Re: [asa] ID/Miracles/Design

Cameron:

You say that a mechanistic-materialist perspective is metaphysical, but
it is not scientific. It appears to me that, at least in the hard
sciences, all models are mechanistic, i.e., the entities blindly obey
simple rules of behavior. I take this to be true of QM also since
states mechanically reside in certain fractions of eigenstates. If by
materialism we mean only physical stuff, this is more difficult to say
since science has a Platonic aspect, but lets say that they are
materialistic.

If this makes sense, then it appears that scientific theories are
mechanistic-materialistic. The only way I can think of avoiding the
conclusion that science is metaphysically committed to a
mechanistic-materialism is by adopting some form of anti-realism or the
view that science can only explain certain aspects of the world and not
others. Since most practicing scientists (not philosophers of science),
inasmuch as they think about it at all, adopt a realist attitude, it
would seem that scientists, for the most part, adopt one of two
positions: mechanistic-materialism or the incompleteness of science.

Does this seem correct to you?

bill powers

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Thu Apr 23 19:03:10 2009