RE: Is God a logical contradiction?
February 23, 2020 at 12:43 pm
(This post was last modified: February 23, 2020 at 1:22 pm by John 6IX Breezy.)
(February 22, 2020 at 7:37 am)The Grand Nudger Wrote: "...science, which proceeds from reductionism."
"All well and good, but if you take an anti-reductive position, you cannot then assert and thus require the truth of what you would attempt to disprove. In this case, a body of reductive facts. That would be a stolen concept."
Science has limits; being mindful of where it's tools and methods can't reach, either presently or indefinitely, is part of being a scientist. Pointing out that a hammer isn't good for cleaning widows, isn't a rejection of hammers being good for hammering, despite what you would have us believe. Its not a bundled package; you can view consciousness as irreducible and water as reducible without contradiction.
We saw that cognitive scientist David Chalmers views subjective experience as irreducible. We've seen that neurobiologist Robert Sapolsky views purely reductive explanations of vision as problematic.
I've asked you before for a reference stating that cognitive science is logically dependant on reductionism; or that science proceeds from reductionism. This is the cornerstone of your argument, without it there is no stolen concept, and yet not only have you failed to find such a reference, I've been successful at finding examples of scientists that do view reduction as limited.