| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys writes:
>
> > Again, my point, time and time again, is that there is reality. I live in
> > it, with you and everyone else. My point, time and time again, is that our
> > reality is 'bigger' than what science can explain.
>
> Dave--you do indeed make this point time and time again, but you haven't
> yet backed it up in any comprehensible fashion. Can you explain something
> that we can verify as part of the universe that can't in principal be
> explained by (or as Chris rightly clarified: "explored by") science? By
> "verify," I must require you to avoid perceived phenomena such as ESP or
> ghosts or the Loch Ness Monster. And once you have come up with such an
> example, I'd like you to clarify how you verify that it's part of the universe.
> I would further clarify that phenomena such as emotions, memories,
> "inspiration," and music aren't really valid examples, since they can in
> principal be explained as parts of the physical universe accessible to
> scientific explanation.
<huge honkin' snip>
I suspect that the idea Dave is trying to get across is that some people
promote science and scientific thought as the be-all and end-all of possible
knowledge. These people are in their way as close-minded as the extremely
rigid religious types. They elevate scientific thought and the scientific
method to a sort of god-hood by allowing it no possibility of fault or
exception. I don't *think* anyone here is that sort of scientific zealot,
but sometimes people come across that way without intent; it's especially
hard to avoid that kind of impression when you're immersed in a heated debate.
We can certainly concieve of things that are not addressable by science; it
is not such a leap of logic to conceed that they may exist. God is one
such; another is the hypothetical 'event which cannot be observed by any
means'. Dave is railing against the belief: "if science cannot address it,
it cannot exist".
James
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: slight
|
| (...) Take your calm and polite posting elsewhere, you wet blanket! But your clarification makes sense--if that's what Dave K thinks then I'd be gratified to have it confirmed. Anyway, here's how the assertion might be phrased: Science is our most (...) (22 years ago, 16-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: slight
|
| In lugnet.off-topic.debate, James Brown writes: <snip> (...) Thanks. That's *exactly* my point--they *may* exist is even better for me to accept than they *do* or *do not* exist. Dave K. (22 years ago, 16-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: slight
|
| (...) Dave--you do indeed make this point time and time again, but you haven't yet backed it up in any comprehensible fashion. Can you explain something that we can verify as part of the universe that can't in principal be explained by (or as Chris (...) (22 years ago, 16-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
225 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
