There are some confusions in his article, drawn primarily from the fact that he considers practice/theory the same as is/ought, which is not true.
Ultimately, he wants to use the "common practice fallacy" to argue against the claim of "scientists can be religious" being meaningful to the debate. The problem is that this objection only works against normative claims. Practice/theory is not a normative claim, and he has given no reason to think that is/ought applies.
That would leave him with "right/wrong", which isn't supported in the article.
There are some confusions in his article, drawn primarily from the fact that he considers practice/theory the same as is/ought, which is not true.
ReplyDeleteUltimately, he wants to use the "common practice fallacy" to argue against the claim of "scientists can be religious" being meaningful to the debate. The problem is that this objection only works against normative claims. Practice/theory is not a normative claim, and he has given no reason to think that is/ought applies.
That would leave him with "right/wrong", which isn't supported in the article.