit for knowledge that is justifiable in terms of reproducible interactions with reality. Almost seems ironic that a method that insists upon its own fallibility has led to mankind's most confident descriptions of reality.

Why??? Kerry's position and that of liberals focuses on the Catholic Church as making absolute and extraordinary definitional claims about human life. Liberalism's metaphysics hardly escapes the same categorial fever swamp.

Does science need to be in quotes?

No need to quibble about my typing habits or highlighting techniques. Not sure that tangent illuminates much in this debate. Thank you.

"Science" can mean many different things. Scientia, episteme, laboratory empiricism, gnosis, the bureaucracy and institutions of positivist scientism and modern technology, the left-brain fetishes of Ivy League dorks and nerds, etc.