Great definition of Nominalism, from Richard M. Weaver. And it seems to fit Darwin's "(unexamined) collective presuppositions" about the nature of Reality very well indeed.
What an amazingly "flat" worldview! It demands that all of Nature "reduce" to what can be directly "captured" by human sense perception. It holds that anything that cannot come to the mind other than through this sensory channel simply doesn't exist.
I really do regard this as a species of insanity. FWIW.
Even the magisterial Newton (who is usually blamed for giving us the "mechanical [machine] model" of the Universe) — kept God in the picture, Whose sensorium Dei — a/k/a Absolute Space — is a kind of universal field (in the scientific sense) that constitutes the "interface" between the Creator and His Creation. Newton's God is both Creator of the Universe, and eternally omipresent intermediator in it.
Newton's principle of Absolute ("empty") Space is, for Newton, the very medium in which God creates His creatures. (See his "Scolium Generale" which first appeared in the second edition of Principia.)
Of course, the concept of Absolute Space has been criticized by many modern scientific and philosophical commentators. But I'm only writing about what Newton thought about it, here.
Certainly Newton was not a nominalist....
But I think, narses, you are very correct in identifying Charles Darwin as one.
Darwin just dumps God down the old rathole of memory altogether. Thus: Darwin's evolutionary theory cannot even begin to address issues like the origin of Life or consciousness.
What I want to know is this: If Darwin's theory cannot deal with origin problems, then what, really, can it have to say to us about "biology?"
Plus the other thing that is maddening about it is the theory itself seems to fall almost entirely outside the scope of the scientific method. It is more a historical science (described through a philosophical nominalist filter) than an experimental one....
Of course, I do believe in evolution. But to me, Darwin's theory, qua scientific theory, is woefully incomplete, at best.
Thank you ever so much for the link, dear narses!
What I want to know is this: If Darwin's theory cannot deal with origin problems, then what, really, can it have to say to us about "biology?"
The theory of evolution as formulated by Darwin, by others predating Darwin (Darwin's theory was not the first), or as it is currently understood, does not address the origin of life or nature of consciousness. It strictly deals with how biological organisms developed into such a large variety of forms, and how they continue to change forms (or evolve). It is very good for studying biology. It's not much good for anything else.
The only theory I know of that tries to explain the origin (of everything) is the Big Bang Theory. It doesn't address the origin of life, either.
Plus the other thing that is maddening about it is the theory itself seems to fall almost entirely outside the scope of the scientific method. It is more a historical science (described through a philosophical nominalist filter) than an experimental one....
The theory of evolution very much drives experimental science. I cannot imagine even trying to formulate a working hypothesis if I did not take into consideration various elements of the ToE. I do not think my work would be possible without it.