I usually dont review pages I disagree with

Published November 12th, 2006 by Bobby Henderson

I usually don’t review pages I disagree with, but I’ve stumbled this page a few times now… If methodological naturalism is to be used unwaveringly in science (which has not always been the case), then it renders the discipline potentially impotent to answer fundamental questions that it might otherwise provide insight on. Acknowledging that there are certain situations in which data may be interpreted in ways that at least suggest alternatives to ontological naturalism seems like the kind of thing that might increase interest in science. Specific ID models (if they’re to be presented at all) must only be considered based on their merits with respect to the data and their explanatory power (thus excluding young-earth creationism and FSM).


163 Responses to “I usually dont review pages I disagree with”

  1. J says:

    @ Penne and Alchemist,
    No, sure, I do take your point. It’s just the way I write. I always start off by not meaning to say anything at all, and then…
    (I think, on some level, I’m practicing arguments for face to face use in future…)
    Please do feel absolutely free to skip over my posts. Sorry there was no disclaimer this time.
    And I’ll try to self edit better.

  2. J says:

    @ Penne’s mouse,
    A specific apology is due. Squeak.

  3. Alchemist says:

    Hi J. YES! (cue triumphant music) the spaghetti hoards of His Noodlenesses have blessed our union! I, no wait, it’s a good one, honest, have got your e-mail (drum roll etc). Which means you have got mine – Logic Captain. Thanks for the complement re. my e-addy. Seriously, I don’t get many. Usually it’s “do you have to be sarcastic all the time”. It’s genetic, or possibly not, as it doesn’t exist.

    Love in tomato sauce with chilli

  4. Some random person says:

    At least this wasnt one of the OMGFUCKYOU!!!!111!1 emails, and made a valid argument. i dont agree with it, but it was reasonable.

  5. Marcus Marinara says:

    With the ratio of interdispersum microbiotics so immeasurably consonant to the sub-natural inclination of the subject species, it is beyond reasonable and scientific doubt that the quasi-articulate should espound such egregious conclusions.

  6. Anna says:

    I think I understood most of the words he was using, and the context of course, but I don’t think he used them correctly or in the right order.
    @J- NO MORE LONG POSTS! seriously. I only have a certain ammount of alloted time on the inet, and I’ve had to skip most of your posts. I don’t want to, cause I like them.

  7. J says:

    @ Alchemist,
    Tis a happy day indeed!
    And PS, to you and Penne, I actually really will try to be briefer. Reconsidering my long post above, it was almost completely pointless. Penne said it better in a couple of lines. Will try not to get carried away with creative-writing odysseys here in future.

  8. J says:

    Same to you, Anna. I’ll only write a lot when I actually have a lot to say, in future. Unlike the above.

Leave a Reply