Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Religion
In reply to the discussion: On science, scientism, and the limits of scientific inquiry... [View all]Silent3
(15,186 posts)41. I take that comment you quote from the OP...
Last edited Wed Apr 4, 2012, 09:06 AM - Edit history (2)
...""What I don't understand is why people assume this reliance on empirical evience is somehow limiting.", as meaning, in context, particularly limiting, limiting as compared to some other means of obtaining knowledge.
I rather doubt that the poster of the OP is an absolute scientific optimist who insists that science can and will solve all mysteries. If it became clear that he/she is that extreme, I'd point out that I don't share that unyielding optimism.
When we say a hammer is just a tool, are we disparaging the hammer?
If, when doing so, there was often a sneer in the tone, if you'd invented a word "hammerism" to describe people who weren't fond using other vaguely described tools, tools with unproven results... then yes, I'd call that disparaging.
Intuition and gut feelings are "other ways of knowing", and they are often much more accurate than "science".
Intuition has been discussed many times before. I do not consider it a "way of knowing". It is a way of guessing. Sometimes a very effective form of guessing, but guessing nevertheless. Those guesses don't become knowledge (in any particularly useful or strong sense of that word) until they've been put to some sort of test.
Intuition certainly enjoys the benefits of the doubt and a PR campaign that any politician would envy. Make a choice that turns out well, and intuition often gets the credit. Make a choice that turns out badly, and you think back to all the conflicted thoughts running through your head when you made that choice, decide that some other option that had been floating through your mind was the one that "felt right", the intuitive choice you shouldn't have ignored, and then maybe even blame "thinking too much" for not having made that other choice.
I certainly don't think it has been proven, or that it's even reasonable to hypothesize, that intuition is anything more than unconscious heuristics -- just in case you classify intuition as some sort of mystical direct insight into Truth Itself.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
95 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
On science, scientism, and the limits of scientific inquiry... [View all]
Humanist_Activist
Mar 2012
OP
Your solid and thoughtful argument is exactly why we need a a multiple number of voices in these
Thats my opinion
Mar 2012
#8
Actually modern scientific method is based on falsifiability, not necessarily logical positivism...
Humanist_Activist
Mar 2012
#6
"Science, as I said, broke from philosophy over 100 years ago" - The Vienna Circle met less than 100
humblebum
Mar 2012
#12
You do realize that science, as a disciplined method predates the Vienna circle, right?
Humanist_Activist
Mar 2012
#17
You seem to be confusing pure mathematics and computational theories with the rest of science...
Humanist_Activist
Mar 2012
#18
"No one is saying science knows everything, that science can solve all problems"
bananas
Apr 2012
#39
I hope you're giving bonus points for anecdotes and double points for confirmation bias!
laconicsax
Apr 2012
#94
If there is any physical reaction in that space at any time, detectable or not,
humblebum
Apr 2012
#50
Your nothing, sir, still is a something. And you arrived at your defintion of nothing by
humblebum
Apr 2012
#55
That's interesting, especially since I was talking about your definition of "nothing."
laconicsax
Apr 2012
#56
The physical event immediately prior to your "spontaneous creation" pretty much
humblebum
Apr 2012
#60
This is what I find to be the most humorous part of your argument. You are actually
humblebum
Apr 2012
#52
Climate modeling is not tea leaf reading. Tea leaf reading is not climate modeling.
Silent3
Apr 2012
#62
Again, you seem to know little about progressive christians and christian groups.
cbayer
Apr 2012
#68
"work with communities and within movements to promote liberal and progressive causes"
SamG
Apr 2012
#76
this whole post is about "believers"and what they do or do not do. Attack #18
Thats my opinion
Apr 2012
#82
Yes, so just talking about the actions (or inactions) of believers is also an attack.
eqfan592
Apr 2012
#90
Those of us who ask questions we believe to be in a addition to science are accused--
Thats my opinion
Apr 2012
#77