Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken G
To that I would add, the search for a "rich inner life" is quintessentially nonscientific, because in science, a rich inner life is something we see if we see it, but we never search for it. The search is for just the opposite-- a replacement of the rich inner life with a simpler set of rules that produce the same objective behavior. The latter is what science is really all about, even in regard to life itself. It is all we can hope to add to the situation-- we already have the rich inner life.
|
This view has been a disaster for who have had to suffer live vivisection by humans who denied their rich inner lives. If the a priori, Bayesian, discounting of rich inner lives in biology has proved to be a disaster, why should we expect that the physical sciences should be any different.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ken G
We don't do science to be "reassured" that everything makes sense
|
That in fact is exactly what we do. We do science in order to reassure ourselves that our faith that the world is in fact orderly, predictable--and therefore controllable--is justified.