> > On Feb 27, 2009, at 5:21:41 PM, "Platt Holden" <[email protected]> > wrote: > [Mark] > > On Feb 26, 2009, at 6:56:56 PM, "Platt Holden" <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > Science challenges its assumptions as often as Obama challenges big > > spending programs. I'm sure Krimel will let us know if and when > either > > happens, but don't hold your breath. > > > > I found this post interesting, as well as the subsequent posts and the > > website provided by Marsha. I too am trained in the sciences and the > > diligent methods of questioning assumptions through testing. I'm not > sure > > what concept of science Platt is referring to, and it may be that > > presented by the mainstream media. > > Here are the assumptions of science I referred to in a previous post that > I > doubt have ever been presented by the mainstream media. > > Faith-based metaphysical assumptions of the scientific worldview: > > Determinism--all effects emerge from prior natural causes > > Reductionism--complex phenomena can be explained by isolating simple > elements and processes > > Empiricism--reality grounded in sensory phenomena > > Materialism--matter/energy is the source of all phenomena including > human > intelligence > > Externalism--nature and its laws exists independent of human observation > > Mechanism--basic processes stem from causes that can often be formulated > in mathematical terms > > Experimentalism--models of cause and effect must be tested by repeated > measurements > > Evolutionism--continuous development is brought about by blind chance > and > natural selection > > Emergentism--some phenomena occur as the result of self-organizing > patterns > > Conditionalism--new discoveries may invalidate current theories > > Platt > > Thanks for the clarification Platt. I also do not agree with all those > assumptions. You will find that many scientists do not either. With any > world view we have to start with certain temporary assumptions. The tools > of science are used to verify or disprove such theories as best we can > with our 5 or 6 senses. Each of the faith-based assumptions listed above > is in play all the time, except maybe for experimentalism and > conditionalism. Each theory is just the state of the art, destined to > ever change. > > Willblake2 (Mark)
Mark, Can you cite some scientists who are challenging any of the assumptions listed above? I can think of two such scientists: physicist Robert Jahn and biologist Rupert Sheldrake. But Jahn has closed up shop and Sheldrake is considered a kook by main stream science. Thanks, Platt 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/
