[MD] subject/object: pragmatism

[Krimel]

[Ham]
I can't speak for Platt, but I have no problem with cause-and-effect as it 
applies to natural process.  Existential reality is intellectualized as a 
causal system because it is experienced as a temporal process.  We have to 
deal with it in the empirical context in which it is revealed to us.  In 
order to control our environment and shape it to our needs, Science has 
given us an understanding of the operative forces responsible for observed 
changes and the means to predict events within a fair degree of reliability.

I'm not well-versed on quantum mechanics, but I don't see that probability 
has replaced Newtonian causality.  Indeed, the "relative likelihood" of 
specific events is directly related to our cause-and-effect comprehension of

these forces.

[Krimel]
You are speaking from a point of view that was abandoned at least 50 years
ago. Until you update your thinking you will continue to be lost. At its
peak Newtonian thinking spoke of cause and effects a relationship of events
that could be predicted with 100 percent probability. This is not how things
work.

[Ham]
I'm not as comfortable with scientific explanations of what is blithely 
called "Social Darwinism", as I don't believe cognizant organisms are 
restricted to cause-and-effect behavior.  The migration of people across 
territorial boundaries, and their decision to replace agrarian culture with 
industrial production are not causal changes in the scientific sense, nor 
are they statistical probabilities.  I don't think you can explain the 
colonists' decision to form an independent nation governed by consent of 
free people as a cause-and-effect social phenomenon.  Such events are 
rational choices based on man's ingenuity and the desire to enhance the 
quality of his life-experience.

[Krimel]
Nothing in what I said refers to Social Darwinism nor was I talking about
human populations. These comments clearly show your failure to comprehend
the probabilistic notion of causality and human nature. Whatever we are, we
are certainly not acausal creatures. Our behavior individually and
collectively is determined by the interaction of our biology, our past
experiences and the current environment.

[Krimel]:
> To the extent that science is impotent in handling significant singular
> events; it is not unique.  At least science can aim to study the effects
> and offer up something besides random speculation.

[Ham]
We have no disagreement on that score.  Again, we can't fault Science for 
defining the universe as the "emergent system" we experience.  At the same 
time, to assume that experiential reality brings itself into existence 
spontaneously from nothingness has about as much logic as the Munchausen 
notion that a man can lift himself up by his bootstraps.

[Krimel]
I think my point is that science acknowledges frankly that chance and
uncertainty play an inherent role in any kind of understanding. They are
interwoven into the fabric of the universe. When it comes to the Big Bang,
which I assume is the singular event in question, it really is understood as
a best guess. What have you got to offer as an alternative, your phantom
essence that leaves no trace?