I bid farewell

Whoops, my mistake. I didn't mean to remove your privileges in the [forum=-11] forum. I've turned them on again. Oh, I'm sure we'll hear from you again. You're already better than most of those at ICR, CRS and Discovery Institute. The question is, will you use your powers for good or evil?

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

I agree, and I posted an acknowledgement and reply at Message 85 earlier today. Someone should give Crash's post a POTM nomination.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

No one is saying the philosophy of science is irrelevant to the practice of science. This thread is just an extension of the What is good science? thread where the necessity for evidence was being discussed. Certainly in a thread where the philosophy of science was the topic the dismissive way it's been treated here would be inappropriate, but consider it hyperbole to make a point.I don't want Crash's important point diluted, it deserves repeating. If you're supporting your ideas by citing Popper instead of evidence, then what you're doing is nonsense. The important lesson of this thread (actually of the What is good science? thread) isn't the relationship of science to it's underlying philosophy, but of the misuse of philosophy to promote bogus ideas.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

Hey, he just got carried away. I've been responding in TC's recent threads in admin mode, with the exception of responding to Philip.A discussion of the degree of relevance of the philosophy of science to the practice of science would make a very interesting thread, if you'd like to propose it. I'd prefer such a discussion not take place in this thread nor in the What is good science? thread. Chris was using the philosophy of science and obfuscative terminology as a smokescreen to hide his lack of supporting evidence, and I'd like that fact not to get lost.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

I think if you or holmes want to open a thread on the topic that it would be very interesting. To be fair to Chris, I think this is the subject that he actually wanted to discuss, as the thread he proposed (too late, as I'd already opened one) was The philosophy and logic of theory building, justification, and acceptance. Chris wanted to show that his ideas were valid if assessed philosophically and formally. Whether or not he would have succeeded is irrelevant, because as you pointed out, that's not how scientists persuade other scientists.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director