Subject:
|
Re: Critical Thinking
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 4 Dec 2000 23:00:26 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
545 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes:
(big snip)
> Any in any case, science doesn't interpret reality; it is the method by
> which we interpret (ie: understand) reality.
Perhaps this is the crux of the divergence. You're saying that science focuses
on reality - I agree, but how we each define "reality" is different. Reality
for you is only the realm of the explainable. (If I read you properly)
I see reality as both the explained and unexplained since even your "science"
would admit that the explaination changes as understanding increases
(or changes). Therefore you can never say for certain that you have explained
anything - thus there is by definition nothing that can truly be called
unexplained or unexplainable since nothing is ever explained.
My science deals with the unexplained, be it what you refer to as "nature" _Or_
what you call "supernatural". It is all reality. Science attempts to put a
explaination to everything.
-Jon
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Critical Thinking
|
| (...) You're right to call me on that; I wrote that improperly and more-or-less in direct conflict to my overall argument. Science changes in that it is progressive and cumulative, letting go of obsolete or outmoded theories, or at any rate (...) (24 years ago, 4-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
198 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
|
|
|
|
