[cheryl j]

I don't know about "fully", but here's a nice start:

 Life on Earth Was Not a Fluke
Figuring out how biomolecular self-organization happens may hold the key to understanding life on Earth formed and perhaps how it might form on other planets

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=life-on-earth-was-not-a-fluke

[DonQuichotte (OP)]

I don't know about "fully", but here's a nice start:

 Life on Earth Was Not a Fluke
Figuring out how biomolecular self-organization happens may hold the key to understanding life on Earth formed and perhaps how it might form on other planets

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=life-on-earth-was-not-a-fluke

[/quote]

Well, that's the mainstream dominating materialism at work in science , that gets sold to the people as science : no need to provide us with links from Nature , Scientific American ...= they are all under the materialist exclusive monopoly ,dominance and supremacy in all sciences for that matter :

The material physical biological side of life is not all there is to it , as materialism wanna make you believe it is :
Life or reality as a whole are not just a matter of physics and chemistry= are not just material physical or biological  .
To try to find out about the origins of life just via life's material physical biological side = just via physics and chemistry is no full approach of life or of reality as a whole ,logically .
Science should therefore only confine itself to the biological physical material side of reality as a whole and of life also thus , instead of "assuming " that physics and chemistry are all what there is to them , as materialism wanna make people believe they are = science should try to get rid of materialism in all sciences for that matter thus .

[DonQuichotte (OP)]

Where on Gods Earth did you come up with such an idea of the purpose and use of science? It is a technique to acquire Learning, a tool, no more. It is not an "ism", not subject to "isms", any more than a hammer is.

I don't give a damn what Materialism assumes, and neither does science, and the idea that science follows the same assumptions is, frankly, ridiculous. Does a hammer "assume" that, "this is gonna hurt"?

And people practising science are simply doing their jobs - normal workers. To think that they have all been seduced by some deviant philosophy is the height of paranoia.

"see also the materialist meta-paradigm dominating in all sciences and elsewhere ,while you are at it :
So much for a so-called scientist ,,,pfff..."

Scientists are great! And science cannot be dominated, only wielded. The whole idea is preposterous.

Do I need tongs to hold the hammer before I drive in the nail?

[/quote]

haha

"Science assumes ...science sees ...science does ...science says ..." were just metaphorical figures of speech : science is no "entity " , let alone that it is an "independent entity " = science is just the scientific method(s) practiced by scientists humans that are not perfect of course , as all human beings are not , not even remotely close thus .
Science that tries (yet another metaphorical figure of speech ) to explain and understand reality ,so , science must assume what the nature of reality might be , what it is   first ,before trying to understand it or explain it :
Materialism has been imposing its owm materialist conception of nature , its world view , or its own materialist belief assumptions regarding the nature of reality as a whole  in all sciences , since the 19th century at least :
materialism that assumes thus that the whole reality is just physical material = everything thus (the whole reality ) can be explained just in terms of physics and chemistry , and just in terms of physics' and chemistry's extensions ...such as "the mind is in the brain, human reason is just a product of the physical brain's neuronal computational activity , memory is stored in the brain = memory as an alleged  product of the physical material biological neuronal activity of the brain , consciousness is just a magical emergent property from the evolved complexity of the brain , life as a whole is just a matter of physics and chemistry ...."
Well, quite frankly , i did not expect this shocking simple-minded non-sense from you , i just thought that i might try to give it a shot to try to make you understand what i was saying regarding materialism in all sciences , but i see that you failed , once again , to understand simple facts concerning the simple fact that all sciences at least have been dominated by materialism for so long now :
The "scientific " meta-paradigm by the way ,considers reality as a whole as a material physical process = a materialist belief assumption that has , obviously , nothing to do with science .
I see no point in wasting my time on you any further  ,logically = you will only misunderstand my words or distort them beyond any recognition .
Scientists are just humans , no superhumans : objectivity in science is a myth : proof ? : materialism in all sciences and elsewhere .

[cheryl j]

Well, that's the mainstream dominating materialism at work in science , that gets sold to the people as science : no need to provide us with links from Nature , Scientific American ...= they are all under the materialist exclusive monopoly ,dominance and supremacy in all sciences for that matter :

The material physical biological side of life is not all there is to it , as materialism wanna make you believe it is :
Life or reality as a whole are not just a matter of physics and chemistry= are not just material physical or biological  .
To try to find out about the origins of life just via life's material physical biological side = just via physics and chemistry is no full approach of life or of reality as a whole ,logically .
Science should therefore only confine itself to the biological physical material side of reality as a whole and of life also thus , instead of "assuming " that physics and chemistry are all what there is to them , as materialism wanna make people believe they are = science should try to get rid of materialism in all sciences for that matter thus .

What is it exactly in this finding that you are questioning? If you like, I can track down the study in Nature so you can examine their methods and data and conclusions. I don't think there is anything in it attempting to disprove the existence of God or challenging the supremacy of ancient Islamic scientists. Perhaps Nature should have a religion or poetry section as well to be more well rounded, more "fair and balanced." Actually, they do publish a short science fiction piece in each issue. I don't know if that counts.

Are you seriously that committed to rejecting any information obtained through materialistic methods, or anything information about biology or chemistry or physics because they "fail to explain everything?" You're not the slightest bit interested?
Or do you think the journal Nature is part of some big materialism conspiracy and all their published research is fraudulent?

[DonQuichotte (OP)]

Well, that's the mainstream dominating materialism at work in science , that gets sold to the people as science : no need to provide us with links from Nature , Scientific American ...= they are all under the materialist exclusive monopoly ,dominance and supremacy in all sciences for that matter :

The material physical biological side of life is not all there is to it , as materialism wanna make you believe it is :
Life or reality as a whole are not just a matter of physics and chemistry= are not just material physical or biological  .
To try to find out about the origins of life just via life's material physical biological side = just via physics and chemistry is no full approach of life or of reality as a whole ,logically .
Science should therefore only confine itself to the biological physical material side of reality as a whole and of life also thus , instead of "assuming " that physics and chemistry are all what there is to them , as materialism wanna make people believe they are = science should try to get rid of materialism in all sciences for that matter thus .

What is it exactly in this finding that you are questioning? If you like, I can track down the study in Nature so you can examine their methods and data and conclusions. I don't think there is anything in it attempting to disprove the existence of God or challenging the supremacy of ancient Islamic scientists. Perhaps Nature should have a religion or poetry section as well to be more well rounded, more "fair and balanced." Actually, they do publish a short science fiction piece in each issue. I don't know if that counts.

Are you seriously that committed to rejecting any information obtained through materialistic methods, or anything information about biology or chemistry or physics because they "fail to explain everything?" You're not the slightest bit interested?
Or do you think the journal Nature is part of some big materialism conspiracy and all their published research is fraudulent?

[/quote]

Don't be silly , sis :
Neither life nor reality as a whole are just a matter of physics and chemistry or biochemistry = the latter are just the material physical biological side of the former = re-read what i said then to you .
Why did you have to bring up God and the rest in this discussion then ?

Materialism "makes science " consider life in general ,and the whole reality as a whole as such thus ,as just a matter of physics and chemistry = a false materialist belief assumption that gets sold to the people as science , while science in fact can only approach the material physical biological side   of life in general and of reality as a whole : see the difference ? .
Get that ?

[alancalverd]

DQ

Do you actually have anything interesting, original or provable to contribute to this or any other discussion? Your postings seem very eloquent (if somewhat repetitious) but entirely devoid of content. Surely you must know or think something?

[cheryl j]

Don't be silly , sis :
Neither life nor reality as a whole are just a matter of physics and chemistry or biochemistry = the latter are just the material physical biological side of the former = re-read what i said then to you .
Why did you have to bring up God and the rest in this discussion then ?

Materialism "makes science " consider life in general ,and the whole reality as a whole as such thus ,as just a matter of physics and chemistry = a false materialist belief assumption that gets sold to the people as science , while science in fact can only approach the material physical biological side   of life in general and of reality as a whole : see the difference ? .
Get that ?

Well, bro, what is so wrong about scientists investigating that biological side of reality? I'm sure the research I referenced above fails to support string theory, or predict what I'm making dinner tonight,  but that was not its intent. So, no, I don't get your point of your complaint.

[Skyli]

"Science assumes ...science sees ...science does ...science says ..." were just metaphorical figures of speech : science is no "entity " , let alone that it is an "independent entity " = science is just the scientific method(s) practiced by scientists humans that are not perfect of course , as all human beings are not , not even remotely close thus .

Fine, I'll accept that. So your argument starts with..

Science that tries (yet another metaphorical figure of speech ) to explain and understand reality ,so , science must assume what the nature of reality might be , what it is   first ,before trying to understand it or explain it :

These are two consecutive sentences; they are blatantly contradictory. Science must not, should not and CANNOT assume anything; it is a tool that is used for a particular job. One wouldn't use a microscope to hammer in a nail and one wouldn't use science to investigate an aspect of Reality that was not observable.

I'm sorry; I am not prepared to wade through pages of literature in a discussion forum. Can you, in one or two sentences and without reference to any third party, explain what it is about Science or the way that it is conducted that you object to? Do you deny that Science is a tool and nothing else?

[Ophiolite]

Donquichotte, you seem to have a misunderstanding of the nature of science. Currently science follows a principle of methodological naturalism. Both those words are central to the practice of science. You have misinterpreted this as the application of materialism. Admittedly there is some correlation, but precious little causation.

When we say science follows the principle of naturalism we mean several related things. Naturalism takes as axiomatic that the universe behaves according to certain rules. Further it believes these rules can be discovered through observation, experiment and inference. Moreover, the rules are applied consistently. Supernatural events do not occur. There are no interventions by a supreme being; no ghosts; no magic.

But more than this, science uses methodological naturalism. This is an important distinction. Pure naturalism rejects the existence of the supernatural. You could argue that this matches your claims for materialism. But methodological naturalism is different. It makes no claim as to the existence, or non-existence of the supernatural. It simply declares "we do not investigate the supernatural, we assume it does not exist, since if it did it would not be subject to investigation by the scientific process". So, science, currently acts as if there was no supernatural, while not actually denying the possibility of its existence.

[DonQuichotte (OP)]

DQ

Do you actually have anything interesting, original or provable to contribute to this or any other discussion? Your postings seem very eloquent (if somewhat repetitious) but entirely devoid of content. Surely you must know or think something?

I am interested , most of all, in trying to make you ,folks, understand what science really is , in trying to make you , folks, realise that science must be liberated from that false outdated and superseded materialist mechanical secular religion  ideology misconscption of nature in science , then , and only then , we can talk ...pure science .

[DonQuichotte (OP)]

Don't be silly , sis :
Neither life nor reality as a whole are just a matter of physics and chemistry or biochemistry = the latter are just the material physical biological side of the former = re-read what i said then to you .
Why did you have to bring up God and the rest in this discussion then ?

Materialism "makes science " consider life in general ,and the whole reality as a whole as such thus ,as just a matter of physics and chemistry = a false materialist belief assumption that gets sold to the people as science , while science in fact can only approach the material physical biological side   of life in general and of reality as a whole : see the difference ? .
Get that ?

Well, bro, what is so wrong about scientists investigating that biological side of reality? I'm sure the research I referenced above fails to support string theory, or predict what I'm making dinner tonight,  but that was not its intent. So, no, I don't get your point of your complaint.

Once again, sis :
Modern science has been reducing reality as a whole to just physics and chemistry , to just biological physical material processes since the 19th century at least , thanks to materialism , while science should in fact restrict and confine itself only to the observable , empirical ....part of reality , the rest does "fall " both outside of science's realm and outside of science's jurisdiction as well thus .

[Skyli]

Modern science has been reducing reality as a whole to just physics and chemistry  since the 19th century at least  , to just biological material physical processes , thanks to materialism .

No. This is nonsense. Modern Science is not reducing anything. It doesn't limit itself to the observable because of "materialism", it limits itself to the observable because that's its job!. How can anybody fail to understand this?

I would not accept once of the members of a discussion in the cafe constantly imposing on the rest of us to "read this!" and will not do it in this discussion either. Please explain, as briefly as possible and in your own words, what you think science is and what you think is wrong with it. Can you do that?

[alancalverd]

3) Imagine ball 1 moving on a trajectory toward ball 2. This time, imagine that ball 2 is invisible and has a one way causal relationship to ball 1. As ball 1 strikes ball 2, only ball 2 changes its velocity and ball 1 carries on at a constant speed, in a straight line.
    In this thought experiment, ball 2 exists and it's change in velocity is caused by ball 1, but to any observer unable to register ball 2, it remains completely invisible and undetectable. My conjecture is that qualia are like ball 2, which is why the conscious experience of other human beings is impossible to detect, the causal interaction is one way.

The author of this drivel asks you to imagine a universe in which momentum is not conserved. Has he been watching too many cartoons, or has he smoked some reeeeeally good stuff?  Either way, you won't wake up in his universe, so why bother reading his ravings?

[DonQuichotte (OP)]

Modern science has been reducing reality as a whole to just physics and chemistry  since the 19th century at least  , to just biological material physical processes , thanks to materialism .

No. This is nonsense. Modern Science is not reducing anything. It doesn't limit itself to the observable because of "materialism", it limits itself to the observable because that's its job!. How can anybody fail to understand this?

You did ,obviously, not understand what i was saying , once again :
I said : science has been pretending to know the nature of the whole reality as a whole as  such already , by reducing it to just material physical biological processes , thanks to materialism , = by reducing the whole reality as a whole as  such to just physics and chemistry + to their materialist macroscopic extensions , while science should in fact limit itself only to the observable, empirical ...
Who said that the whole reality as a whole as such  as allegedly  being just material physical biological processes = just physics and chemistry ...who said that that allegation , or rather materialist false belief assumption in science is an ..."empirical observable ...fact " ? : see the materialist dominating meta-paradigm in all sciences and elsewhere for that matter , a meta-paradigm's core materialist belief assumption that does consider the whole reality as a whole as such as just being material physical ..= a materialist meta-paradigm belief assumption that pretends to be 'scientific " ...

Get that ,or not yet ?

I would not accept once of the members of a discussion in the cafe constantly imposing on the rest of us to "read this!" and will not do it in this discussion either.

I am not imposing anything : i just refer you , folks, to relevant links on the subject , that's all : it is your own free choice to read it ot not : Sheldrake, for example,  is a qualified scientist on the subject: he did write a whole scientific book on the subject i have been providing you, folks, with important and relevant excerpts from  .

Please explain, as briefly as possible and in your own words, what you think science is and what you think is wrong with it. Can you do that?

What do you think i was doing all along ? = see above .

[DonQuichotte (OP)]

3) Imagine ball 1 moving on a trajectory toward ball 2. This time, imagine that ball 2 is invisible and has a one way causal relationship to ball 1. As ball 1 strikes ball 2, only ball 2 changes its velocity and ball 1 carries on at a constant speed, in a straight line.
    In this thought experiment, ball 2 exists and it's change in velocity is caused by ball 1, but to any observer unable to register ball 2, it remains completely invisible and undetectable. My conjecture is that qualia are like ball 2, which is why the conscious experience of other human beings is impossible to detect, the causal interaction is one way.

The author of this drivel asks you to imagine a universe in which momentum is not conserved. Has he been watching too many cartoons, or has he smoked some reeeeeally good stuff?  Either way, you won't wake up in his universe, so why bother reading his ravings?

[/quote]

Never mind that :
Just tell me this :  this is the core issue here by the way , once again :
Do you think that the whole reality as a whole as such is just material physical ? = just a matter of physics and chemistry = everything can be explained just in terms of physics and chemistry + just in terms  of those materialist macroscopic extensions of that materialist core belief assumption regarding the nature of the whole reality as a whole as such ?
Is that an "empirical , observable ...fact , or assumption ? " = of course not : well, that's what science has been doing = considering reality as a whole as such as just being material physical, thanks to materialism , while science should in fact confine itself only to the observable, empirical...part of reality it can deal with , the rest is both outside of science's realm and outside of science's jurisidction as well .

P.S.: see that materialist meta-paradigm dominating in all sciences and elsewhere for that matter , once again, a materialist meta-paradigm that does consider the whole reality as a whole as such as just being material physical :
How can science pretend to know the nature of the whole reality as a whole as such already , as science has been doing , thanks to materialism for so long now ?
Just do try to tell me about it ...

[alancalverd]

If you have a point to make, by all means make it. But don't use obvious nonsense as an analogy - it weakens an already flimsy case. 

And remember that, despite what Goebbels said, repetition is not proof. 

[DonQuichotte (OP)]

If you have a point to make, by all means make it. But don't use obvious nonsense as an analogy - it weakens an already flimsy case. 

And remember that, despite what Goebbels said, repetition is not proof.

[/quote]

Just answer my questions , instead of these silly empty rhetorics of yours .
Is reality as a whole as such just physical material ?
Is that a 'scientific empirical observable verifiable falsifiable reproducible testable ...assumption or fact " , as science has been "assuming " all along , for centuries now , or is that just a materialist false assumption or a materialist false conception of nature in science , that has been taken for granted without question as science , for so long now ?
The answer  to that question  is so obvious and simple that it would not have to cost you any intellectual effort to see ...as a scientist .
Use your mind then , not your head = your mind is not in your brain, not in your head , your mind is not your head , is not your brain .

[alancalverd]

Is that a 'scientific empirical observable verifiable falsifiable reproducible testable ...assumption or fact " , as science has been "assuming " all along , for centuries now , or is that just a materialist false assumption or a materialist false conception of nature in science , that has been taken for granted without question as science , for so long now ?

No.

You are right - no intellectual effort was required, once I had squeezed some kind of meaning from your mangled question.

[DonQuichotte (OP)]

Is that a 'scientific empirical observable verifiable falsifiable reproducible testable ...assumption or fact " , as science has been "assuming " all along , for centuries now , or is that just a materialist false assumption or a materialist false conception of nature in science , that has been taken for granted without question as science , for so long now ?

No.

You are right - no intellectual effort was required, once I had squeezed some kind of meaning from your mangled question.

[/quote]

haha

Well, good for you : you just went against the mainstream materialist "scientific world view " , as you should do  indeed , a materialist 'scientific world view " you do take for granted without question, despite your "no " here .
Congratulations .

[alancalverd]

What "mainstream world view"? You asked if something had been taken for granted, and I said no. By the definition of science, nothing is taken for granted in the world of science. That is the mainstream world view, with which I have agreed.

Do not tell me what I think. You make yourself look foolish.