thx for this... and I appreciate where you're coming from (especially since I keep hearing it), but I don't get how you harmonize the first part with the second.
Well, sir .First of all ,you're welcome. it's an honor to "talk " to you this way .Thanks for taking the time to reply to my post , appreciate indeed . I really admire your work and site .I am looking forward to reading your book in question too ,since i have been involved, my own way , ( Through many scientific and other forums , for example , and mainly through the naked scientist site of Cambridge university ,as well as elsewhere ), in trying to make people realize the fact that science must reject the false outdated and superseded materialist ideology, 19th century philosophy , world view or conception of nature that was built upon the approximately correct and fundamentally false classical deterministic mechanical Newtonian world view .
I have been also reading and following the works of many non-materialist scientists and philosophers on the subject as well .
That said : regarding the above , the following :
Despite the fact that materialism has been equated with science , ironically and paradoxically enough , for relatively so long now and counting , and despite the fact that the materialist mainstream "scientific world view " is false , despite all that and more , science's wonderful achievements were/are and will be the results of applying the unique and unparalleled scientific method only, by materialist and non-materialist scientists alike .Materialism has been having absolutely nothing thus to do with all that relatively enormous success of science at the level of matter at least .
In other words : despite so falsely assuming that all is matter ,simply put, thanks to materialism thus , materialist science has been right about many things at the material physical or biological levels at least , relatively speaking , but even at those levels , materialist science cannot but "break its materialist neck " by encountering a dead -end street , so to speak , since matter and mind are inseparable and since the latter is irreducible to the former or as Pauli used to say : our "reality " is psycho-physical .
To assert thus that science is wrong about almost everything is thus not an accurate assertion.
We should say instead that materialist science is wrong about almost everything ,not science , since there is now also what can be called the non-materialist or post-materialistic science (I am referring here to the recent manifesto for a post-materialistic science ) :
http://www.opensciences.org/about/manifesto-for-a-post-materialist-science
When you say, sir , that science is wrong about almost everything , you do equate science with materialism without realizing that , i guess .I don't know . There is thus nothing wrong with science ,but almost everything is wrong with materialist science .The latter that should in fact neither be materialist nor otherwise : science should be metaphysically neutral thus ,but that remains just a naive idealistic utopia so far at least , since science is just a human social activity ,and to some extent just a cultural one also ( See how the cultural Eurocentric and exclusive materialist ideology has been taken for granted as science or as the "scientific world view " ,since the second half of the 19th century and counting , without question, by the majority of scientists and other people .) .
Not to mention the fact also that QM that can never be understood without reference to the mind has been proving the fact that there is no such thing in fact as the so-called independent observed objective reality or independent observer : there is no separation between the observer and the observed , no separation thus between the subjective and the objective ,as the work of Princeton Engineering Anomalies research or PEAR has been proving,and hence science must extend its naturalist methodology and epistemology as to include the subjective element in its rational analytical empiricism ,and must also modify its vocabulary as well , since science has to be communicated through human language :
http://www.princeton.edu/~pear/
Bell's theorem and its related experiments , for example, have also been challenging classical realism , classical determinism as well as classical locality .
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell's_theorem
There is still a lot more to say about the above , but i will leave it at then, for the time being at least .
Thanks, sir . Cheers.