[MD] Dawkins a Materialist (is watching?)

[pholden at davtv.com]

Quoting ian glendinning <psybertron at gmail.com>:

> Platt, you said
> "So science in general seems to be of two minds."
> 
> The point is that science is of many minds, far more than two.
> (That's how you can tell it's science rather than dogmatic religion.)

What other "minds" does since have besides the world exists independently of
humans or it doesn't? Those were the two views in question. Is there a 
scientific mind that says sometimes the world exists independently of humans and
sometimes it isn't?
 
> The "collapse of the wave function" metaphor (with or without the
> observer participation, etc) involves plenty more issues that just "do
> you agree or don't you ?" It's far more contentious than that. Would
> that life were that simple.

I know it's contentious. That's why I said "some of the quantum guys."
"Some" means "not all."

Platt



> On 1/22/07, pholden at davtv.com <pholden at davtv.com> wrote:
> > Quoting Micah <micah at roarkplumbing.com>:
> >
> > > Platt,
> > >
> > > That is not the prevailing view of science. Both science and religion begin
> > > with the unproven assumption that reality exists independent of humans.
> >
> > Well a lot of scientists do buy that assumption, but some of the quantum guys
> > say observation collapses the wave function to create the world we know.
> > So science in general seems to be of two minds. I'm not sure about religion.
> >
> > > Which is an assumption Pirsig does not make.
> >
> > He doesn't?
> >
> > > Why do you make that assumption?
> >
> > Because I find no evidence that the termites who may be feasting on the
> foundation
> > of my house depend on my observation for their existence.






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