3 ms·
Calling his statement "Faith in science" doesn't change the validity of the claim in any way. It is useful to assume there aren't limits, meaning that it can p
by Vraxx 12y ago
Calling his statement "Faith in science" doesn't change the validity of the claim in any way. It is useful to assume there aren't limits, meaning that it can produce physically observable and usable predictions. I'd say that is a pretty decent reason to hold a belief.
There seems to be a negative connotation to the phrase "faith in science" because faith and science are pitted as opposites here. The only difference is I can see plenty of reasons to have faith in something that has repeatedly given useful feedback, so I'm not even sure the phrase deserves all of the negative connotation it receives.
- collyw 12y agoI agree that science has been incredibly useful and reliable in predicting the physical world. That's the point. Consciousness is an unknown. We can't see it, touch it or measure it in any way. Does it have a mass or a shape or a size? Science hasn't done a very good job of explaining consciousness at all.
- cromwellian 12y agoAnd so because we currently don't have any good definitions, data, or explanation, we should therefore assume it's not possible and stop scientific research into consciousness?
- hackinthebochs 12y agoSure it has. Science has done quite a bit at explaining consciousness. It still has a long way to go but we are much further along than we were pre-science. > We can't see it, touch it or measure it in any way. Consciousness interacts with the world through its affect on material substances. And so there is a window by which we can study consciousness objectively.