On Wed, 24 Nov 1999 14:45:43 GMT, tdixon.no at spam.fwi.com (Tim Dixon) wrote:
> 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.
Presuming lack of existence? You do so all the time about
an infinite number of things. Do you presume there is no
monster behind you about to eat you? Does your mechanic
presume your car trouble is not the work of gremlins? What
about phufnerut? Surely you wouldn't be so closed-minded
as to presume there is no phufnerut! Don't tell you you
want proof of phufnerut, I'm telling you it's real and it will
boblerize your grongles on the phufnerut plane! I can write
a book to define those terms if you like.