[MD] Dawkins a Materialist

[pholden at davtv.com]

Quoting ian glendinning <psybertron at gmail.com>:

> I appreciated that Platt ... but you quoted it ...
> 
> The public levels of expectation for what passes for "science", which
> you and all the wider media subscribe to, is the issue at point. You
> have to look beyond the published words, and cultural conditioned
> presumptions in their meaning.
> 
> I'm not criticising anyone, just pointing out a problem "we" have.
 
It seems to me if there is a problem about what the term "science" 
means it's a problem not that we have, but that you have. Some people
call astrology a science, but that doesn't make it so. Previously I
described the faith-based assumptions of science. I have yet to see
anyone disprove those assumptions, nor to the best of my knowledge
have the laws of gravitation, motion, thermodynamics and others of
classical science been revoked by the scientific community. They still
apply full force to the everyday world we inhabit. But science has yet to
adequately explained how life overcomes many of the these same forces,
as Pirsig so amusingly pointed out in Chap. 11 of Lila in his description
of your typical chemistry professor. So science has its limits, as do all
human endeavors.
  

-------------------------------------------------
This mail sent through IMP: http://horde.org/imp/