There was a specific demand for a definition of materialism / dialectical-materialism.
I'm not sure I like the word "scientific" but ok.
This is an assumption of science. It certainly isn't proven. As a matter of fact, many think that we will never be able to have complete knowledge of the world.
This is a subjective opinion. Many people will look at a work of art and hold a different opinion about it's origin. Just because you are able to believe an ordered universe originates from a box full of rocks doesn't mean that someone else doesn't have a different perspective or appreciation. Your statement might be ok if you started the sentence off with the phrase "Scientifically speaking".
Overall, I'm still struggling with your point. This comparison seems definitely to be a judgement.
I guess I would agree if I thought it was really a summary. But there's no way he is summarizing. It reads like excerpts from a book. And even if it were a summary, I would still need to comment that it is poorly summarized.
I just don't have time to read through pages and pages of book excerpts on Dialectic Materialism. Especially when I could swear I read the same excerpts in about 5 other threads.
The history of science shows that we know a great deal now, we didn't know before. There is no end to what we can know.
Fact is of couse, we will never have complete knowledge.
Science is not dealing with absolutes. Absolute knowledge is simply impossible, we will develop from one relative thruth to another relative truth.
Yeah. Implicitly the judgement is, wether or not God exists, we can think about it till our head turns round, but we never find an answer to that.
While in science, we can observe, we can test, and we can makes theories, and this means some progress in knowledge can ba made.
My opinion is then, with the first, we never come any further, through science, we will at least be heading towards a better understanding.
Yeah I can buy all that. But the mischievous side of me can't help but think of the ironic possibility that science will progress it's knowledge only to lend more credibility to the other approach.
I'm not saying this will happen or even could happen. I just think it would be funny if it did.
This would not change the choice pro science, would it?
The other thing is interpretation. No matter how science portrays and investigates the world to be, we can still choose an interpretation of outside reality.
The fact that the aim of Science is to describe the phenomena within the Universe shows that, at it's heart, there is an assumption: That the phenomena of the Universe can be explained, to at least some degree of accuracy.
Separate names with a comma.