> Actually, "whole" and "part" are categories composed by the
> observing mind, and are scientifically unacknowledged as such.
...then, oh noble advocate, please explain the relation between atomic/quantum physics, chemistry, genetics, biology, society, and memetics within the scientific paradigm. ...how do the findings of science - IN FACT - relate to each other if I am mistaken.
>> [2] it is possible to attain an objective perspective wrt an
>>
...how then does science answer questions of causality and significance. If science does not answer questions of causality or significance how can its findings serve as a source of meaning? If the findings of science cannot answer questions of meaning, of what use are they in fields other than technology?
>> [3] the findings of science will eventually [or can, in principle] >> encompass the whole of reality >>
...How then does science arrive at statements of truth?
>> [4] features of the world which are real [or at least significant] >> can be measured and expressed quantitatively. >>
...the caseless application of the principles of scientific analysis to questions of humyn activity and meaning flies in the face of your defense.
>> [5] the scientific endeavour is devoid of bias and assumptions. >>
...unfortunately it is not an ideal which is expressed as such when the findings of science are presented. Practicing scientists may acknowledge that they strive to eliminate bias and assumption, but rarely acknowledge the biases and assumptions which they have yet to eliminate.
> I would suggest that much science has been done, but, as your
> flawed and superficial criticisms more than amply illustrate, you
> have obviously given the subject little deep thought.
...I would suggest that you should, perhaps, in the spirit of science, get down of your [proverbial] high horse.
-psypher