I believe you are using "naturalism" in a sense that excludes things like "selves", "identity", "free will" and so on. I don't think so. — Manuel
By assuming humans are direct products of the natural world, along the lines of Darwin’s Theory of Evolution... — ucarr
I don't think there is an unbridgeable gap between human identity and the natural world. — Manuel
I've been supposing this gap between the two explains the scientific limitations you describe.
My underlying premise is that human, as a product of natural earth, has no gap separating it from natural earth, unless human, in addition to natural earth, has another source for its identity.
I say this to make clear I assume all attributes of human identity (including "selves", "identity", "free will" and so on) have their source in nature.
My other underlying premise is that science is the only judge of truth. — ucarr
Do you believe there are types or sets of claims that are non-scientific?
Do you believe there exist humans who make non-scientific claims about themselves and the world, and, in so doing, make claims that possess truth derived from inquiries correctly vetted & verified non-scientifically? — ucarr
We enter into semantic territory here. — Manuel
You can use the word science, to mean "good" or "useful", as in "that person has his cooking down to a science" or "that politician has his negotiation tactics down to a science", but I don't take these claims to be theoretical. — Manuel
I do think there are things which science cannot tell us much about, namely, international relations and inter-personal relations (among other topics), they are simply too complex — Manuel
Physics works so well, in part because it deals with the simplest structures we can discover. — Manuel
In your interpretation of the above examples, "good" or "useful" are not sufficiently specific, and I think you know that. — ucarr
The emphasis is upon logical, focused efficiency in getting to the goal. This definition is much closer to the scientific method, and thus the examples are not loosey-goosey applications of what "science" denotes. — ucarr
You give no reactions to two important words I used. "Claims," formally speaking = proposition. "Inquiry," formally speaking = experimentation. The formal versions of the two words, as you know, are firmly rooted within science. — ucarr
My hunch is that you wish to avoid committing to a position that says humans conduct inquiries culminating in claims that are emphatically non-scientific.
I make the above conjecture in relation to. . . — ucarr
If you think elementary particles & their interrelationships are simple, it must be the case you've merely glanced at studies of these phenomena. — ucarr
And I don't think there is an unbridgeable gap between human identity and the natural world. Human identity is something we have to deal with, it's a phenomenon of nature, realized in human beings, of which science can say very little about. — Manuel
We don't, for instance, consider the dirt the tree is on to be part of the tree, but nothing in nature should prevent us from doing this. — Manuel
All the great epics start with those assumptions. Well, actually that's not true.
You could start a great epic with that assumption, though. Except it might all end up being for nothing. Pointless adventures. — Tate
I am not evading anything here, I'm replying to what I think you're asking, by giving you answers that approximate what happens in my experience, that and trying to be as clear as I am capable of being, is all I can do in these conversations. — Manuel
what is there? — Manuel
Non sunt multiplicanda entia sine necessitate (Entities are not to be multiplied without necessity). — Novacula Occami
When you hear hoofbeats behind you, don't expect to see a zebra. — Dr. Theodore Woodward
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.