science = determinism?

Tim Dixon tdixon.no at spam.fwi.com
Wed Nov 24 09:45:43 EST 1999


On Wed, 24 Nov 1999 08:15:19 -0800, Will Dwinnell
<predictor at compuserve.com> wrote:

>Frank Buckler wrote:
>"All science have to make the asumtion thats its object is
>deterministic. If e.g. psychology does not, it leave the scientific path
>and enters religion."
>
>I (Will Dwinnell) wrote:
>"Science is the study of reality.  If reality is found to contain some
>random component, then shouldn't the above assumption be labeled dogma
>and the insistence on that assumption be 'religious'?"
>
>Frank Buckler responded:
>"Science tries to explain reality. The word "explain" contain the
>assumtion that there are some kind of determinism. The expierence of
>random, das not mean that there is no determinism. It only says that we
>can not explain it (till now)."
>
>My point is that this belief that there is no randomness in reality is
>an assumption.
>

It is also an assumption that reality doesn't include a religious or
spiritual component.  I find it curious that athiests complain about
scripture because it presumes the existence of God, and then presume
the lack of existence on the grounds that proof is not available one
way or the other.

Great scientists throughout history (from Aristotle to Keplar and
Newton) had generally assumed that the world includes a spiritual,
non-physical component and that no study of reality is complete
without at least considering that possibility.





More information about the Neur-sci mailing list