Subject:
Re: Nagel's paper on ID
From:
Dave Mauzy <dmauzyjr@BUFFALO.EDU>
Date:
Sun, 13 Dec 2009 14:52:57 -0500
To:
CSE719-FA09-LIST@LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU

I was briefly confused as my mind, upon seeing "ID" immediated went to Psychoanalysis instead of thinking about Intelligent Design ... I found it amusing.

On Sat 12/12/09 10:33 PM , Patrick Ray plray@BUFFALO.EDU sent:
> > 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
> > 
> >