Anti-Climacus

QUOTE:

"reading the worst characterization of science by a philosopher ever. Nick, I see why you dont understand what science is and is not. You have to read about science from outrageous sources like JP Moreland"

I'll grant your premise*. Then again, I have you in philosophy, politics, literature, theology, psychology, etc... so I suppose I can let you have science.

*And we can only grant this premise if we assume that I have 1) Never read anything on science written by someone who was qualified and 2) Never taken a science class. Now I will be the first to admit, as regards the second, that I have done everything humanly possible to expunge the memory of, say, balancing chemistry equations, or remembering which enzymes the small intestine secretes; and I certainly expended ridiculous effort to avoid learning it all in the first place. But I did cover all of the relevant sciences in some detail.

To the first: I will grant that I understand less about contemporary science than I might if I were, for example, a physics major. But unless Mr. Hucul is utterly unwilling to admit that what science is has ever changed over time (and were he to do so, we could laugh him out of the room, so to speak), then it seems possible to argue that there are a number of theoretical perspectives one can take to science. Now, it might not be possible (and, indeed, I think this is the case) for us to get much beyond this first argument (for reasons too complicated to get into here), but it's still a valuable realization, and that, I think, it the claim that most of the philosophy of science I read has to do with.