[MD] Faith/Skepticism

[Platt Holden]

> 
> On Feb 27, 2009, at 5:21:41 PM, "Platt Holden" <plattholden at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> [Mark] 
> > On Feb 26, 2009, at 6:56:56 PM, "Platt Holden" <plattholden at gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > Science challenges its assumptions as often as Obama challenges big 
> > spending programs. I'm sure Krimel will let us know if and when
> either 
> > happens, but don't hold your breath.
> > 
> > I found this post interesting, as well as the subsequent posts and the
> > website provided by Marsha.  I too am trained in the sciences and the
> > diligent methods of questioning assumptions through testing.  I'm not
> sure
> > what concept of science Platt is referring to, and it may be that
> > presented by the mainstream media. 
> 
> Here are the assumptions of science I referred to in a previous post that
> I 
> doubt have ever been presented by the mainstream media.
> 
> Faith-based metaphysical assumptions of the scientific worldview:
> 
> Determinism--all effects emerge from prior natural causes
> 
> Reductionism--complex phenomena can be explained by isolating simple
> elements and processes
> 
> Empiricism--reality grounded in sensory phenomena
> 
> Materialism--matter/energy is the source of all phenomena including
> human
> intelligence
> 
> Externalism--nature and its laws exists independent of human observation
> 
> Mechanism--basic processes stem from causes that can often be formulated
> in mathematical terms
> 
> Experimentalism--models of cause and effect must be tested by repeated
> measurements
> 
> Evolutionism--continuous development is brought about by blind chance
> and
> natural selection
> 
> Emergentism--some phenomena occur as the result of self-organizing
> patterns
> 
> Conditionalism--new discoveries may invalidate current theories
> 
> Platt
> 
> Thanks for the clarification Platt.  I also do not agree with all those
> assumptions.  You will find that many scientists do not either.  With any
> world view we have to start with certain temporary assumptions.  The tools
> of science are used to verify or disprove such theories as best we can
> with our 5 or 6 senses.  Each of the faith-based assumptions listed above
> is in play all the time, except maybe for experimentalism and
> conditionalism.  Each theory is just the state of the art, destined to
> ever change.
> 
> Willblake2 (Mark)

Mark, 

Can you cite some scientists who are challenging any of the assumptions 
listed above? I can think of two such scientists: physicist Robert Jahn and 
biologist Rupert Sheldrake. But Jahn has closed up shop and Sheldrake is 
considered a kook by main stream science.

Thanks,
Platt