Gould's argument of nonoverlapping magisteria

  Do you find Gould's argument of nonoverlapping magisteria convincing? Why or why not? If a philosopher or a scientist is a "naturalist" what does that mean? Please describe and offer your critique (Chapter 10 of Godfrey-Smith). Is the personal motivation of scientists for recognition (or some other personal motivation) something that is good for the scientific enterprise as a whole? Relate your initial post to Chapter 11 of Godfrey-Smith. Describe the reading by Hanson (PDF attached to the discussion) and offer your personal critique.