Science, by its very definition, is radically limited in its scope of authority.
Science can only report observations, but can never assume to know anything about when, what, where, and why. . . . The things of meaning in the life are outside the realm of science. — taylordonbarrett
Science can only report observations, but can never assume to know anything about when, what, where, and why. — taylordonbarrett
Science is educated guess work — taylordonbarrett
Science is educated guess work. And as valuable as it may be when applied to engineering (medical and mechanical), no human being should ever place their faith in it. — taylordonbarrett
Science can only report observations, but can never assume to know anything about when, what, where, and why. — taylordonbarrett
CAUSATION is entirely outside the realm of science. — taylordonbarrett
Philosophy is at the mercy of these same limitations because philosophy and science are one and the same. — Harry Hindu
I sure don't agree with that, and I doubt many others would, either.
That is, unless it's still the first half of the 1500s or earlier.
<checks calendar to make sure> — Terrapin Station
Whether many others agree is irrelevant. That is simply pleading to the majority — Harry Hindu
Apparently you misread my comment as implying that you're mistaken because others and I disagree. I said nothing like that. — Terrapin Station
The limits of science aren't due to the limits of the process itself, but due to the limits of our own senses and ability to reason in a consistent way — Harry Hindu
Did the big bang make any sound? — MJA
So you're saying that my statement is outdated? You've gone from pleading to the majority to the genetic fallacy. When someone on these forums mentions quotes from Plato, Socrates, or 16th century philosophers, do you have to check your calendar?There was an allusion to why I disagree in the rest of the comment. Why did I mention the date (range) that I did? — Terrapin Station
I'm simply trying to get you to explain why you disagree.Aside from that, by the way, my aim in participating in message boards like this is to have a friendly, casual conversation with people who have an interest in academic philosophy, because I have a background in that milieu and my interest in it has never waned, but it's been decades since I've regularly interacted with many people who have such an interest. In a friendly conversational setting, I say things like "I don't agree with that" and so on.
Of course, my aim is often frustrated because most folks just seem to want to attend Monty Python's Argument Clinic, but I'm an "irrational optimist" with an incredible amount of patience and persistence, so I keep trying. ;-) — Terrapin Station
So you're saying that my statement is outdated? You've gone from pleading to the majority to the genetic fallacy. — Harry Hindu
Really? You're answering a question with a question? Why is it so difficult for you to back up your position of disagreement? The conversation can continue when you clarify your position. If you don't then that shows that you aren't interested.I'm not doing either. What happened in the 16th century that has some importance in the history of science? — Terrapin Station
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.