It is true science does not attain certainty. What is also true is this lack of certainty is not restricted to problems of the experimental methods employed. The lack of certainty in science includes unproven theoretical conclusions about the reasons for the operation of the universe. In other words the problem goes far deeper than a minor or shallow lack of certainty. The guesses incorporated into theory leave science vulnerable to gross error. It is not only the improbable event that can confound science. It is the inclusion of impossible events that confounds science. An example of this is the assertion that mechanical properties can produce life and intelligence.

When I speak of asserting causes, I mean claims by scientists that they have found the reason for why anything occurs. When science speaks about the patterns of effects observed it is not an assertion. When they pretend that describing the effects also explains the cause this is an assertion. Effects are attributes of unknown causes. If a scientist offers a name for a unique cause then they are practicing materialism. Any reliance upon unproven unintelligent causes is materialism.

Unity is a certainty. Otherwise there would not be order in the universe. All things work together in an orderly fashion because they must work together. Their behavior is certain evidence of the existence of absolute unity. Even if it has not yet been theoretically established to exist, it is certain that it does. The interpretation of empirical knowledge should be directed by the requirement for fundamental unity. The practice of hanging on to piecemeal interpretations of various parts of the operation of the universe is a major reason for lack of progress.

Science has not dispensed with the need to find the cause of life and intelligence. It just pretends it is not necessary. Science defines matter as consisting of mechanical properties. It observes that the properties of matter give rise to life and intelligence. It then concludes that mechanical properties give rise to life and intelligence. So it takes one error and extrapolates it to predict an even greater error.

I do not suggest that "intelligence and life are both somehow essentially different from matter." This assertion of yours does not demonstrate my opinion, however it does demonstrate your mechanical bias. I insist that intelligence and life are the products of the properties of matter. Science should either show how mechanical properties predict life and intelligence or it should search for the properties that do. It is not necessary to wait until we know everything. If there is any current scientific basis for explaining how the defined properties of matter imply the possibility of life and intelligence, then it should be put forward. The properties that produce life and intelligence have to be there.

The observation that biological mutations occur does not explain why molecules produce life and intelligence. The listing of parts involved in the process does not explain the cause for the existence of life and intelligence. The practice of identifying parts and their corresponding effects does not raise our understanding above the level of mechanics. Science either explains why we can think or it is limited to explaining how to assemble parts of matter together into a clump of gray matter.

-- James A. Putnam, author of newphysicstheory.com (posted 2/11, 10:20 a.m., U.S. Eastern time)

previous response

next response

STEP 1: Your contact information (required)

Your name: Your title & institution: Your phone: Your e-mail address:

STEP 2: Your comments

STEP 3: Submit!

Be sure to include your name and affiliation. Legitimate requests for anonymity will be honored.

The Chronicle maintains Colloquy as an open forum where readers can comment on issues. Submissions may be condensed or edited for clarity, but editing is kept to a minimum. We correct errors in spelling, punctuation, etc. In addition, we remove statements that have the potential to be libelous or to slander someone. In cases in which people make claims that could be libelous, we will remove the names of institutions and departments. But in those cases, we will not alter the ideas contained in the submissions.

Please read our privacy policy or our Colloquy help page if you have questions.

Check this box only if you would like this submission to be considered for publication as a letter to the editor in the printed Chronicle.