Legion Posted February 19, 2012 Share Posted February 19, 2012 I can't remember being disappointed with you before Deva. I guess there's a first for everything. Yeah? Line forms to the left. As I said (and which you editted out), I'll get over it. I reckon I'm startin' to get a real good bead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xerces Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 What could it be that rational people are looking into then that science falls short for them? My guess what be that they are not satisfied with the current knowledge, and assume they can find answers faster by using other methods. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antlerman Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 What could it be that rational people are looking into then that science falls short for them? My guess what be that they are not satisfied with the current knowledge, and assume they can find answers faster by using other methods. I don't see this as equatable to a disagreement with what science shows (which whom I'm referring to don't see it that way), nor some shortcut to "answers" bypassing science because it takes too long. My exact question was instead, what specifically are the areas that they are looking into that science falls short for them? And of those areas, is science really the correct tool, or ever will be? In other words, science is understood by these rational people, including scientists themselves as incapable, now or in the future, to offer insight, guidance or more importantly fulfillment for things it is simply not the right tool for. What areas might those be that you can think of? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xerces Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 What areas might those be that you can think of? Love, the meaning of life, those kinds of things I suppose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antlerman Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 What areas might those be that you can think of? Love, the meaning of life, those kinds of things I suppose. Is science the appropriate tool to understanding these things, or are there better ways of understanding the meaning or experience of these things and the knowledge they impart, rather than examining them as some object on a table in front of you? And if there are better more appropriate ways, what might those ways look like? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VacuumFlux Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 What areas might those be that you can think of? Love, the meaning of life, those kinds of things I suppose. Is science the appropriate tool to understanding these things, or are there better ways of understanding the meaning or experience of these things and the knowledge they impart, rather than examining them as some object on a table in front of you? And if there are better more appropriate ways, what might those ways look like? Science is great for intellectual, analytical understanding. But for a lot of mental things, science is like... reading an instruction manual but never picking up the tool. Studying science in the form of psychology may be great for putting words to everything that's wrong in your life, and maybe giving you some insight, but just knowing doesn't change much until you work at it and practice. Science may even help you figure out the most effective ways to go about changing your habits, but unless you actually do the work, that knowledge doesn't get you anywhere. I don't see questions like the meaning of life to be completely separate from scientific questions. But I do see that scientific knowledge is insufficient for bringing about change, or giving direction in life, or making you happy. Science is a fun way to dissect experiences, but most of those experiences can happen to me whether or not I understand the science behind them. In German, there are two different words for "to know"; one is informational, the other is experience. So if you've heard about this guy who's a friend of a friend and have collected a lot of facts about him, you can say you know about him (informational), but if you've never met the guy, you can't say you know him in the experiential sense. Science is the right tool for informational knowledge, but not for experiential knowledge. Another analogy is reading all about music theory and instrument building and books on how to play vs picking up an instrument and trying it out. The informational knowledge often makes the experiential more effective (like reading the manual), but it's not the same as actually doing the thing. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xerces Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 That actually makes a lot of sense. People probably seek out certain experiences to fill various voids in their life, even if those experiences come from something that might not be true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antlerman Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 That actually makes a lot of sense. People probably seek out certain experiences to fill various voids in their life, even if those experiences come from something that might not be true. This just sounds very strange. Of course people seek out fulfillment. That's part of being alive as a human being for every one of us. And yes seeking fulfillment in ways that are ultimately unfulfilling is part of that process, such as turning to endless sex and drugs when you are really looking for love. But saying "even if those experiences come from something that might not be true", is a bit odd. If you are gaining a genuine fulfillment through some means than whatever the means is, is valid. If it is valid, it is therefore truth, even if it is not a truth in the way that would satisfy a scientific inquiry into a material reality. It would be true instead in a philosophical sense, or in a spiritual sense. And that comes full circle back to this point that science does not hold the Answers for all aspects of life. For you to say it comes from something that might not be true, is looking at it solely in a scientific sense. Its like those who either try to prove or try to disprove the existence of God with science. It is an invalid tool for that. There is a saying I appreciate. It goes, "The God you don't believe in doesn't exist". Try to fit that into a scientific understanding of truth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xerces Posted February 25, 2012 Share Posted February 25, 2012 If philosophy is a byproduct of our brain, and our brain is a byproduct of evolution, I don't see why science couldn't be used. I know people seek out things, as you said, should've worded my post better. I dunno dude, ever since I left religion in the dust I haven't been able to get on board any spiritual boats. Can't find a reason to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts