Pim noted that:
> If they can be proven in the mind they are observable.
Gene: So if I can define something and conceive of something in my mind,
then it is "observable".
Nope. It is only observable to you. For it to be observable to others it
should be possible to put it in an observable form.
> We disagree on the observability of a science depending on visual clues.
Gene: This might be a good point to clarify--what makes an observation?
That by itself is an interesting issue. In science an observation is
typically a data point.
> I still don't understand your argument. What limits am I placing on
> science ?
Gene: My main question has been this: What justifies the scientific
method?
It works well enough ?
Gene: I mean rational justification--what premises does one start with? A
Christian's premises certainly support the scientific method and other
religions (Judaism and Islam) probably do too. I was wondering how an
agnostic or atheist justifies it. (Not that you are either of these, but
you seem to enjoy debating in this vein.) Let's look at the following
exchange:
Curiosity, quest for knowledge ?
Pim:
> We disagree. We define love by certain actions and words. This is why we
> assume we are loved. Or we might even presume that we are loved (and find
> out later that we are wrong <g>). But is it knowledge ? I would disagree.
Gene: Love can be defined in one's mind, like a circle is defined in one's
mind.
But it was not the defining but the proving that mattered.
Gene: Love is the willing of good for another. A circle is the set of
points
equidistant from a given point. You said the definition of a circle fell
under what you call knowledge, why not love?
Because the circle can be observed by others independent on the
intepretation of 'willing good for another'. The circle is objective, love
is subjective.
Regards
Pim