Response to the Commentary

Pro Judice

Bibliographic Data

ID11638104
AuthorsMichael Ruse (0000-0001-5740-0169, Departments of History and Philosophy University of Guelph Guelph, Ontario, Canada, corresponding author)
Year1982
Volume7
Issue4
Pages19-23
Publication date1982-10-01
Peer ReviewedYes
Open AccessYes
TypeARTICLE
VenueScience Technology & Human Values (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 0162-2439 • E-ISSN: 1552-8251
PublisherSAGE Publishing (PUBLISHER • US)
DOI10.1177/016224398200700403
OpenAlexW1966234265
LanguageEN
Citations received11

1. How does Ruse's second remark, that saying is not the same as saying religion, fit into the overall story? Why is the difference between a negative argument (creation-science is not science) and a positive argument (creationscience is religion) important here? 2. Why does Ruse think that Laudan's strategy is inadequate? (remark three) 3. What are the three questions that Ruse feels must be addressed? (Hint: Did you read my overview? These questions are listed there!) 4. Ruse clearly believes that not all endeavors can be clearly separated into science and non-science based on his five stated criteria. (He gives psychoanalysis as a problematic case.) How does he make the case that there are, though, some times when his criteria suffice? How successful is his argument? 5. Ruse tries to show, using various passages from the Bible and from creationist writings, that creation-science clearly fails based on his five criteria. Does he succeed in making his case? 6. What point does Ruse make with regard to kinds as used in creation-science? 7. Does Ruse ever really address his third question in this writing? (Answer: Not really, at least not directly.)

Cognitive science · Eastern European Communism and Reforms · Mormonism, Religion, and History · Neuroscience · Psychology · Religious Studies and Spiritual Practices

Tools

Open DOISci-Hub