The late Ernst Mayr, one of history’s leading biologists, expressed the subject this way:
Despite the openness of science to new facts and hypotheses, it must be said that virtually all scientists—somewhat like theologians—bring a set of what we call “first principles” with them to the study of the natural world. One of these axiomatic assumptions is that there is real world independent of human perceptions. This might be called the principle of objectivity (as opposed to subjectivity) or common-sense realism. This does not mean that individual scientists are always “objective” or even that objectivity among human beings is possible in any absolute sense. What it does mean is that an objective world exists outside of the influence of subjective perception. Most scientists—though not all—believe in this axiom.
Another drawback of the materialistic model is that it has forced modern science down a series of dead-end streets as it attempts to piece together a complete theory of the cosmos while being shackled by its own model. Here is a short list of the conundrums material science now faces:
The origin of the matter and energy that exploded in the Big Bang.
The mechanims for the inflationary Bg Bang.
The source of the laws of nature.
The character and existence of dark matter and dark energy.
The incompatibility between quantum physics and gravity.
The orign of life and the DNA molecule.
The origin of consciousness.
The manner in which nature’s laws appear fine-tuned just so life can exist.
Suppose we took the view that instead of matter creating mind, mind created matter? If this alternative viewpoint is in fact true, should we ignore the world’s make-up and go on practicing science only within the materialist model or should we at least determine whether science can be practiced in this mind-generated, dream world? That is the question this article will explore.
What is Science?
Science is commonly defined as “any system of knowledge that is concerned with the physical world and its phenomena and that entails unbiased observations and systematic experimentation. In general, a science involves a pursuit of knowledge covering general truths or the operations of fundamental laws.” “Empirical science,”
seeks to explore, to describe, to explain, and to predict the occurrences in the world we live in. [Scientific] statements, therefore, must be checked against the facts of our experience, and they are acceptable only if they are properly supported by empirical evidence. Such evidence is obtained in many different ways: by experimentation, by systematic observations, by interviews, surveys, by psychological or clinical testing, by careful examination of documents, inscriptions, coins, archeological relics, and so forth.
Another feature of science is that seeks to furnish natural explanations for physical phenomena, as opposed to supernatural or immeasurable, untestable, unverifiable explanations. This feature helps explain why scientists generally prefer Darwin over Genesis for accounting for the variety of life-forms present on the Earth: Darwin offered an explanation verifiable by observation; Genesis simply says God did it, without explaining how. As we will, we will not need to discard any of these features of science if we change to a mind-created or dream model of the cosmos.
Why the Independent World Assumption is False
The materialistic model is implausible for three fundamental reasons…
Comella, P. (n.d.). Can Science Be Practiced in a Dream World? [Blog post]. Retrieved from http://www.thecollapseofmaterialism.com/can-science-be-practiced-in-a-dream-world/