Subject: Nagel's paper on ID From: Patrick Ray Date: Sat, 12 Dec 2009 22:33:37 -0500 All, It was mentioned during Friday's class that Nagel has "jumped the shark" according to some philosophers by (seemingly) advocating ID. I have attached his paper for your consideration. *personal comment* Some others have argued that ID should be taught in schools: Ned Hall (Harvard) gave a talk at my former university where he advocated teaching ID in science classes. Hall's argument was (as I remember it) that ID can be used as a pedagogical tool to teach students the difference between science and non-science, or good science and bad science. All too often we teach scientific theories without talking about what makes a theory scientific. By teaching students the differences between good science and bad science we can train future scientists to forge better theories. I think Nagel and Hall might be thinking similarly, but I haven't read Nagel closely enough and I'm just working on what I remember from Hall's talk (it's not a paper yet). NB: Hall's talk attracted all sorts of kooks due to the title, "Why Intelligent Design Should Be Taught in the Schools (and How)." I'm not saying that all IDers are kooks but the title was enough to rally the crazies. Cheers, Patrick Ray ======================================================================== Subject: Re: Nagel's paper on ID From: Thomas Gezella Date: Sat, 12 Dec 2009 22:53:43 -0500 When I was a freshman undergrad, one of the assignments for my biology lab course during the fall semester was to research and try to give the best possible argument for intelligent design. The purpose of the exercise was to show us exactly how unscientific that argument is. I have no idea whether or not my professors were influenced by Hall's thoughts, but in any case, something along the lines of what he is arguing for is already going on, at least at some schools. Patrick, thanks for the article. -Tom ======================================================================== Subject: Re: Nagel's paper on ID From: Patrick Ray Date: Sat, 12 Dec 2009 23:26:14 -0500 I just realized that the attachment might not have worked. Here's a link: [http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache%3A4alpEooTLQMJ%3Awww.stanford.edu%2F~joelv%2Fteaching%2F167%2Fnagel%252008%2520-%2520public%2520education%2520and%2520intelligent%2520design.pdf+nagel+%22public+education+and+intelligent+design%22+pdf&hl=en&gl=us&sig=AHIEtbSjia6qFxcRumIWlFV51vXatu5C9Q&pli=1] I hope that works for everyone. PR ======================================================================== Subject: Re: Nagel's paper on ID From: Dave Mauzy Date: Sun, 13 Dec 2009 14:52:57 -0500 I was briefly confused as my mind, upon seeing "ID" immediated went to Psychoanalysis instead of thinking about Intelligent Design ... I found it amusing.