tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5561923483541812971.post4622599704899313136..comments2023-07-07T04:21:56.577-07:00Comments on azizhp: The Appeal to Other Ways of KnowingAziz P.http://www.blogger.com/profile/11825546047253660903noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5561923483541812971.post-27877517268917897122007-01-08T16:25:00.000-08:002007-01-08T16:25:00.000-08:00This is simple relativism. You have not refuted Sk...This is simple relativism. You have not refuted Skeptico's argument.<br><br>"I think it's pretty obvious that there are ways of knowing other than the scientific one. And that it's fairly obvious that the scientific method is not the only source of truth."<br><br>This is argument from personal conviction, and doesn't hold water.<br><br>"My knowledge that my love for my wife and child exists today is acquired without the scientific method, and the scientific method cannot explain why that love endures."<br><br>Your love for your wife and child is subjective. This clearly takes it out of the realm of scientific inquiry. BUT, science can and does speak to the chemical basis for your love, and even questions the idea whether you are free to love or not love in given circumstances. It may all be genetically and chemically deterministic. Question: Why do relationships often end after the amount of time it would take to raise a child to walk on its own? Ev-psych speaks to this and other problems of human nature.<br><br>Godel's incompleteness theorem shows reasoning and proof can never be perfect. It does not follow that they are not the best methods we have available.<br><br>You seem to accept the pre-eminence of science with your statement "Example: Neither Newtonian mechanics nor Relativity suffice to describe the N-body problem. However, they do represent stages of an asymptotically improving model of the Universe."<br><br>So exactly how do "other ways of knowing" improve on the best we've got?<br><br>"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"<br><br>This is circular. Certainly you can't prove a negative. I'm sure you are familiar with Russell's Teapot argument. So we remain skeptical, and look for positive evidence and falsifiability.<br><br>Many people simply don't want to accept absolutes. Even if we can't have certainty, high statistical probability beats new-age, post-modern gobbledygook every time. We need hard-knowledge to make decisions about our lives. Science offers the best source for this. Despite the philosophical hubris of some, our preferences and desires do not change the nature of the universe.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com