(August 18, 2013 at 4:13 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: Emphasis on 'solely'. And if we based our science solely on what we already know, and not theorised about possibilities we would also never have progressed beyond Newtonian physics.
There is an enormous difference between theorizing possibilities(which btw, are confirmed through verifiability) and claiming things are true based on a process that cannot be verified.
(August 18, 2013 at 4:13 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: Then science is on equally shaky grounds. Christianity is founded on reason which is why some say science was it's natural byproduct. Exploration and experimentation is key, but that doesn't mean the fashionable zeitgeist of materialism over sense should discount a whole swathe of human endeavour, which is what you are promoting here.
Except the reason science is not on equally shaky grounds is through rigorous verifiability, which is why we are putting so much emphasis on it.
What I am promoting is the fallibility of the human mind's ability to come to correct conclusions about complex questions, which is why those conclusions must go through outside verification.
(August 18, 2013 at 4:13 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: *blinkers necessary for students wishing to replicate this experiment
What?
(August 18, 2013 at 4:13 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: No. As I'm saying: thinking that verifiable evidence is the new holy grail is a huge delusion.
The real delusion is thinking you can know something to be true without it.
Even if the open windows of science at first make us shiver after the cozy indoor warmth of traditional humanizing myths, in the end the fresh air brings vigor, and the great spaces have a splendor of their own - Bertrand Russell
