(July 21, 2012 at 12:23 pm)Felasco Wrote: We don't even know what the phrase "all of reality" refers to.
A doctor doesn't know every detail about "all of human body" either. That doesn't mean he is not qualified to practice medicine.
(July 21, 2012 at 12:23 pm)Felasco Wrote: This challenge is completely unrelated to the statement you are referencing. Try again please.
The challenge of epistemological nature regarding the statement's epistemological nature is very very much related to it. Try a better excuse.
(July 21, 2012 at 12:23 pm)Felasco Wrote: How big is reality? Please give us it's dimensions, and we can go from there.
What makes you think that question is even valid? That reality is something that can be measured in dimensions?
(July 21, 2012 at 12:23 pm)Felasco Wrote: When will science end? If you answer hundreds or thousands of years, or never, then it follows we currently know pretty close to nothing. Very little in any case.
Irrelevant. It still doesn't show that anything is beyond its scope.
(July 21, 2012 at 12:23 pm)Felasco Wrote: How big is reality please. This would seem to be a very basic question about reality. If you don't know how big reality is, then you don't know how big your sample size is either. That is, we don't know what the relationship is between the known and the unknown. The known might be a meaningful sample of the unknown, or it might be a completely meaningless sample.
Why is it reason to come to a sweeping firm conclusion based on an unknown sample size?
What, in your deluded mind, makes you think that that is even a valid question? Do scientists ask the questions "what color is the universe" or "how bid is human mind"? Do they study these things anyway? Do you see declarations of size of the sample or the "size of the gamma rays"? Does that make the study meaningless? I think you better study language before you tackle metaphysics.
