by slimboyfat 168 Replies latest jw friends
Scientific discourse is one way of describing the world but it isn't the only one
That depends what aspect of the world you want to describe. There is a huge body of knowledge for which it is the only tool that matters.
For example you suspect that rocks have consciousness. That is a scientific question.
I would argue that there is no aspect of the world for which scientific discourse is "the only one the matters". Such a statement suggests a rather impoverished view of the world.
What am I for example? It depends on your perspective.
To a biologist I may be a mammal
To a barber... needing a haircut
To a psychiatrist... having a possible chemical imbalance
To Asda... an unusual customer
To a doctor... a hypochondriac
To a Hindu... out of cosmic balance
To a physicist... atoms
To the JWs... a marked individual
To my MP... a delightful constituent
What am I really? Should one discourse be prioritised to the exclusion of others? If not for a human being, then why for the earth or for anything else?
Yes, and the attempt to limit an object to a single discourse is to deprive it of multiple identities. "I know what the earth is, the earth is round and nothing else". From many perspectives the earth is not round. As you put it it has multiple identities, depending on the perspective of the viewer. The worm has a different view from the spaceman. Does the worm have consciousness would you say? Surely that's a philosophical and religious question as well as a scientific one.
No about the roundness of the earth, it's different than about an whole human being... There, it's exactly a question of perspective and projection.
From the ground, you see the earth flat... But it's round anyway... From the athmosphere, you see the earth bigger than the sun, but it isn't
Because at this moment you just stop at one of the properties of the earth, not at the whole earth!
Does the worm have consciousness would you say? Surely that's a philosophical and religious question as well as a scientific one.
Nope, it's a scientific one as is your assertion that rocks have consciousness.
From many perspectives the earth is not round
The worm's perspective is flawed. Humans who can build aeroplanes and satellites can offer a far more accurate perspective regarding the shape, size and motion of the earth.
On what basis do you claim the perspective of the spaceman or physicist is superior to the worm? It's like the doctor saying to the MP: "he's not a constituent he's a hypochondriac". And makes about as much sense. Cofty, theologians and philosophers talk a lot about consciousness I assure you. You are merely claiming that their talk is invalid, not that it doesn't exist. In fact theologians and philosophers have been discussing consciousness long before scientific discourse even arose. Consciousness is more than just brain activity.
On what basis do you claim the perspective of the spaceman or physicist is superior to the worm?
Because of the definition of the word "perspective" perhaps?
