James Le Fanu: Why Us? (The limitations of science)

by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Monday, July 20, 2009, 16:43 (5603 days ago) @ John Clinch

Mr. Clinch, - You have--in a concise way--fairly represented my thrust. There's a more direct argument that he hasn't exactly made, but by reading the book by Adler he suggested I'm forming a strong opinion on what exactly Dr. Turell's argument is--and its a little more nuanced than that but I think can still boil down to those two stated fallacies. - In that book, one of the arguments Adler makes is that it we must explain the difference between man and everything else by bringing in an immaterial component--the human mind. And there is little consensus beyond the fact that the mind exists. The mind/brain relationship has alot of open questions. - Extending this to that of origins, his argument here is similar. Material evidence is by itself insufficient. And while it is true our present knowledge is insufficient to answer these questions, I have the exact same objections to this argument as you do. Why posit the unfalsifiable before we have to?

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"