Part of my agenda is that “orthodox” science is constraining humanity’s understanding of the real world, particularly at two “boundaries”: its metaphysical foundation and its interface with subjective consciousness.
There is a need to clarify that “orthodox”. Any system – like science itself – will want to define itself as broadly as possible by including as many nuanced aspects within what it means to be scientific. But this is really an “identity” issue for science. (See embedded post note.)
DRAFT NOTES ONLY
And, being self-correcting by design … scientific arrogance / scientism
Logical Positivists – making philosophy scientific
Objective, empirical, physicalist … Objectively repeatable independent of subject, etc. Popperian falsification.
Kinda like Goff’s Galileo’s error – excluding the subjective, inner view.
As I say here – orthodox physical science para.
No says Ed Gibney
Regarding the thread, I would say that 1st-person experience is precluded from observation by the rules of physicalism. Outsiders can see the NCC’s etc of C, but the experience only happens to the physical material that changes. Nothing to do with empirical rules of science.
” Ed Gibney (@EdGibney) March 25, 2021
Very good. I was reacting to Goff’s language about “Galileo’s error”, as if that was what doomed scientific studies of consciousness.
” Ed Gibney (@EdGibney) March 25, 2021
One thought on “Science as the Pursuit of Knowledge”