As I have related to Prahlad, we have seen some, who claim the mantle of science, who do, in my own view, overstep the proper bounds of science:
http://hardblue.livejournal.com/616759.html
In your discussion with him you say, "Whether it wants to come to terms with it or not, using the scientific method comes with a whole host of implicit decisions about the nature of reality."
I think that goes with your discussion here about "deeper layers" and how there are other factors in our physical reality.
These implicit decisions and layers are your inherited and acquired values, and everyone has these when it comes to dealing with science and its work. This is what I mean about people doing with science what they will in the political arena, so to speak. But your values and interpretions are not more authoritative to others who don't share your culture and your values. Your interpretions are no more authoritation than the Islamists. They are yours and you can act on them. But they are not more authoritative as to what is the physical world and its workings than that which has been represented in the enterprise of science.
But, yes, science as understood here is at the service or the mercy of other values. You can be a Quaker and deny all the technological developments. Rulers can say that the sun and all revolves around the earth and punish you for saying otherwise. Such stances may be more authoritative as a matter of political and military might, but they are not more authoritative in the long run as to our best understanding of the physical world.
Science is more transcendent than particular cultures and religions. If there is intelligent life on another planet, we will share the language of math and science, just as we share the same physical universe.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2007-05-03 01:26 am (UTC)From:http://hardblue.livejournal.com/616759.html
In your discussion with him you say, "Whether it wants to come to terms with it or not, using the scientific method comes with a whole host of implicit decisions about the nature of reality."
I think that goes with your discussion here about "deeper layers" and how there are other factors in our physical reality.
These implicit decisions and layers are your inherited and acquired values, and everyone has these when it comes to dealing with science and its work. This is what I mean about people doing with science what they will in the political arena, so to speak. But your values and interpretions are not more authoritative to others who don't share your culture and your values. Your interpretions are no more authoritation than the Islamists. They are yours and you can act on them. But they are not more authoritative as to what is the physical world and its workings than that which has been represented in the enterprise of science.
But, yes, science as understood here is at the service or the mercy of other values. You can be a Quaker and deny all the technological developments. Rulers can say that the sun and all revolves around the earth and punish you for saying otherwise. Such stances may be more authoritative as a matter of political and military might, but they are not more authoritative in the long run as to our best understanding of the physical world.
Science is more transcendent than particular cultures and religions. If there is intelligent life on another planet, we will share the language of math and science, just as we share the same physical universe.