3 ms·
> 'How are we to reconcile this commonsense “manifest image” of the world with the quantitative “scientific image” (to borrow philosopher Wilfrid Sellars’ famou
by 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 agoNo, 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 agoI 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.