As long as it's not pseudo-science

• Phenomenological Science? by John Fentress, 3/24/98
  
  

What you list sounds a bit like the _Tao of Physics_ stuff that one sees in New Age bookstores. The problem I see is that the scientific method is almost inescapably reductionist. Thus, it can be hard to square with phenomenology. As E.O. Wilson's recent book notes, the average natural scientist has been keeping busy in his or her selected field, without addressing the underlying philosophical problems. My thought about what your notes is that they sound almost Platonist in their emphasis on the reality of categories and abstract concepts. In other words, terms such as "boundary" or "flow of nature" are not really scientific terms. Hence, I'm wondering if the students who attend this class will end up with the impression that they have heard a series of scientific lectures when, in fact, they are hearing philosophic musings from a scientist. Perhaps grounding the questions you ask in specific scientific issues and contexts will help prevent this. Of course, I am only a pub philosopher in my spare time, so I am very likely completely wrong. Dan Krashin

• Pub Philosophers Ain't All Bad by John Fentress, 3/25/98
  • Perhaps subjectivity is the key by Dan Krashin, 3/26/98
    • Case Studies: How Others Think About How We Think, and How We Think About How They Think - I Think! by John Fentress, 3/27/98
      • Time to Speak! by Doug William, 4/3/98
        • Close your eyes, Luke, listen to the Force by James Brody, 4/4/98
      • Pseudo Science Comes in Many Forms by John Fentress, 4/4/98
• A Re-reading: ScienceS by John Fentress, 4/4/98
  • Pseudoscience redux by Dan Krashin <dnokrashin@HOTMAIL.COM>, 4/9/98
    • True by John Fentress, 4/10/98
      • Also True by James Brody, 4/10/98