[MD] Dawkins a Materialist

[ian glendinning]

Hi DMB, nothing makes me happier that to find we weren't actually disagreeing ..

You said "My repeated point is simply that scientific beliefs are not
based on faith. Yes, science uses assumptions and starting points.
Yes, scientifc beliefs are beliefs. I'm just saying that those
assumptions and beliefs are not based on faith, but on evidence."

If I can just address this one point again (as I tried in another
branch of this thread). All I'm saying is that at its edges science
has precious little evidence, and what is believed, often explicitly
metaphoriocally, requires something pretty close to faith (but not
faith) in working assumptions to make progress. I've called it a
"suspension of disbelief" on more than one occasion.

Clearly a well rounded science / scientist always has this contingency
in their minds, whilst building useful, testable theories based on
this, and may even remember it's the boundary conditions and
assumptions, and the methods as well as the local theories that are
being tested

Some scientists working in one area, (and I picked on Dawkins in the
example that set these threads running), express their belief in these
boundary conditions and assumptions so dogmatically, that you can
understand the "faithful" being attacked by such scientists claiming
"foul". Many a religious person (real non-extremist individual) is
less dogmatic than a Dawkins in what they actually believe.

If science is going to engage in that kind of argument, it needs to be
squeaky clean in avoiding dogmatism. Since it cannot be totally free
of contingency, it's a losing battle, but ... my long-standing point
... it's the wrong battle ...

The pointless binary debate "I'm right, you're wrong"
No winners.
Again I'll leave it there .... let's build one point at a time.
Ian