The limitations of science (The limitations of science)

by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Monday, February 15, 2010, 22:07 (5181 days ago) @ George Jelliss

My main problem with dhw's approach is that I don't recognise his distinctions between materialism and immaterialism and between science and philosophy. All phenomena are part of nature and therefore open to study by natural philosophers applying reason. It is all one wholistic project.
> -You see, the issue (again) is one of framework. I'll leave dhw to discuss his own view here, but here's my 2 cents:-Your disagreement with dhw here is bounded by what is considered "natural," and by what the limits are in terms of answering the question about a phenomenon. -Some philosophers will say that reason is enough--others will insist on a more Empirical approach. Obviously, one must use both kinds of tools. But where the issue bends is on what you and dhw accept as valid evidence. Sometimes, there is no physical evidence. I can tell you yesterday that I thought of a pink elephant, but you have to take me on my word, because you can't verify in any way that yes, indeed, I thought of a pink elephant. -Lets say today, that I thought of an invisible being that rules the universe for good. Rightly, you'd challenge that by saying, "okay, show me that he exists?" For some people, this isn't a thought, it's a feeling; an emotion. And you cannot decide for those people what it is that they should and shouldn't accept or reject; one nature of faith is acceptance of a belief even when evidence suggests otherwise. You can't ask someone to prove a feeling--you'd be asking them to try to duplicate a feeling from themselves to you, not a hard piece of evidence. An immaterial component of reality is represented by this kind of a phenomenon, I say this because even though a thought is an electrochemical process, you can't actually figure out what someone's thought is: you have no access to its content as an outside observer. And you have no real means to tell that person that their feeling is incorrect, I hate to say it but humans have an emotional capacity that is more of who we are than the logic we love so much. This emotional capacity serves us well and helped us evolve to this point. -I guess you can say that I'm less concerned overall about whether or not Gods are real than I am with the psychological impact of these beings--real or imagined.

--
\"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.\"