Guy Hoelzer 

> >> GH:-
> >> ...IMHO the vast majority of the information (structure) in the adult
> >> phenotype is generated through the process of self-organization during
> >> development.  It is not strictly in the genome or any other sort of
> >> pre-existing template.

> > JE:-
> > Would Dr Hoelzer please explain why
> > he appears to argue that "the process of
> > self-organization" constitutes some sort
> > of _scientific_ process?

> GH:-
> It isn't, and I didn't.  Self-organization is a physical process, not
> specifically a scientific one.

JE:-
The only way we know "a physical process" is via
contestable to refutation, theories of nature.
If "self-organization is a physical process" then it
can provide Popperian points of refutation allowing
it to be classified a scientific process. Any
point of view that cannot provide at least one
point of refutation cannot be compared and tested,
i.e. it can only constitute a dictate.

> > JE:-
> > Could he also
> > answer: How is "the process of self-organization"
> > different to ordinary mystical processes such
> > as creationism.

> GH:-
> It is entirely different because it is 100% physical and
> mechanical.  There
> is no "hand of God" involved.  IMHO, an important aspect of
the scientific
> value in the study of self-organizing systems is that it can reveal the
> mechanisms involved in seemingly mystical phenomena.

JE:-
If the study of self-organizing systems cannot
provide points of refutation then it is just
as mystical as creationism.

> > JE:-
> > Is Dr Hoelzer aware that
> > "creation science" is now being taught
> > in some schools in the USA?

> GH:-
> I am painfully aware of this.

JE:-
Is Dr Hoelzer also aware that the
reason why creation science is
just a mystical system is because it
offers no valid points of refutation?

> > JE:-
> > By what
> > epistemology can any mystical processes
> > be regarded as a science?

> GH:-
> Mysticism cannot be regarded as science.

JE:-
Please provide an objective test for
separating mystical from non mystical
ideas.

> GH:-
> That is why I find the
> self-organizing systems paradigm to be such a great change in perspective
> for science, in general.  It facilitates a potentially massive
> purge of the
> mysticism that remains embedded in our scientific understanding.

JE:-
Please provide an example of
"the mysticism that remains embedded
in our scientific understanding".

> GH:-
> I have
> made this point to you over sbe before, and I have posted introductory
> readings on these issues in addition to my own comments.  If you don't
> understand my comments and don't care to read up on
> self-organizing systems,
> you really should refrain from trying to discredit me with unfounded
> assertions of mysticism.

JE:-
I would suggest that Dr Hoelzer refrain
from making judgements about what anybody
has/has not read.

At no time have I attempted to "discredit"
anyone. I am simply asking what I believe
to be an important epistemological question.
Dr Hoelzer remains on record as giving his
support to the removal of the Popperian
requirement that any scientific theory must
provide at least one point of refutation.
How does Dr Hoelzer expect to be able to
separate the mystical from the non mystical
without the process of Popperian refutation?

Regards,

John Edser
Independent Researcher

PO Box 266
Church Pt
NSW 2105
Australia

edser{at}tpg.com.au
---
þ RIMEGate(tm)/RGXPost V1.14 at BBSWORLD * Info{at}bbsworld.com

---
 * RIMEGate(tm)V10.2áÿ* RelayNet(tm) NNTP Gateway * MoonDog BBS
 * RgateImp.MoonDog.BBS at 9/23/04 4:56:08 PM