James Chastek on Methodical Naturalism vs Naturalism

A very nice post by James Chastek at his Just Thomism blog.

I never understood why the following was not blindingly obvious, but it clearly isn't.

"If, for example, you wanted to study and learn Euclid’s Elements you have to be “methodologically Euclidian” but this in no way commits you to Euclidianism, i.e. the claim that Lobachevsky’s or Reimann’s geometries were false; if you want to explain classical physics then you have to be “methologically Newtonian”, even if you think that Newtonianism is false."

Eliminating Eliminativism

The Maverick Philosopher down among the eliminativists.

I have to confess that, as someone who was never formally trained in philosophy, I can't even begin to see how eliminativism can address the points that Bill Vallicella raises here, along with the ones Feser investigates in his series of posts on Rosenberg's book.

Irrational Rationalists

Mike Flynn has some fun at the expense of our more scientistifical friends.

Noam Chomsky - "The machine, the ghost, and the limits of understanding: Newton's contributions to the study of mind"

Interesting lecture on the nature and limits of scientific enquiry by Noam Chomsky.