| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, James Brown writes:
> 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 [K] is railing against the belief: "if science cannot address it,
> it cannot exist".
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 complete and accurate descriptor of the physical
universe, and if a phenomenon is part of the physical universe, then science
can, in principle at least, be used to describe and/or explore that phenomenon.
In several posts Dave K has failed to distinguish between matters that he
does not think science is able to explore (such as color preference and
musical "inspiration") and matters that science cannot even in principal
explore (such as the nature of an infinite God). Obviously the former are
simply a matter of Dave's perspective, and while he's certainly entitled to
his perspective, in this case his perspective is inconsistent with reality.
The latter, then, is really the issue that Dave is addressing, but we're
still waiting for him to provide an example of such a phenomenon whose
exitence we can verify but which is not part of the physical universe. I
would also stipulate that the simple assertion of a thing is not sufficient
to establish the existence of that thing; this is why, parenthetically, the
ontological proof of God is a falacy.
When we have such an example, I think we'll all be on the same page.
Dave!
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: slight
|
| (...) Yeah, this is a discussion for hotheads like me! (...) Yes, I agree. I think it sums it up good for me. (...) Really? Science can say a bunch of molecules in the brain releasing pheremones, or 'happy chemicals' is the whole justification why I (...) (22 years ago, 16-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: slight
|
| (...) <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 (...) (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
|
|
|
|
