HA!
he said Magic Maracas!
Culturally, EVERY population of people feel that their dogma is THE way. There is a historic pattern between the relative influence of religion and science on the body of knowledge through recorded memory. I don't recall a single occurrence, from tribal shamans to todays top 5 faiths to whatever THAT will congeal into, where theology offered more insight into our physical world than the emerging comprehension of SCIENTIFIC results. IF there is a god that created everything and it HAPPENS to be of the judeo-christian flavour, there must be greater SCIENTIFIC evidence thereof than what amounts to deistic philosophy, structured traditions and untangible faith.
If Heller wants to make his mathmatical theory as impressive as Einstien's then have him use god to blow something up or heal an amputee. Otherwise, it's just dust on a chalkboard.
I wasn't talking about any dogma. What I said is that science has always been researched in accordance with the paradigm of the day. A paradigm is simply the perspective one relies on when viewing the world. Paradigms don't change until we are faced with a question that under the current paradigm, we just can't answer. Once that perspective has been changed, we also go back and look at questions we thought had been answered to see if any new information can be gained by means of that new perspective.
So are there ANY questions in science that cannot be answered while approaching it JUST from a materialism paradigm? Is it possible that another perspective has ANY truth to it or that another perspective can add to the expanse of knowledge? To insist a question can ONLY be answered by a materialism paradigm and no other, or that no other perspective can possibly contribute any further knowledge over that gained with a materialism paradigm is patently false.
"Perspective" is based on PERCEPTION. We know that how humans perceive something varies widely and that at any given time, more than one perception can be correct. One perception can APPEAR to be fully correct to anyone who also shares that same perspective. Only when we change that perspective, can we realize that we gained greater knowledge by doing so.
I watch a sunset from my backyard and saw the sun drop below the horizon until it disappeared. But in reality the sun doesn't really "set". The earth simply rotates until the sun is no longer in my view -so the sun didn't go anywhere. The earth did. If I watch the sun from outer space, then my perspective reveals something I could not appreciate while viewing it from the backyard. And while both perspectives APPEAR true at the same time, one perspective gave me some valid information and some that was misleading. And the other gave me far greater valid information. But for the next question, my perspective from outer space may be the one that gives less or misleading information and the one from my backyard may give me far better information. Or neither perspective may help and I need yet another perspective.
There is no such thing as only one perspective being the ONLY correct perspective and all other perspectives are false. And that means there is no such thing as there only being one correct paradigm and all other paradigms are false. Because a paradigm is just the perspective used to approach a question or problem, that means the more perspectives used, the greater the likelihood of a more complete answer. The fewer perspectives used, the more likely it is an incomplete answer. Being trapped by one paradigm has never resulted in good science.
For someone to argue that a materialism paradigm or perspective will give THE only and most complete answer EVERYTIME and no other will -is nuts. There is no such thing as a single perspective about anything that tells us EVERYTHING. Never has been, never will be. That is why scientists who approach different scientific questions from a variety of different perspectives should be encouraged. If that change in perspective produces nothing worthwhile, so be it. But science has always leaped ahead because a scientist changed his perspective and discovered something new and previously not known or appreciated by using the perspective adopted by everyone else at that time.
And I noticed you changed your own position yet again. No longer enough an eminently qualified scientist produced work that you personally didn't like what it had to say yet have no qualifications with which to criticize it. And no longer enough this extremely well qualified scientist also published his work which can be reproduced and either validated or disproven by other scientists. NOW he has to be a new Einstein or it isn't "real" science? LOL
