3 ms·

Your comment would be more interesting if you could provide supporting arguments instead of mere accusations, imagined motives and insults.

smackeyacky 5y ago
Just trying to fit in with the style of the piece itself. e.g. the following quote 'faith” is often pitted against “science” (even by those friendly to the former) as if “science” were synonymous with “reason.”' Lots of scare quotes around science and reason, an unfounded accusation without supporting evidence (faith is often pitted against science? By whom? When are they doing this or did the author just decide it's so true he doesn't have to back up his argument? As for inferring motive, he provides that himself: 'How are we to reconcile this commonsense “manifest image” of the world with the quantitative “scientific image” (to borrow philosopher Wilfrid Sellars’ famous distinction)? The answer is that they cannot be reconciled.' He has rejected objective measurement of the world because it can't be reconciled with his "manifest image" - his lived experience which you can infer involves religion of some sort. This guy is an associate professor? I pity his students.
- marcus_holmes 5y ago
  > 'How are we to reconcile this commonsense “manifest image” of the world with the quantitative “scientific image” (to borrow philosopher Wilfrid Sellars’ famous distinction)? The answer is that they cannot be reconciled.' This was the point I lost interest. Why is that the answer? What evidence do you have that that is the answer? I think a large number of neuroscientists would consider themselves as working on reconciling these two images - so dismissing all their work as impossible or futile seems premature, if not arrogant.
  - smackeyacky 5y ago
    No, we already know our senses aren't sufficient to document and understand our universe. We need instruments to do the things we can't do ourselves. To somehow elevate our limited experience gathering capabilities because they don't give the same answers as the scientific method is a flawed dead end.
    - marcus_holmes 5y ago
      I think the author was more heading the other way - that mere science cannot possibly explain or even comprehend the world of meaning that we actually experience. Which is probably not true, as we come to understand our brains better. But you're also right.

smackeyacky 5y ago

Just trying to fit in with the style of the piece itself. e.g. the following quote 'faith” is often pitted against “science” (even by those friendly to the former) as if “science” were synonymous with “reason.”' Lots of scare quotes around science and reason, an unfounded accusation without supporting evidence (faith is often pitted against science? By whom? When are they doing this or did the author just decide it's so true he doesn't have to back up his argument? As for inferring motive, he provides that himself: 'How are we to reconcile this commonsense “manifest image” of the world with the quantitative “scientific image” (to borrow philosopher Wilfrid Sellars’ famous distinction)? The answer is that they cannot be reconciled.' He has rejected objective measurement of the world because it can't be reconciled with his "manifest image" - his lived experience which you can infer involves religion of some sort. This guy is an associate professor? I pity his students.

marcus_holmes 5y ago
> 'How are we to reconcile this commonsense “manifest image” of the world with the quantitative “scientific image” (to borrow philosopher Wilfrid Sellars’ famous distinction)? The answer is that they cannot be reconciled.' This was the point I lost interest. Why is that the answer? What evidence do you have that that is the answer? I think a large number of neuroscientists would consider themselves as working on reconciling these two images - so dismissing all their work as impossible or futile seems premature, if not arrogant.
- smackeyacky 5y ago
  No, we already know our senses aren't sufficient to document and understand our universe. We need instruments to do the things we can't do ourselves. To somehow elevate our limited experience gathering capabilities because they don't give the same answers as the scientific method is a flawed dead end.
  - marcus_holmes 5y ago
    I think the author was more heading the other way - that mere science cannot possibly explain or even comprehend the world of meaning that we actually experience. Which is probably not true, as we come to understand our brains better. But you're also right.