It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by luciddream
"Why" is not logical question, because no one can answer that, Science does not give purpose to nature, it explains the way it is. The tree is just there, no one can explain WHY its there, they can explains whats it doing but science would never say the tree is only there to produce oxygen, unless you bring in the magical genie from happy land.
Why am I here?
Why do organisms adapt/evolve?
1) (Reframe into a how) Because the Big Bang happened over 13 billion years ago and a whole chain of events happened that led to random mutations in life, and natural selection weeded out the ill-equipped life forms, leaving the ones who inherited advantageous mutations.
2) (Admit science’s limitation but maintain egotism) There is no way to know that. I don’t know, you don’t know, no one knows. It just happens. Stop asking this question
I see these archetypes constantly on ATS. Here are a few of the big examples of scientism encroaching on material it is ill-equipped to handle
My advice to scientists is to learn to use some of the other forms of rationality and logic
Originally posted by TheJourney
it is important to note that 'science' in the typical western sense is based on empericism. Empericism being knowledge obtained through observation. The 'Scientific Method' is a method for framing observations to reach conclusions.
There is another primary school of philosophic thought, though, called Rationalism.
Rationalism stresses that perception can never be fully counted on, and says that the path to true knowledge is through figuring out logical certainties. 1+1=2 is a simple example of a logical certainty. Empericism, 'science,' is based on observation. Rationalism is based on logic. If you do any research into rationalism, or simply explore absolute logic yourself, you will find that PURE LOGIC leads to quite different views of reality than is typically espoused through the 'scientific worldview.'
To say Science is the 'method of logic' is inaccurate. The guiding assumption of science is that observation is the way to truth, not logic.edit on 23-5-2012 by TheJourney because: (no reason given)