Re: Question: Philosophy of Science - is it Relevant?


"Robert Karl Stonjek" <rstonjek@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:dekok9$2k52$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> A) Have you:
> 1) Heard of Michael Ruse;
Yes.
> 2) Read Michael Ruse;
Yes. At least two books worth.
> 3) Has Michael Ruse influenced your thinking in the area of evolution?
Some. Mostly by turning me on to Hull and Ghiselin - two other
philosophers of biology whose work I respect more than Ruse's.
>
> B) Philosopher of Science:
> 1) Are you aware of the discipline?
Yes.
> 2) Have you read any books on the subject vis evolution?
Yes. Most recently Dennett's book "Darwin's Dangerous Idea".
> 3) Has Philosopher of Science influenced your thinking?
Some. The most famous philosopher of science is Karl Popper. His
strongest influence on my thinking was his inspiration of my OOL
hero Gunter Wachtershauser, for which I thank him.

> C) I am a
> 1) Researcher/lecturer/qualified in an area related to Evolution;
> 2) PhD but not in Evolution related discipline;
> 3) Independent researcher;
I suppose this is the best choice. Ouch! I wouldn't have chosen
those words.
> 4) Other
>
> Please let me know - my friend, a Philosopher of Science, thinks that
> Philosophy of Science has an impact on scientific thinking, perhaps it does.

A final comment regarding "Ruse demonstrates that there is no
necessary conflict between Christianity and evolutionism":

In my experience, philosophers don't really 'demonstrate' things.
Instead, they construct rationalizations of intellectual positions
which may sometimes help to clarify the issues. Ruse's discussion
of compatibility between Christianity and Evolutionism strikes me
as very unconvincing. ISTM that he has a distorted picture of
the core Christian beliefs, and perhaps also of the core evolutionist
beliefs. All three great monotheistic religions have at their core
the doctrine that God works in history - particularly human history.
Evolutionism has as its core belief that God does not guide history.
Any accomodation between these two ideologies must do some violence
to one or the other. ISTM that Ruse had to do some pretty radical
surgery on Christianity to construct his rationalization. In this
case, the philosopher's work did little to clarify the issues, IMHO.


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Question: Philosophy of Science - is it Relevant?
    ... I have heard Michael Ruse speak, have read some of his papers and knew he ... teach Creation "Science" as science was struck down due to his testimony. ... While Robert introduced me as a philosopher of science, ... "ALL mutation is random according to evolution theory" {"Oh, ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)
  • Question: Philosophy of Science - is it Relevant?
    ... A friend of mine claims that: "Michael Ruse has written a book as well as ... He is, as far as I can tell, a Philosopher of Science. ... Has Michael Ruse influenced your thinking in the area of evolution? ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)
  • Re: Question: Philosophy of Science - is it Relevant?
    ... > A friend of mine claims that: "Michael Ruse has written a book as well as ... He is, as far as I can tell, a Philosopher of Science. ... YES 3) Has Michael Ruse influenced your thinking in the area of evolution? ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)
  • Re: "Evolution is smarter than you"
    ... evolution began immediately AFTER the origin of life. ... >>> ID will destroy not only evolutionary biology, but ALL of science. ... Perhaps, if you (and Googlefotz, ... >> too) were to read what PhilOsopher wrote and then to read what I wrote ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Jerry Fodor on Evolutionary Psychology
    ... >> just can't merge an Adaptationist account of evolution with the kind of ... > included, designed my nose. ... > unmysteriously had a designer; and that the glasses he designed ... moquer de la philosophie, c'est vraiment philosopher." ...
    (rec.arts.books)