(February 18, 2015 at 3:50 am)robvalue Wrote: My point was that if you are interested in finding out the truth of a claim, science is the only way to do it. There is no "other system" which can take over when science cannot "deal with" the claim. It's the claim that is the problem if science cannot deal with it. Usually because it's unfalsifiable.
If your "other system" has any inherent logic and consistent methodology, then it is scientific. It may be a really bad attempt at science and utterly flawed however. Which is what happens when you try to prove unfalsifiable claims.
I get what you're saying, Rob. I think that there are different kinds of truths. Some are objective and measurable, and science -- or mathematics -- is the perfect tool for getting at them. Others are logical, and that is the discipline you should use to address them.
But there are other sorts of truths as well, that are personal and subjective, but every bit as real, to us, as we experience them, and science is powerless to describe them. I've buried my father. What is the science of that, and does the science describe the experience? I've held my son in my arms. Same questions for you.
You wouldn't use feelings to describe the structure of RNA. Why would you use science to describe the structure of emotions? There is your non-overlapping magisteria.
