On a related note, I recommend Gordon Clark's classic book "The Philosophy of Science and Belief in God."
I don't know why more presuppositionalists don't reference that book more often. One doesn't have to agree with Clark's empirical skepticism and operationalist view of science to make apologetical use of Clark's demonstration that "science" is much more precarious than most people think.
Argued like a fine VanTillian Presuppositionalist!
ReplyDeleteIn your opinion, how does scientism differ from logical positivism, is at all?
ReplyDeleteOn a related note, I recommend Gordon Clark's classic book "The Philosophy of Science and Belief in God."
ReplyDeleteI don't know why more presuppositionalists don't reference that book more often. One doesn't have to agree with Clark's empirical skepticism and operationalist view of science to make apologetical use of Clark's demonstration that "science" is much more precarious than most people think.
Logical positivism as a project/school is dead, but scientism is its epistemological remains.
ReplyDelete