Hi Krimel, Platt --
[Platt, previously]: > My point is simply that consensus among scientists > (or any other group) isn't always reliable. [Ham, previously]: > 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 causality 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. I can't speak for Platt, but I have no problem with cause-and-effect as it applies to natural process. Existential reality is intellectualized as a causal system because it is experienced as a temporal process. We have to deal with it in the empirical context in which it is revealed to us. In order to control our environment and shape it to our needs, Science has given us an understanding of the operative forces responsible for observed changes and the means to predict events within a fair degree of reliability. I'm not well-versed on quantum mechanics, but I don't see that probability has replaced Newtonian causality. Indeed, the "relative likelihood" of specific events is directly related to our cause-and-effect comprehension of these forces. [Krimel]: > 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. I'm not as comfortable with scientific explanations of what is blithely called "Social Darwinism", as I don't believe cognizant organisms are restricted to cause-and-effect behavior. The migration of people across territorial boundaries, and their decision to replace agrarian culture with industrial production are not causal changes in the scientific sense, nor are they statistical probabilities. I don't think you can explain the colonists' decision to form an independent nation governed by consent of free people as a cause-and-effect social phenomenon. Such events are rational choices based on man's ingenuity and the desire to enhance the quality of his life-experience. [Krimel]: > 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. We have no disagreement on that score. Again, we can't fault Science for defining the universe as the "emergent system" we experience. At the same time, to assume that experiential reality brings itself into existence spontaneously from nothingness has about as much logic as the Munchausen notion that a man can lift himself up by his bootstraps. Regards, Ham 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/
