On Friday 01 July 2005 07:43, Dan Grey wrote:
What's the problem of saying that creationsim is psuedoscience, and then just pointing to all the books by well-regarded scientists that state that as the reference? (I have one on my book shelf :-), and I'm sure there's more ).
Huh? I don't understand. I'm not advocating for a psuedoscience category, only that those who do may find that reference interesting and useful. Are you objecting to the title of the book (shouldn't we instead look at the substance of the content), or the attempt by scientists (and philosophers thereof) to define their field? The article is quite useful in distinguishing pseudoscience on the basis of methodological naturalism (e.g., the publication of the Bible Codes in Statistical Science and the resulting discussion, critique, and consensus) . Some creationists and IDers object to methodological naturalism, but that is straightforward: methodological supernaturalism isn't science -- if there is such a thing.