>That is the essence of my argument. Since life is anything but simple we
>delude ourselves into thinking that we can eventually explain all of it with
>"science."
So what you offer is eternal unknowing? We can never know therefore we can
believe whatever we want but won't ever be able to know. That view reduces
all experience knowledge to mere belief.
>
>I have always said that unique events are outside of the purview of
>science--science in the sense of physics. Cosmology is the only case in
>physics which is different.
>
>We can make statistical predictions of the life of stars and presumably we
>do not fully understand what is really happening out there. I think of
>evolutionary theory as forensic science. But when you get to the deep
>philosophical assumptions being made, one realizes that some scientists
>annihilate all forms of knowledge and reduce everything to science. That can
>result in bad science not to say a confused human being.
But surely we can't evade every problem our viewpoint has with the mere
dismissal that "we can't ever KNOW". That is reducing all viewpoints to the
lowest common denominator, it is merely belief and nothing more. It appears
that you are suggesting that instead of reducing all forms of knowledge to
science, that we reduce all forms of knowledge to belief. Thus all
viewpoints are logically and evidentially equivalent and this simply isn't so.
With this view, why do you do physics? What possible knowledge can you ever
glean?
glenn
Adam, Apes, and Anthropology: Finding the Soul of Fossil Man
and
Foundation, Fall and Flood
http://www.isource.net/~grmorton/dmd.htm