Friday, January 4, 2013

[PHI 3800] A legitimate part of science?

The Guardian's Mark Vernon gave Thomas Nagel's Mind and Cosmos the Most Despised Science Book of 2012 award. Vernon seems to be assuming that Mind and Cosmos is a science book. But why think that Mind and Cosmos is a science book? Is it simply because it is a book about a scientific theory?

Intelligent design proponents make a similar sort of assumption.

For example, in Intelligent Design on Trial, Phillip Johnson claims that
If evolution by natural selection is a scientific doctrine, then the critique of that doctrine, and even of the fundamental assumption on which it's based, is a legitimate part of science as well.
Do you agree? Is it the case that any kind of critique of a scientific theory is "a legitimate part of science"?

No comments:

Post a Comment

This is an academic blog about critical thinking, logic, and philosophy. So please refrain from making insulting, disparaging, and otherwise inappropriate comments. Also, if I publish your comment, that does not mean I agree with it. Thanks for reading and commenting on my blog.