Thank you. My wording caused confusion. The only reason I mitigated was to allow for the possibility that something can have a physical, scientific explanation beyond the reach of humanity.
So:
If the universe is only made up of matter
and science is the study of matter
and through enough proper "science," scientists can explain all physical phenomenon
then science can explain the universe.
Then, separately:
men are limited intellectually and technologically
some science is hard
men may not be able to understand everything about the universe because some answers may be beyond their ability
Quote:
Originally Posted by beppe
Hello nguirado,
you use 3 times the world everything. The first time this use is not justified except from a blind faith in science which is in contrast with the argument.
Let me expand. The word potentially, that you prep-end, apparently mitigates the rigidity of the world everything, but it is inappropriate. In my opinion it is just hopeful. I have a strong opinion about this. I do not know of a single instance in which science has been capable of describing any single episode of reality with absolute precision. "Absolute" has the same "rigidity" of "everything".
It is my experience that whenever some non scientist, or quite often when a scientist with non scientific purposes, makes a statement about science, inadvertently or on purpose, his reasoning becomes fuzzy (from a scientific point of view)
Your reasoning has merits though, that probably might still float. To me it would be quite helpful if you recast it without making use of rigid words that when used outside a logic problem have a tendency to bring more damage then benefits.
|