> There may well be more to understanding something than what science can know about it. I'm pretty sure I mentioned that. But who knows? Maybe I just did too

> There may well be more to understanding something than what science can know about it. I'm pretty sure I mentioned that. But who knows? Maybe I just did too much acid back in the hippy days. The amount of literature on The Knowledge Argument is staggering, and there are many ways out of the apparent paradox. Frank Jackson who came up with the Knowledge Argument was using it to argue that mental states do not supervene on physical ones. I.e., one's mental states are not uniquely determined in the space of all possible worlds by one's physical state. (He later changed his mind about this, however, and is no longer a dualist.) One way out of dualism is, as you hinted at, is to maintain that even if dualism is false, there are things that you can't know without having a certain concept in your head, and the only way to get the concept in your head is to have a certain experience which puts your mind into a state that you could not get to via pondering alone. Another way out of dualism is to deny that Mary acquired any new knowledge when she sees the ripe tomato. Etc, etc. And the philosophers will probably be arguing about Mary for the next thousand years.