🚀 go-pugleaf

I'm not trying to "avoid" anything.

>>>Sorry, but "laws of uniformity and lack of supernatural intervention" are
*not*
an a priori assumption of science.  They can be disproved: e.g. if evidence
mounts up that some nonuniformitarian process (such as an asteroid
collision)
has made a difference in geology and the history of life, then
uniformitarian
expectations have to give way.<<<

Hello?  If I recall my astronomy course correctly asteroids are a normal
part of the natural processes forming the earth.

My understanding is that the "Doctine of Uniformity" was developed by
Charles Lyell (it's been twenty years, so correct me if I'm wrong) and says
essentially that scientific inquiry takes place with the assumption that the
natural processes currently observable at work have always been at work in
the same manner, and have always produced the same evidence.  It IS indeed a
foundational apriori assumption that is made by all scientists.


>>>Likewise, if you could produce a similar body of hard evidence for
supernatural intervention,  atheistic expectations would have to give way.
But you can't.  You are still trying to evade the burdern of proof.<<<

Likewise, modern scientific endeavor precludes (using Occum's Razor) any
possibility of direct supernatural intervention with the evidence.  Again as
an apriori assumption.  Allowing for Divine intervention automatically takes
the argument out of the realm of modern "Natural Science".  Mind you, I'm
not trying to move the argument beyond the scope of natural processes.  As
far as I'm concerned, the current model works very well.  I'm simply saying
that scientific examination plays according to certain ground rules, and it
behooves any knowledgable person to be aware of what those ground rules are.

One can make a philosophical argument that all matter is an illusion (such
as Christian Science), can you proof that it isn't?  or that I am simpy a
butterfly who is dreaming that we are human.  Can you really proove that we
aren't?  That isn't my perspective... but those sorts of philosophical
arguments are made.

Materialism is merely one philosophical argument among many.  I like to feel
think that I can trust my senses....but there is not a sound philosophical
argument that my view is inherently superior because it's been "proven" to
be, in some way.  It happens to be a function of my upbringing in western
culture, and a pragmatic view of life.

The nature of "proof" depends upon the nature of the evidence, the context
in which it is weighed, and the criteria by which it is evaluated.  "Proof"
exists only within the context of philosophical assumptions.

With all respect, I think that is what YOU are trying to avoid.
--
To respond via email remove the "X" from the address.