Personalitys

[Sync182]

You blame others for their trust in science, yet you show unwavering belief in your own ideas.

 

No, I do not. I disagree with those who exclusively trust in science, such that they deny any other possibility. The same as I disagree with those who trust exclusively in philosophy, for example, such that they deny any other possibility.

 

If you're going to accuse me of something, at least know what I said.

 

And with that, I'm done with this section of the forums.

[marharth]

I don't understand why so many seem to think there is anything outside of science.

 

There might be some things outside of the realm of science, but is there any hard evidence of that?

[Aurielius]

I don't understand why so many seem to think there is anything outside of science.

There might be some things outside of the realm of science, but is there any hard evidence of that?

 

Thus speaks the voice of binary colorless science, what about philosophy, art. music? I find it difficult to believe that even you can hold that is all there is to life; if so your perspective of existence is sad little affair. Though I thought it impossible, I find myself almost pitying you; with that perspective you make the perfect cyborg....a fate I would wish on no one. Go to a good art museum, spend a day seeing what is possible from the expression of the inner self. Superb art is not replaceable by a photograph of the same thing, any open view the the impressionists, cubists or abstractionist painters should show what is outside the realm of just science.

[marharth]

I don't understand why so many seem to think there is anything outside of science.

There might be some things outside of the realm of science, but is there any hard evidence of that?

 

Thus speaks the voice of binary colorless science, what about philosophy, art. music? I find it difficult to believe that even you can hold that is all there is to life; if so your perspective of existence is sad little affair. Though I thought it impossible, I find myself almost pitying you; with that perspective you make the perfect cyborg....a fate I would wish on no one. Go to a good art museum, spend a day seeing what is possible from the expression of the inner self. Superb art is not replaceable by a photograph of the same thing, any open view the the impressionists, cubists or abstractionist painters should show what is outside the realm of just science.

Why is art, philosophy, and music outside of the realm of science?

 

I am not claiming that art and music are not beautiful, as I explained multiple times that is a effect, not a cause.

[draconix]

Why is art, philosophy, and music outside of the realm of science?

 

I am not claiming that art and music are not beautiful, as I explained multiple times that is a effect, not a cause.

 

Marharth speaks the truth. Contrary to the way people are talking about it, Philosophy is much more akin to science than music or art.

As an artist, I can definitely verify that art and music have so much technicality behind them that there is a science to them. It's not sacrilege to make these claimes. He's not "refuting" art, or music, nor saying that they're not beautiful.

 

Science can be applied to all things, and applying science to things does not make them less special. Science is the process of learning how things happen, how they work. Personally, I think most people fear science because they understand that science deals in truth, and some people are afraid of the truth breaking their view of the world. That's fine. Not all people are ready to take the red pill.

[LadyMilla]

You blame others for their trust in science, yet you show unwavering belief in your own ideas.

 

No, I do not. I disagree with those who exclusively trust in science, such that they deny any other possibility. The same as I disagree with those who trust exclusively in philosophy, for example, such that they deny any other possibility.

 

If you're going to accuse me of something, at least know what I said.

 

I was referring to your belief that science and logic are only the beginning of enlightenment:

 

You said:

"What some fail to (or don't want to) realise is that science and logic are only the beginnings to enlightenment. Knowledge and wisdom start with understanding and process, but they do not end there. Science can only teach us so much; logic can only do so much. When you reach the end of those roads, you need to take that next step - leap beyond logic and science - to improve your knowledge."

 

You posted a bunch of statements without backing them up with arguments. The funny thing is that, not counting the above ex cathedra statements, your final summary is something I can agree with mostly. Unfortunately, your post somehow came off almost as a real world manifestation of the Bene Gesserit's contempt for Ixian science.

 

Restricting yourself to a single method is prone to error because you ignore something that may alter your views profoundly. The same applies to our views about reality. I'm inclined to think that if you are not willing to critically dissect your own views from time to time in the light of the new knowledge and new experiences you accumulate every day, you may easily lock yourself into a mental construct that bears little relevance to how the world actually works (even if we assume that any knowledge that we have is only an approximation of reality - imperfect senses lead to imperfect perceptions, which in turn provide an imperfect base for reasoning).

 

Something else:

 

I think marharth's problem is the wording of his statement (unless I misunderstand it, which is always a possibility, given the limitations of language). I do no think he claims that only science should be applied to everything, rather he says: as science deals with observables, anything that is an observable (something we can experience as a perception) may be subject to experimentation and analysis and thus, scientific study, without excluding the validity of other methods ('methods' such as art, experience and philosophy).

 

(By the way, Aurelius may be surprised to learn that the current prevailing style of philosophy called 'analytic philosophy' uses scientific methods, including mathematical notations, language analysis, etc. to derive answers to philosophical issues. Reading the Wiki article about the subject may give you a glimpse of what it is and how it deals with problems - but the critical views about analytical philosophy at the bottom of the wiki page are also interesting.)

 

[marharth]

I think marharth's problem is the wording of his statement (unless I misunderstand it, which is always a possibility, given the limitations of language). I do no think he claims that only science should be applied to everything, rather he says: as science deals with observables, anything that is an observable (something we can experience as a perception) may be subject to experimentation and analysis and thus, scientific study, without excluding the validity of other methods ('methods' such as art, experience and philosophy).

You are correct. I am not very good at wording things.