marc9000 writes:
Thank you very much!
You're welcome.
marc9000 writes:
It’s logical that his chapter 3 would be good for science classes.
No. It would be "logical" for him to convince the experts in the relevant fields that he actually
does have evidence. He hasn't managed to convince himself yet. When you consider that, his suggestion about discussing it in schools is rather strange. If I thought I had evidence for something that wasn't in the mainstream of science and (unlike Monton) I
was personally convinced by that evidence, it wouldn't occur to me to try to get it into
schools. I'd be presenting my evidence to other adults, specifically, those with the best understanding of the relevant fields.
If you look at the development of new ideas in science through the ages, their initial proponents don't try to shove them directly in the faces of school children. They are concerned with convincing their peers, and testing their hypotheses against further observations.
Incidentally, there are many atheists, including Monton and Dawkins, who consider "god" to be a potential scientific hypothesis. You may not know this, but the idea of an
a priori exclusion of such ideas from science tends to be pushed more enthusiastically by some of your fellow theists than by us atheists. People like me don't currently include god in science for the same reason that we don't currently include planets made of solid gold in science. Lack of evidence, not through some philosophy of science that doesn't allow those things.