[HayekRocks]

Throughout the history of human thought, it has been convenient and inspirational to designate the summit of the hierarchy as God. While it is not necessary for science to use this term, it is important for scientists to grasp the hierarchical reality it signifies. Transcending its materialist trap, science must look up from the ever dimmer reaches of its Darwinian pit and cast its imagination toward the word and its sources: idea and meaning, mind and mystery, the will and the way. It must eschew reductionism – except as a methodological tool – and adopt an aspirational imagination. Though this new aim may seem blinding at first, it is ultimately redemptive because it is the only way that science can ever hope to solve the grand challenges before it, such as gravity, entanglement, quantum computing, time, space, mass, and mind. Accepting hierarchy, the explorer embarks on an adventure that leads to an ever deeper understanding of life and consciousness, cosmos and creation.

I am wondering why you think Mr. Gilder, who is not a scientist, has some standing to tell scientists how to do science. There is no argument in the above, simply a hankering for hierarchy and an uncorroborated denigration of "Darwinism", "materialism" and "reductionism". Perhaps if Mr. Gilder had invented a new semiconductor, or built a computer, or worked out a theorem of quantum computing, the scientists who have done those things might be more inclined to follow his road map. As it is, it does seem to be somewhat akin to poor old HayekRocks giving Lance Armstrong lessons on riding a bicycle.

Goodness, we are mostly amateurs here. While the amateur does not owe the professional unlimited deference, he does owe him the assumption that the professional knows how to do his job.

[Coyoteman]

I am wondering why you think Mr. Gilder, who is not a scientist, has some standing to tell scientists how to do science.

He sure do talk purty though, don't he?

[betty boop]

Goodness, we are mostly amateurs here. While the amateur does not owe the professional unlimited deference, he does owe him the assumption that the professional knows how to do his job.

I suggest you read the article, HayekRocks. Mr. Gilder accords plenty of deference to working scientists and mathematicians, such as Chaitin, Yockey, Godel, Delbruck, Planck, Shannon, Turing, among many others, basing his argument on their findings. Clearly he thinks these men know/knew how to do their jobs.