Anyone who prays over an experiment, perhaps desperate to find a cure. Or an entity who ignores philosophical issues and just works methodically. Or certain Zen Buddhists who practice science without any mundane beliefs in the efficacy of science, or any presupposition concerning materialism whatsoever.

Since everything is but an apparition, having nothing to do with good or bad, acceptance or rejection, one may well burst out in laughter. "” Longchenpa

This is just a sampling of the meaningless things that Zachariel has been stringing together on this thread. Indeed, everything he has said up to this point has absolutely meaningless. Maybe that is his point. Existence is nothing more than a bad cosmic joke; but, then again, maybe not. Even bad jokes have some sort of meaning.

That's incredibly funny. Why would a Zen Buddhist discuss philosophy in a scientific paper. Not only is it irrelevant to the science, but it's not even Zen.

He could discuss it in an article extrinsic to the paper itself but if that is not even Zen then perhaps your claim cannot be supported with evidence even in principle.

Zachriel: That's incredibly funny.

I'm not laughing at you, Bradford.

Since everything is but an apparition, having nothing to do with good or bad, acceptance or rejection, one may well burst out in laughter. "” Longchenpa

Peace.

Bradford: Second, assuming comprehensibility and empirical applicability are necessary.

Zachriel: And I pointed to counterexamples. Zen Buddhists who practice science without any mundane beliefs in the efficacy of science, or any presupposition concerning materialism whatsoever.

Bradford: Cite one scientific paper as an example supporting your claim. I want to read the paper of the researcher(s) who disavows the applicability of the very approach that led to the results shown.

That's incredibly funny. Why would a Zen Buddhist discuss philosophy in a scientific paper. Not only is it irrelevant to the science, but it's not even Zen.

Zen does not confuse spirituality with thinking about God while one is peeling potatoes. Zen spirituality is just to peel the potatoes. "” Watts

Bradford: Second, assuming comprehensibility and empirical applicability are necessary.

Zachriel: And I pointed to counterexamples. Zen Buddhists who practice science without any mundane beliefs in the efficacy of science, or any presupposition concerning materialism whatsoever.

Cite one scientific paper as an example supporting your claim. I want to read the paper of the researcher(s) who disavows the applicability of the very approach that led to the results shown.

Bradford: First, the only one of the six deemed necessary was the first bullet point.

Yes, that's the only point I have addressed.

Bradford: Second, assuming comprehensibility and empirical applicability are necessary.

And I pointed to counterexamples. Zen Buddhists who practice science without any mundane beliefs in the efficacy of science, or any presupposition concerning materialism whatsoever. They don't presume: They just do. Artificial intelligence investigating limited regions of empirical data. AI doesn't presume: It just does. And yes, scientists who pray for miracles in their work. That's because scientists are generally people. And people comprise many beliefs.

We could perhaps discuss why these non-scientific attitudes have not always impeded science. The answer is in the methodology.

Zachriel: It is Bradford's claim that puts limits on human inspiration.

Bradford: How's that? I pointed to six beliefs widely held in mainstream science today.

Zachriel: Though "widely held", even pervasive, it is not, as you claimed, "necessary". You are confusing human motivation with the intrinsics of science. Not all entities require the same philosophical or emotion commitment.

First, the only one of the six deemed necessary was the first bullet point. Second, assuming comprehensibility and empirical applicability are necessary. Those assumptions are not motivators. They are needed to make one's work accord with rational and empirical properties of scientific disciplines.

Bradford: What scientists conduct research while assuming the endeavor either yields incomprehensible results or that the object of the research does not lend itself to empirical methodology?

Zachriel: Anyone who prays over an experiment, perhaps desperate to find a cure. Or an entity who ignores philosophical issues and just works methodically. Or certain Zen Buddhists who practice science without any mundane beliefs in the efficacy of science, or any presupposition concerning materialism whatsoever.

Praying over an experiment does not infer the one doing so operates under beliefs in incomprehensibility or inapplicability of empirical testing. If you believe that you are placing your own spin on this hypothetical.

Zachriel: It is Bradford's claim that puts limits on human inspiration.

Bradford: How's that? I pointed to six beliefs widely held in mainstream science today.

Though "widely held", even pervasive, it is not, as you claimed, "necessary". You are confusing human motivation with the intrinsics of science. Not all entities require the same philosophical or emotion commitment.

Bradford: What scientists conduct research while assuming the endeavor either yields incomprehensible results or that the object of the research does not lend itself to empirical methodology?

Anyone who prays over an experiment, perhaps desperate to find a cure. Or an entity who ignores philosophical issues and just works methodically. Or certain Zen Buddhists who practice science without any mundane beliefs in the efficacy of science, or any presupposition concerning materialism whatsoever.

Bradford: They simply do not employ the assumption that God will work miracles through their research. What were you thinking Zachriel?

It is the hypothesis that allows the spark of inspiration.

A hypothesis can come from anywhere; vast experience in a field of study, deep thought, a dream, from fanciful thought-experiments, a Muse, a chance event, or even from playing cards. Most hypotheses come as natural extensions of existing theoretical frameworks. But to be considered scientifically valid, the hypothesis "” whatever the source "” must be verified by the scientific method.

Bradford: * A belief that the universe and the manner in which it functions can be comprehended by a species of limited intelligence through empirical methods (a necessary assumption).

Zachriel: Bradford makes the explicit claim that certain beliefs are "necessary". If he said they were common or perhaps even ubiquitous among scientists, I would not have objected.

In the course of his work a scientist must assume that he can subject a hypothesis to empirical evaluation. He also must assume he will have the capacity to comprehend the results. These are necessary operative assumptions.

* A belief that the universe and the manner in which it functions can be comprehended by a species of limited intelligence through empirical methods (a necessary assumption).

Zachriel: The claim is not that most scientists hold this belief, but that it is "necessary". But some scientists hold quite contrary views. This includes a number who think the universe is largely incomprehensible. Some who think that there are miracles that defy scientific explanations. And others who think that empirical methods are limited to only certain aspects of the universe. Yet they can still do good work in science because they subject their results to validation through the scientific method. This makes the claim false.

What scientists conduct research while assuming the endeavor either yields incomprehensible results or that the object of the research does not lend itself to empirical methodology? The very idea is absurd. Scientists can believe anything they wish while not conducting research but the six bullet points are focused on assumptions relevant to research. Some scientists, like others, believe in God and miracles. They simply do not employ the assumption that God will work miracles through their research. What were you thinking Zachriel?