3 ms·
"...the existence of the self, a subject that’s still scientifically unsettled." Shit like this, philosophers, is why scientists don't (and can't, and shouldn'
by ewjordan 10y ago
"...the existence of the self, a subject that’s still scientifically unsettled."
Shit like this, philosophers, is why scientists don't (and can't, and shouldn't) engage. The words to use are "scientifically undefined", not "scientifically unsettled" - you can't just argue over definitions for centuries and then blame science for that fact that none of you can agree on what you're talking about, if anything.
You enter the realm of science when you have a testable hypothesis, not just some vague idea that reeks of dualism that you can't conceive of not being a "real thing", like consciousness or self.
- stoichiometry 10y ago...screamed the unliving blob of flesh, at the cold, faceless, chaotic vacuum.
- wavefunction 10y agoI wonder what would have happened had Newton not been interested in the nature of light.
- pboutros 10y agoI would attribute the (mis)use of that word a little bit more to the author of the article, and a little bit less to 'centuries of philosophers' - many of whom were scientists.
- smt88 10y agoTo add on to that: science is based on philosophy, and philosophy also tells us where the limits of science are (see: Problem of Induction). By using the scientific method, scientists are taking a strong philosophical stance (and certainly not a universal one) whether they like it or not.