I guess I would like to add my perspective to this discussion. I believe
that science, whatever else it is, is a way (or ways) to understand the
natural world. If humananity is "simply" a part of the natural world then
science is all we need to understand ourselves and "alternate ways of
knowing" will not be necessary.
However, if we truely need the supernatural to fully understand human
beings, then science is not enough. In other words, if there are parts of
us that are spirit or some other supernatural stuff, then there are parts of
us that are not subject, even in principle, to a scientific understanding.
(This does not mean we cannot study beliefs about the supernatural or
actions people take because of these beliefs or why these beliefs are so
common or many other similar questions, scientifically.)
My problem with these alternative approaches are not that they are right or
wrong. I have my own beliefs, but I am not so sure about them to claim
certainty. My problem with these alternative approaches is their claim to
an alternate way of SCIENCE. I believe the claim to science is simply a way
to gain legitimacy without doing the hard work needed to actually convince
critical thinkers that the aproaches deserve legitimacy. Their ways may be
useful and even important, but they are not science. I would take them more
seriously if this was admitted and then arguments for their importance were
addressed.
Jeff Nagelbush
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Ferris State University
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
