Because I knew you would, and you would do it better than I could hope. OUTSTANDING work!
Also, well done for using the phrase "begs the question" correctly: "How do you explain auras?" does indeed assume that "Do auras exist?" has been answered, and that there is an explanation other than "they do not".
Yeah. "Storm" is great, and I get *chills* at the line "Isn't this enough? Just... this?" YES! Yes, this is enough, this is more than enough, there is more *THIS* than I can ever, ever experience! How glorious to have senses! How glorious to be corporeal!
I'm not surprised most of the answers are upsetting. It was a loaded question. The inverse is "Do you believe in the paranormal?" This question isn't about science at its core, it's about materialism vs. spiritualism. But people are usually ill equipped to have real metaphysics discussions. :)
Consider yourself friended, mister. You're all time-lordy and sciencey, so I am intrigued and wish to sign up to your newsletter.
Ok... so I hadn't committed to reading the whole post yet... but it looks awesome so far... I just wanted to wish you a very empirical and clearly defined Birthday!
Then I deleted my comment cause I put it in the wrong spot in my distraction. I noticed it AFTER I read your post though... uh... so I really don't have any reason not to comment now. Honestly... I don't even have a reason to explain all that. Hmph.
This might even be a little bit of circular reasoning, because scientific explanations only encompass those things that are responsive to the methodology of science. Not inherently circular so much as tiered. I got what you were saying, but wanted to point out something less tangible... but I didn't have it right until I read your later comments about social sciences later
( ... )
See... I knew I wasn't clear... I thought that was what I said... lol.
Everything can be answered scientifically... provided our philosophies evolve enough to elucidate the evidence.
Your example is choice, actually... I think if Political Science and Geology got into a "who is more science-y" fight, Political Science would end up in the hospital.
Which I expect SOUNDS like an insult to Political Science, but that assertion assumes that (per societal norms) I don't respect philosophy.
"Hard science", "Soft Science", and "Philosophy" are... vague and tenuous titles at best.
A lot of it I expect comes to down Ego, we all want our thing to be "real".
While in many respects, engineering is a science, engineers tend to be kids with blocks... following any sort of scientific procedure would dramatically damage the capacity of the field to grow
( ... )
Saying "How do you explain auras" as a litmus test for scientific impotence is equivalent to saying a little striped catterpillar is not a danaus plexippus because it doesn't have orange wings.I mentioned auras because I believe that the inverse of the question "Do you think that everything has a scientific explanation?" is "Do you believe in the paranormal?" I do not think that you can answer yes to both of those questions. For me, the answer is yes to the first and no to the second. Auras seem, to me, to usually be formulated as something of the paranormal. I have heard people try to explain auras as something that arises materialistically-- Wilhelm Reich's "orgone" for example, or as electromagnetic energy that is visible to some people-- but all of those explanations, even though grounded in the material, are *not* scientific. There may *be* a scientific explanation for auras, but before we can explore that, we have to have a way to prove that auras actually exist as something separate from those who report perceiving them
( ... )
Comments 16
Because I knew you would, and you would do it better than I could hope. OUTSTANDING work!
Also, well done for using the phrase "begs the question" correctly: "How do you explain auras?" does indeed assume that "Do auras exist?" has been answered, and that there is an explanation other than "they do not".
Oh, and on the subject, from Tim Minchin:
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Consider yourself friended, mister. You're all time-lordy and sciencey, so I am intrigued and wish to sign up to your newsletter.
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
Lizzie and I are leaving for camping tomorrow morning -- I am going to go be out on the land for my birfday.
I honestly don't think I could do that much meat, anyway. I've been eating so little meat lately, I think I would get sick. Y'all have a blast!
Reply
Then I deleted my comment cause I put it in the wrong spot in my distraction. I noticed it AFTER I read your post though... uh... so I really don't have any reason not to comment now. Honestly... I don't even have a reason to explain all that. Hmph.
This might even be a little bit of circular reasoning, because scientific explanations only encompass those things that are responsive to the methodology of science.
Not inherently circular so much as tiered. I got what you were saying, but wanted to point out something less tangible... but I didn't have it right until I read your later comments about social sciences later ( ... )
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
Everything can be answered scientifically... provided our philosophies evolve enough to elucidate the evidence.
Your example is choice, actually... I think if Political Science and Geology got into a "who is more science-y" fight, Political Science would end up in the hospital.
Which I expect SOUNDS like an insult to Political Science, but that assertion assumes that (per societal norms) I don't respect philosophy.
"Hard science", "Soft Science", and "Philosophy" are... vague and tenuous titles at best.
A lot of it I expect comes to down Ego, we all want our thing to be "real".
While in many respects, engineering is a science, engineers tend to be kids with blocks... following any sort of scientific procedure would dramatically damage the capacity of the field to grow ( ... )
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment