- 02 Aug 2017 10:32
#14829300
You seem to be denying the idea that we can think abstractly about anything. All Mike is doing is drawing out the abstract foundational and philosophical principles of the scientific method. This is not the same thing as asserting that science can function or even continue to exist without scientists. Mike has claimed no such thing. When we think abstractly, we are not denying the existence of concrete reality, nor are we trying to substitute our abstractions in place of that concrete reality. Rather, we are abstracting the essential or core principles of a thing, to better understand it. You seem to be asserting that abstractions are unreal (which is true) and therefore meaningless (which is untrue).
You seem to be expressing a belief in science to continue to exist with or without scientists. You believe the system can exist on it's foundation principles. This pretty well defines religion. Can we agree that it is likely both science and God were created by man in an attempt to satisfy his needs?
You seem to be denying the idea that we can think abstractly about anything. All Mike is doing is drawing out the abstract foundational and philosophical principles of the scientific method. This is not the same thing as asserting that science can function or even continue to exist without scientists. Mike has claimed no such thing. When we think abstractly, we are not denying the existence of concrete reality, nor are we trying to substitute our abstractions in place of that concrete reality. Rather, we are abstracting the essential or core principles of a thing, to better understand it. You seem to be asserting that abstractions are unreal (which is true) and therefore meaningless (which is untrue).
"Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Marx (Groucho)