Google

Wednesday, August 8, 2007

Why would you do this?

Why do we do anything? Of course, in order to question the preeminence of science I must first postulate that science can't do some things. In order to reasonably postulate (ask) this, I would have to postulate (claim) that science can not do everything. It is indeed my belief that science has some limitations because science has a scope and I believe there are things (real things) outside of that scope. I will however work with the assumption that science has no such limitations because science has extreme value and as such its usefulness is not in question. In doing this, I will be attempting to feel out its weaknesses; the points at which it is not useful.

My working theory is that not only is science not useful for the entire realm of possibilities that the universe has to offer, but that scientists, who on the whole are delightful, bright fellows with quite a lot going for them, can make mistakes and fall into precisely the same types of beliefs that the common human does and can be just as stubborn when defending them. It is to the credit of scientists however, that their philosophy includes the distinct possibility (and perhaps the expectation) that they can be wrong and will have to change their opinions if they are. Cheers scientists! You're worthy opponents!

If you think I sound like a philosopher, you may be right. Technically your would be right; I can't dispute your thoughts and perceptions because they belong to and are solely accessible by you. That being said, if anyone reading this blog thinks I am crazy, dumb, or wrong and sees reason to say so, I only ask that you back it up with some evidence. I am open to a wide range of possibilities, am rarely steadfast in my opinions, and recognize that the possibility exists for the existence people out there who understand things so far beyond my comprehension that I am like a child to them (if any of you are like that, I humbly ask for your help), but I do expect to be shown solid evidence, outright proof, or to be backed into a corner with logic.

I think it will be fun. It certainly has been so far. And if I'm careful, honest, and earnest, I might just learn something.

Links pertaining to this post:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science
http://www.gly.uga.edu/railsback/railsback_1122science1.html
http://megafoundation.org/CTMU/Articles/Theory.html
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/

No comments: