Siteadmin, Check users, nsTeam1RO, nsTeam1RW, nsTeam1_talkRO, nsTeam1_talkRW, oversight, Administrators
30,650
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 11:
Line 11: − + + + + +
Talk:Methodological naturalism (view source)
Revision as of 18:15, March 19, 2008
, 18:15, March 19, 2008mini-debate - Raggs, it's your turn
It's really a confounding of method and scope. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 14:30, 13 July 2007 (EDT)
It's really a confounding of method and scope. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 14:30, 13 July 2007 (EDT)
I don't believe it's possible to say that science limitis itself to the material world... I mean, science is basically testing the testable. So what you are saying is that science is limiting itself to what is possible... It's not as though you can test the untestable.[[User:Raggs|Raggs]] 09:06, 19 March 2008 (EDT)
:I don't believe it's possible to say that science limitis itself to the material world... I mean, science is basically testing the testable. So what you are saying is that science is limiting itself to what is possible... It's not as though you can test the untestable.[[User:Raggs|Raggs]] 09:06, 19 March 2008 (EDT)
::Your words simply perpetuate the confusion. Let me try again:
::Liberals and conservatives agree (1) that science should test the testable and that (2) science properly limits itself to investigating the possible. Agreed? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 14:15, 19 March 2008 (EDT)