[Ham] > > My point is simply that consensus among scientists > > (or any other group) isn't always reliable. > > I think we forget that Science is man's methodology for exploring reality > as a cause-and-effect system. The material progress we've enjoyed on this
> planet for the last 300 years or so is largely due to what we've learned > from Science. But if you take away cause there is no effect, and the > scientific method was not designed to explain the origin of cause. Only a > metaphysical understanding of reality can get beyond evolutionary process > and give us a plausible reason for the existence of cognizant agents in a > causal world. [Platt] Agree. Science seems to believe the cause-and-effect system came into existence for no cause whatsoever. Of course, that's not the only thing that limits the view of science. They can't deal with singular events either. [Krimel] I could be wrong here but it seems that what you gentlemen have a problem with is this cause and effect business. This is a Newtonian or classical position. I think current science speaks more in terms of probability. Statements of cause and effect are statements of relative likelihood. Evolutionary theory at one level is a set of probability statements about the relative frequency of traits within a species. At another level it deals with population distributions of many species over a given range of land. It could include estimates of both of these levels over varying spans of time. It recognizes the impact of random changes in the environment, DNA, weather, other species or big rocks falling from the sky. Today's physics is founded on probabilistic statements. Even mathematics acknowledges the necessity of admitting an element of uncertainty in its basic assumptions. All scientific statements are held as best guesses and progress in science is judged by the degree to which new idea improve the Quality of our guesses. It is the art of pattern recognition at every higher levels of resolution. To the extent that science is impotent in handling significant singular events; it is not unique. At least science can aim to study the effects and offer up something besides random speculation. Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
