Witchcraft, was Re: Miklausen's 1997 book

[John Grehan]

>Could you please elaborate? The Witchcraft I'm familiar with involves
>religion and magic, but not science (despite the claims of some of its
>practicioners to the contrary). Is there a different, scientific
>witchcraft?

>Curtis Clark

According to the philosopher of science Lakatos, if falsifiable hypotheses
are the essence of "science" then one  would have to view witchcraft as
science also. He points out that generally we do not regard witchcraft as
science, so the falsifiability criteria is inadequate as a demarkation
criterion.
So I'm not saying witchcraft is science, just pointing out to those who invoke
falsification as the criterion for science that the criterion is not
sufficient -
at least according to one philosopher of science. It seems to me that
the question of science and philosophy is complex, and those who use
philosophy as a bludgeon to knock out their opponents (opposing views really)
are just using philosophers as the unpaid mercenaries in their cause.

John Grehan