Clean Up of Last Post

My last blog post was about a "supposed bias" that I found that actually ended up just being my ignorance of the author. Thomas Clark is indeed a naturalist which explains the attitude throughout the article. As for the contradiction I posted about, we spoke fairly extensively on it in class and I believe that I have found the distinction between his two statements. His statement,  "[w]e can reassure the forces of faith non-empiricism that naturalism as a worldview isn't assumed in public policy or discourse" (7) seemed to contradict his previous statement that "whatever our worldview, we have to act as this-world empiricists when arguing for policy" (3). However, the view of this-world empiricists does not carry into further beliefs, only those of the physical world. Therefore, it has no implications on the beliefs of supernaturalists about the afterlife, the birth of the universe, or any other matter outside of the physical here and now. I like this more because it does not seem so biased against supernaturalists and establishes a necessary constant for public policy. It would be impossible to create effective public policies based on different world views and beliefs. The position of this-world empiricism solves that predicament nicely.