> Linden was emphatic about how science requires a mechanism of action
I don't think this is correct. Science is based on empiricism. Of course we'd like to understand the mechanism of action, but it's not strictly required for scientific description of some aspect of reality. For example, Kepler's laws were derived from the observed paths of the planets — it was only later that these same laws could be explained with recourse to the theory of gravity.
I don't think this is correct. Science is based on empiricism. Of course we'd like to understand the mechanism of action, but it's not strictly required for scientific description of some aspect of reality. For example, Kepler's laws were derived from the observed paths of the planets — it was only later that these same laws could be explained with recourse to the theory of gravity.