Re: virus: The Kingdom...

psypher (
Tue, 18 May 1999 22:12:41 -0400 (EDT)

> Actually, "whole" and "part" are categories composed by the
> observing mind, and are scientifically unacknowledged as such.

...then, oh noble advocate, please explain the relation between atomic/quantum physics, chemistry, genetics, biology, society, and memetics within the scientific paradigm. do the findings of science - IN FACT - relate to each other if I am mistaken.

>> [2] it is possible to attain an objective perspective wrt an

> observed > process

> No, since the 1927 Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum
> Physics, the goal has been to correlate our perceptions and
> achieve intersubjective consensus, "objective" and "perspective"
> being mutually contradictory. then does science answer questions of causality and significance. If science does not answer questions of causality or significance how can its findings serve as a source of meaning? If the findings of science cannot answer questions of meaning, of what use are they in fields other than technology?

>> [3] the findings of science will eventually [or can, in principle]
>> encompass the whole of reality

> No, science has fully accepted the phenomenological dictum that
> any object of worldly perception is inexhaustible (open to
> perception from an unlimited number of distinct perspectives).

...How then does science arrive at statements of truth?

>> [4] features of the world which are real [or at least significant]
>> can be measured and expressed quantitatively.

> The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, that one can not
> simultaneously measure an electron's motion and position beyond
> a certain degree determined by their product, flies in the face of
> this assertion.

...the caseless application of the principles of scientific analysis to questions of humyn activity and meaning flies in the face of your defense.

>> [5] the scientific endeavour is devoid of bias and assumptions.

> This is an ideal to be ceaselessly striven for, but as such, every
> practicing scientist knows that it is not a reality which inheres.

...unfortunately it is not an ideal which is expressed as such when the findings of science are presented. Practicing scientists may acknowledge that they strive to eliminate bias and assumption, but rarely acknowledge the biases and assumptions which they have yet to eliminate.

> I would suggest that much science has been done, but, as your
> flawed and superficial criticisms more than amply illustrate, you
> have obviously given the subject little deep thought.

...I would suggest that you should, perhaps, in the spirit of science, get down of your [proverbial] high horse.

...I'm willing to accede that I should have structured my phrasing along the lines of "assumptions commonly found in advocates of science as an explanatory vehicle". Point taken.

-psypher Fastmail's Free web based email for Canadians