But that does not mean it is a trivial narrative. Scientists (physicalism) claim all of reality is just a physical process. This is false and I never believed that.
I am not against science. But philosophy cannot yield to science, which is a wholly different method of discovering truth.But, in admitting this, we have probably found the open channel.This is not a new idea; this is the idea of the age of reason. This is the philosophy that guided the men who made the democracy that we live under. The idea that no one really knew how to run a government led to the idea that we should arrange a system by which new ideas could be developed, tried out, and tossed out if necessary, with more new ideas brought in — a trial and error system. This method was a result of the fact that science was already showing itself to be a successful venture at the end of the eighteenth century. Even then it was clear to socially minded people that the openness of possibilities was an opportunity, and that doubt and discussion were essential to progress into the unknown. If we want to solve a problem that we have never solved before, we must leave the door to the unknown ajar.
- “The scientist has a lot of experience with ignorance and doubt and uncertainty, and this experience is of very great importance, I think.When a scientist doesn't know the answer to a problem, he is ignorant. When he has a hunch as to what the result is, he is uncertain. And when he is pretty darn sure of what the result is going to be, he is still in some doubt. We have found it of paramount importance that in order to progress we must recognize our ignorance and leave room for doubt. Scientific knowledge is a body of statements of varying degrees of certainty — some most unsure, some nearly sure, but none absolutely certain.
Now, we scientists are used to this, and we take it for granted that it is perfectly consistent to be unsure, that it is possible to live and not know. But I don't know whether everyone realizes this is true. Our freedom to doubt was born out of a struggle against authority in the early days of science. It was a very deep and strong struggle: permit us to question — to doubt — to not be sure. I think that it is important that we do not forget this struggle and thus perhaps lose what we have gained.- If we take everything into account — not only what the ancients knew, but all of what we know today that they didn't know — then I think that we must frankly admit that we do not know.
- We are at the very beginning of time for the human race. It is not unreasonable that we grapple with problems. But there are tens of thousands of years in the future. Our responsibility is to do what we can, learn what we can, improve the solutions, and pass them on...It is our responsibility to leave the people of the future a free hand. In the impetuous youth of humanity, we can make grave errors that can stunt our growth for a long time. This we will do if we say we have the answers now, so young and ignorant as we are. If we suppress all discussion, all criticism, proclaiming "This is the answer, my friends; man is saved!" we will doom humanity for a long time to the chains of authority, confined to the limits of our present imagination. It has been done so many times before.
...It is our responsibility as scientists, knowing the great progress which comes from a satisfactory philosophy of ignorance, the great progress which is the fruit of freedom of thought, to proclaim the value of this freedom; to teach how doubt is not to be feared but welcomed and discussed; and demand this freedom as our duty to all coming generations.”
-Richard Feynman
Richard Feynman - Wikiquote
en.m.wikiquote.org
The American philosopher Quine admitted that the truth of science cannot be epistemologically demonstrated. We accept the truth of science pragmatically because it works. But what is "it" that works? The movement of physical particles. Let's say a mother is grieving over the loss of a child. Physical particles? Yes, but explaining her grief in terms of physical operations is meaningless. Physical particles moving may be a necessary condition, but not a sufficient condition to explain the grief.
Not to get too graphic here, but--if philosophy for you is masturbating, why would anyone want to do it with you?
Oh boy, and I thought we were going to talk philosophy.
My point is that science explains almost nothing about our lives. If the woman is grieving and we want to offer relief, we need to understand why she is grieving. That is a very real and practical thing. Science explains nothing about her grief. Philosophy is about looking at causes, among other things.
No, nothing to do with psychology. It is epistemology. Science is actually quite limited in what it can explain. The physicalist epistemology of science is false.
No, not a philosophy of grieving. I am saying that science cannot explain grief because of its epistemology. Science has nothing to say about why a mother grieves.
I guess I am not understanding. If a mom has lost a child, you are saying psychology cannot explain it?
Evolutionary biology just takes our experience of the world and says, hey, it's biology! Not an explanation. Physicalism in science is a metaphysics. It cannot be proven true or false.
So you see psychology as physicalist also?
Why would it be seen as an extreme form of cowardice?
does this work?
You do realise that science also covers subjects such as psychology. Which deal with the emotions you think science does not cover.
Many think a physical explanation is sufficient to explain the event. This is false.
