🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Sep12.022236.11107@mp.cs.niu.edu> rickert@mp.cs.niu.edu (Neil Rickert) writes:
>>                                                  We simply ignore
>>this evidence, either because of a faith that the universe is lawful
>>in spite of appearances, or because we are forced to assume lawfulness
>>in order to do science.
>
>This does not appear to make sense.  If lawfulness were merely an
>assumption to allow us to do science, we would quickly discover that
>science didn't work.  It is the demonstrated effectiveness of science
>which encourages us to believe in causality.
>

However, there are some examples of behavior in the physical world
where science has not so far worked.  E.g., economists of this century
have quickly discovered that 'science' doesn't work.  Once you have
recorded every transaction involving a scarce resource, you have a
complete record of what the behavior of the economy is; there are no
further facts of the matter.  And yet, the only causal explanations
for the behavior of the economy which have a hope of being reasonable
and useful are in terms of the intentions of persons, including
beliefs many of which are false.  It is still a matter of faith that
the deterministic laws of the physical microworld are relevant and
might eventually be seen to provide for the underlying causal chains.

It seems to me that the question of whether the mental aspect of
reality is a causally invisible epiphenomenon has not been settled.
Am I wrong?  This may explain the startled reaction to the claim that
the physical world is causally closed.  We may have no evidence to
doubt that it is, but that's not justification for saying there
couldn't be.
-- 
Kevin McCarty (kmc@netcom.com)