Comments on: Boundaries of Science http://arbitrarymarks.com/wordpress/2007/09/12/boundaries-of-science/ Religion and philosophy, in no particular order Fri, 09 Jan 2009 21:41:16 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.2 By: arbitrarymarks.com » Blog Archive » Subjective knowledge http://arbitrarymarks.com/wordpress/2007/09/12/boundaries-of-science/#comment-8888 arbitrarymarks.com » Blog Archive » Subjective knowledge Thu, 13 Sep 2007 15:31:41 +0000 http://arbitrarymarks.com/wordpress/2007/09/12/boundaries-of-science/#comment-8888 [...] language” is God’s way of saying,... Chalicechick: THAT is an awesome quote. CC Scott Gerard Prinster: Even the word “boundaries” seems to me to carry a certain... Ponder Stibbons: Firstly, [...] [...] language” is God’s way of saying,… Chalicechick: THAT is an awesome quote. CC Scott Gerard Prinster: Even the word “boundaries” seems to me to carry a certain… Ponder Stibbons: Firstly, [...]

]]> By: ck http://arbitrarymarks.com/wordpress/2007/09/12/boundaries-of-science/#comment-8845 ck Wed, 12 Sep 2007 21:27:28 +0000 http://arbitrarymarks.com/wordpress/2007/09/12/boundaries-of-science/#comment-8845 Scott, thanks for coming by (your blog and project looks interesting). Your thoughts are good: 1. I'd say that yes, the idea that science is at the center is problematic. It would only be at some kind of center in the way that human knowing is central (it is the only way we can engage with the world). But there is a certain "character" to scientific knowledge--third-person, repeatable or objective, publicly available, etc. 2. I am not sure about faith/knowledge--I think that, as a human activity, faith has something in common with science. But I have some reservations about whether it can provide knowledge, depending on how you construe "knowledge." If we deflate faith to the kind of unjustified, every day trust we have in the existence of other minds, that a chair will hold us up, etc., then I don't think we're talking about the sort of religious faith most practitioners mean. But that's all beside the point of this post and your comment! Scott, thanks for coming by (your blog and project looks interesting). Your thoughts are good:

1. I’d say that yes, the idea that science is at the center is problematic. It would only be at some kind of center in the way that human knowing is central (it is the only way we can engage with the world). But there is a certain “character” to scientific knowledge–third-person, repeatable or objective, publicly available, etc.

2. I am not sure about faith/knowledge–I think that, as a human activity, faith has something in common with science. But I have some reservations about whether it can provide knowledge, depending on how you construe “knowledge.” If we deflate faith to the kind of unjustified, every day trust we have in the existence of other minds, that a chair will hold us up, etc., then I don’t think we’re talking about the sort of religious faith most practitioners mean.

But that’s all beside the point of this post and your comment!

]]> By: Scott Gerard Prinster http://arbitrarymarks.com/wordpress/2007/09/12/boundaries-of-science/#comment-8843 Scott Gerard Prinster Wed, 12 Sep 2007 20:27:17 +0000 http://arbitrarymarks.com/wordpress/2007/09/12/boundaries-of-science/#comment-8843 Even the word "boundaries" seems to me to carry a certain assumption, which is that science is the center where we start, and other kinds of knowledge are on the periphery, or even out there in the wilderness. I've gotten into the habit of reminding myself that whatever means of knowing we use shapes the knowledge it produces, giving a certain kind of character to it. The use of science to know the world produces a certain kind of knowledge, which is not the only kind of wisdom. The use of faith to know the world produces a very different kind of knowledge, but is also not the only knowledge available to us. Poetry, service, contemplation, experience, and so on... we encounter the world in many different ways, and each gives its own shape to the knowledge it produces. None of them are the entirety, and it's not obvious to me that any of them are necessarily the center. What an amazing life! Even the word “boundaries” seems to me to carry a certain assumption, which is that science is the center where we start, and other kinds of knowledge are on the periphery, or even out there in the wilderness. I’ve gotten into the habit of reminding myself that whatever means of knowing we use shapes the knowledge it produces, giving a certain kind of character to it. The use of science to know the world produces a certain kind of knowledge, which is not the only kind of wisdom. The use of faith to know the world produces a very different kind of knowledge, but is also not the only knowledge available to us. Poetry, service, contemplation, experience, and so on… we encounter the world in many different ways, and each gives its own shape to the knowledge it produces. None of them are the entirety, and it’s not obvious to me that any of them are necessarily the center. What an amazing life!

]]>