....
> Again, that's just the point. Science is defined by the method it uses,
> which is in turn defined by its underlying assumptions. One of those
> assumptions is methodological determinism. No scientist is required to
> believe in philosophical determinism (I certainly do not), but to be a
> working scientist he must accept that one of the assumptions of
> science is
> that specific physical events have specific physical causes that can in
> principle be investigated and eventually understood. To reject
> this is in
> essence to reject the scientific method.
>
> Kevin L. O'Brien
>
Kevin,
As you well know if you've been following my former discussion with Steve, I
applaud your making the point about methodological versus metaphysical
commitments. :^> It's so important, and so misunderstood. Thanks.
One caveat, though: the standard interpretation of physics does dispense
with determinism, unless one means (a) probabilistic determinism, or
similarly (b) determinism wrt quantum states (versus classical states).
Or do you accept a deterministic interpretation of quantum theory? That's
unusual, but fair enough.
John