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.