Contributing to a number of academic lists - I wrote this today for a list that discusses the foundations of information science and I thought it might be of more general interest locally because it is a familiar theme - forgive me if the post is too technical in part but especially note:

'The motivations for these violations [of scientific principles] in the USA are especially unfortunate and I have discovered over the past two years that one of the unspoken reasons they persist here is that many scientists and mathematicians seek to "leave room for God."'

Full text follows:

'If living organisms are molecular machines according to principles

we currently understand then there is no explanation of experience according to current "science of the artificial."

As Goranson says, "Most scientists assume that the basics of science are known." (full text) The sciences of the artificial essentially adhere to the view that our physical models are complete and that, where there lies difficulty, explanations with the same essential properties as existent theories will be available.

Roger Penrose has been pointing out the inadequacy of this position for a decade and a half. As recently as January, in the journal Nature, he says "... I perhaps have enough of the physicist's arrogance about me to believe that a physical 'theory of everything' should at least contain the seeds of an explanation of the phenomenon of consciousness. It seems to me that this phenomenon is such a fundamental one that it cannot be simply an accidental concomitant of the complexity of brain action. ..." (full text ). I agree.

I have only recently entered the fray. In my discussions across disciplines I encounter three positions that violate the clear principles of good science.

1. Experience is not a phenomenon of the world and therefore requires no explanation. 2. Experience is an emergent phenomenon of the world that requires no further explanation. 3. Experience is a phenomenon of the world that simply cannot be explained.

None of these positions can be formalized since none can be quantified, none can be verified and certainly none can be falsified. It is not simply that the explanation is missing from physics and needs to be included in physical theories - the explanation must also find its way into the Foundations of Information Science and the Foundations of Mathematics.

Logic has wrestled with the problem for a long time and failed (e.g., Peirce, Carnap et al.), but perhaps it is in the Foundations of Logic that new ground can be broken.

The reason that these positions remain and are widely accepted comes from a deeply rooted conservatism and a misguided belief that we are at the pinnacle of our scientific achievement - it seems to me that any such belief is, inevitably, the pinnacle of our ignorance.

The motivations for these violations in the USA are especially unfortunate and I have discovered over the past two years that one of the unspoken reasons they persist here is that many scientists and mathematicians seek to "leave room for God."

In raising research funding I have to be careful not to offend individuals with sincere beliefs in the traditional mysteries - and I sincerely mean no offense - but there really can be no room in science for such an allowance. We must follow science wherever it may lead and allow it to inform faith, defining any notion we may have of God accordingly.

For these reasons, progress may be impossible in the USA - even in my beloved California.'