Before one more tree falls on one more power line or internet
services vacate again, let me say thanks for this thoughtful and
provocative response, and I stand corrected about the
distinction between scientific materialism and scientific
reductionism (which seems a contradiction in terms, but
otherwise is what I'm taking to be "scientism"). I've got a
couple questions about "design" and what "fundamental" means, I
think, but need to rake my unscientific mind over the coals of
your better informed post once or twice more...
On 7/2/2012 11:13 AM, Tom Gray wrote:
[log in to unmask]"
I don't see the failure of physics as a
specific refutation of scientific materialism but
as a refutation of scientific reductionism.
However I think that you are quite correct in
stating that modern science is undercutting
"scientism". Many important concepts are outside
of the scope of science.