August 08, 2005

Science vs Anti-Science

Pixy Misa is having a discussion with an ID believing commenter. The results are priceless. One of the lines: The arguments are identical: "You can't explain this to my satisfaction, therefor magic fairies did it."

See also his summary of the summary.

For a calmer discussion, see Life in the Atomic Age.

Posted by Owlish at August 8, 2005 10:35 AM | TrackBack

If you mean me, you've got the wrong end of the stick -- I don't accept the "intelligent design" arguments. I'm arguing against Naturalism, not evolutionary biology.

Posted by: Michael Brazier at August 9, 2005 01:47 AM

Ok, thanks for clarifying.

Posted by: owlish at August 9, 2005 10:49 AM

Naturalism is a prerequisite for evolutionary biology, and indeed for any scientific theory. So Michael is arguing against the entire structure of science.

Posted by: Pixy Misa at August 9, 2005 08:50 PM

No, Naturalism is not a prerequisite for scientific theories at all. Science relies on the assumption that nature is regular and structured, and that its structure can be discovered by rational enquiry. Naturalism is the belief that nothing exists outside nature, or that nothing outside nature can affect nature. Neither of these assumptions entails the other. David Hume, if I recall correctly, doubted the validity of the scientific method, and also the existence of supernatural beings; Newton and Leibniz were Theists and scientists all their lives.

Posted by: Michael Brazier at August 11, 2005 07:56 PM
Post a comment

Remember personal info?