This is a blog to discuss philosophy, chess, politics,
C. S. Lewis, or whatever it is that I'm in the mood to discuss.
It might be wothwhile to look at this small section of the ruling, in light of all the discussion here about the supernatural:Expert testimony reveals that since the scientific revolution of the 16th and 17th centuries, science has been limited to the search for natural causes to explain natural phenomena. This revolution entailed the rejection of the appeal to authority, and by extension, revelation, in favor of empirical evidence. Since that time period, science has been a discipline in which testability, rather than any ecclesiastical authority or philosophical coherence, has been the measure of a scientific idea's worth. In deliberately omitting theological or “ultimate” explanations for the existence or characteristics of the natural world, science does not consider issues of “meaning” and “purpose” in the world. While supernatural explanations may be important and have merit, they are not part of science. This self-imposed convention of science, which limits inquiry to testable, natural explanations about the natural world, is referred to by philosophers as “methodological naturalism"; and is sometimes known as the scientific method. Methodological naturalism is a “ground rule” of science today which requires scientists to seek explanations in the world around us based upon what we can observe, test, replicate, and verify.---------------------------Looks like the judge in his definition is trying to describe how science is currently practiced. And within the context, looks like supernatural is something based on revealation or authority only; dealing with ultimate explanations for existence of the world; a theological type of explanation.Interesting that "philosophical coherence" has been set to one side.Practice seems to be favored over principles.Based on posting I've seen from scientist on different web sites, that description is pretty accurate.Greg
Post a Comment