This is a message from someone who "believes" that truth is relative and (in spite of this) thinks that ID has to be reclaimed as a discipline. Am I living in a contradiction?
I like the provocative contribution from Merrill. He knows that I like to read and discuss his articles. I feel like Mike Spector [20 Feb 96], in substantial agreement to the content but I think he exaggerates the discourse.
I am not going to reclaim the importance of philosophy (Spector has already done this). What I can not understand is that to reclaim a discipline we need to justify that ID is a science. In this moment when even "classical sciences" are revising the concept of science, I wonder if we have to concentrate our efforts in this kind of discussion.
I would like to comment on two statements that Merrill introduces:
1. The distinction of students and learners is clear. It seem that is a question of intentionally. My question is: does intention change the internal process of learning? As a learning, I can construct the meaning by my experience but if I am a student this seems impossible (following the ideas of the article).
2. Groups don't learn, individuals learn. I like this distinction. In my opinion, many authors that emphasis the important of collaborative learning, learning in groups, etc., are mixing the origin of learning, the contribution of collaboration to the process of learning in itself.