RE: No reason justifies disbelief.
March 25, 2019 at 5:36 am
(This post was last modified: March 25, 2019 at 5:58 am by The Grand Nudger.)
(March 24, 2019 at 11:21 pm)bennyboy Wrote:(March 24, 2019 at 10:53 pm)Gae Bolga Wrote: That's nice, whatever it is you think you're commenting on...but hasn't and can't still aren't interchangeable. I still wonder why you think this, and why/how you think you know it.
-and, ofc, why it would even matter?
Again. . . this is an idea that you've introduced, and you're commenting on it as though I said it. Did I say hasn't = can't?
I would say that if you want to assert that science can answer all kinds of questions, then you'll have to demonstrate this to be true. As you know, I'm perfectly willing to demonstrate that the evidence is against science answering certain kinds of questions: because of the nature of the question, and because of the nature of science.
Why do I think science cannot explain psychogony? Because we are limited to objective observations, and mind is subjective. You can't examine a mind in the lab.
-and yet it's an active field of research
Quote:Why do I think science cannot explain ultimate cosmogony? Because it's limited to material observations from within the Universe, and because we have no reason to believe that limitation can be transcended.-and yet it's an active field of research
Quote:It's not just "Science hasn't solved this, so it can't." There are plenty of unsolved problems that I feel pretty sure will be solved. I expect, for example, a general cure to cancer within a century.
You started by denying that you've been making this claim, then made it twice again, lol. I appreciate that you tried to give reasons, though, even if I don't find them remotely compelling or even marginally cogent.
I'd still love to hear why you think it would matter, since we're unlikely to make progress on the reasons for your belief, and those things above are ultimately not important to the overarching conversation in the first place. Let's say that your cant's were in effect. What would that signify? If some particular tool of ours simply wasn;t the right tool, could that be taken to suggest or certify that there were a right tool, that we possessed that tool, or that there was anything in the set that our current tools couldn't address?
(March 25, 2019 at 5:25 am)ohreally Wrote:(March 25, 2019 at 12:42 am)Abaddon_ire Wrote: I'm not sure that is quite right. "Intuition" can still work absent any data at all. Data is not required. I suspect that baseless intuition is preferentially selected by evolution and the unintended consequence is religion.
If something is selected for via evolution then there is surely something we can measure that is involved in the root DNA and any changes to it therein.
It may be that the contents of our intuition and those things innately known are not our own personal observations..but the sum of our biological inheritance....that then present themselves to us prior to any local observation.
This contemporary form of intuitivism/innatism is referred to as nativism.
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
