Dr. Manhattan from Watchmen epitomizes the scientific attitude (re: the Comedian’s murder):
“A live body and a dead body contain the same number of particles. Structurally there’s no discernible difference. Life and death are unquantifiable abstracts. Why should I be concerned?"
“A live body and a dead body contain the same number of particles. Structurally there’s no discernible difference. Life and death are unquantifiable abstracts. Why should I be concerned?"
EVERY science begins with a number of foundational principles that are THEMSELVES non-scientific.
Physics begins from the idea that there is a material world, that it is uniform, that it is regular, etc.
Physics begins from the idea that there is a material world, that it is uniform, that it is regular, etc.
Biology begins the the assumption that there are living beings.
This is of course not an irrational thing to believe. It is actually true.
But the point is that SCIENCE doesn’t know that it is true. Physics can’t tell a “living being” from any other being.
This is of course not an irrational thing to believe. It is actually true.
But the point is that SCIENCE doesn’t know that it is true. Physics can’t tell a “living being” from any other being.
Again, there is nothing out of order in the fact that every science depends on basic assumptions that cannot (1) be demonstrated within that science itself, or (2) by science at all.
This is structurally what science is like.
But not enough people know this.
This is structurally what science is like.
But not enough people know this.
What it means is that science is a second-order kind of knowing. It is a method employed to understand the world we ALREADY live in, and know a great deal about, PRIOR TO science.
We know many things about the world that science CANNOT know, because its method excludes them.
We know many things about the world that science CANNOT know, because its method excludes them.
Science is a powerful TOOL for knowledge, but a bizarre impression arose that either (1) it is the only tool, or (2) it is an omni-tool, which MUST be able to know everything knowable.
“Science is our only tool for knowing things” is a self-defeating, because science cannot KNOW that.
“Science can know everything that can be known” is straightforwardly false, since its method excludes things—goods are the most obvious example.
“Science can know everything that can be known” is straightforwardly false, since its method excludes things—goods are the most obvious example.
“Science is our best tool for knowing” is highly contestable. I don’t think it is, for reasons I’ll attach as an image.
“Science is a pretty good tool for knowing physical nature insofar is it can be measured and quantified.” Yes, this.
“Science is a pretty good tool for knowing physical nature insofar is it can be measured and quantified.” Yes, this.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
