> If Platt really did say > > > [Platt] > > In the deterministic world of science, chance is a measure of ignorance. > When a > > scientist doesn't know what causes a certain effect, like mind emerging > from > > mud, the effect is attributed to chance... > > > > No, no, no, no, no, no. That could not be further from the truth, a > measure of Platt's ignorance, whatever point Arlo was going on to make > about DQ and God .... which I suspect I would agree with. > > Chance is a measure of knowledge, it is a clear understanding of > exactly what can (and can't) be known. The very opposite of ignorance. > Ian
Yes, science is absolutely certain we will always be ignorant of some things, like knowing the exact position and momentum of an electron at the same time, or knowing what goes on inside a black hole. But science restricts itself to mathematically measurable physical data, just one small part of the experiential elelphant. So when science is asked to explain how life began or what is consciousness, questions beyond their domain, they shrug and say "chance" or "don't know," both expressions of admitted ignorance. There's no shame in not knowing everything about the whole elephant, so there's no reason to be defensive. Just admit your ignorance on move on. 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/
