| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Richard Marchetti writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys writes:
> > Do you understand that science *may* not encompass *everything* there is to
> > the human existence? That it *may* never be able to understand for there
> > *may* be things outside the domain of scientific endeavour? I'm open to
> > that possibility.
>
> No, I reject that notion -- further I disagree with your construction of the
> critical issues.
I believe that this is the intellectual hubris that Dave K is refering to
when he talks about elevating science to godhood.
By rejecting the notion that there might be anything science cannot address,
you are attributing a universality to the scientific method that it does not
in fact have (or claim to have). As you mentioned farther up in your post,
science can be considered to have a neutral stance on things it cannot
address. You are stating flat out that science can address everything.
James
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: slight
|
| (...) No, my mistake -- fair enough. James did state something very like your own statement. I read too quickly I guess...sorry. Mea culpa. (...) I suppose it could, but it would not (proving a negative, etc.). That's not the purpose of scientific (...) (22 years ago, 17-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
|
|
|
|
