Will Dwinnell <predictor at compuserve.com> schrieb in im Newsbeitrag:
383C0F17.2F1A at compuserve.com...
> 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.
I agree to this.
But it is a nessesery assumtion to enable future progress.
to the 2nd point:
If we find somthing random: we can say: "it is random" or "it apeers to be
random, because we dont know enoupg"
Both is induction reasoning, and both can be equaly true or false.
But the first is the end of research!
