Quote:
Originally Posted by DeruIsLove
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
|
Stupid pop science crap. What he said is obviously true, but does every scientist agree on everything when data rolls in? Data, and physical evidence in general, must first be interpreted by the human mind in order to mean anything in the first place. If you think the human mind is capable of purely objective consideration, can be trained to become immune to its subconscious, and therefore is a static organ that is identical between individuals, then you're sorely mistaken.
Again: what we're talking about is philosophy. Metaphysics. Ontology. These things are at their very core beyond the physical, which is where science and evidence exist. These fields of inquiry seek to, as you said, answer one question while science attempts to answer another. I believe you said, "I'm more interested in the why than the how." Science deals with one, philosophical inquiry with the other.
If you think that there is an end to science, and that one day every single possible question can be answered, you need to expand your mind a bit and consider the very structures that allow for science to be a thing. This is like you being content with simply understanding everything about a videogame without questioning why the game exists in the first place, or the computer that the game runs on, or who made the game to begin with. All you're concerned with is the dull, dead, physical laws that govern the game because that's all you can sense and feel. You disregard the inherently flawed methods with which you discern physical existence, that is, your senses. If your senses are capable of feeding your rational mind a mirage, or a misapprehension, how can you then in turn believe that your senses are infallible methods of gathering data?
You make human reason your God. And for that, I am sorry.
07-23-2014, 03:07 PM
Threaded Mode