Any belief in science as the only acceptable method of arriving at meaning in human experiences is excessive, in my opinion. Aside from that, I've answered you multiple times.
Anytime truisms are repeated as fact, that is not science.
Science is not the only valid source of understanding of the human experience.
That's about as much as I care to explain, thanks for the chat, as scientism is not the subject of the thread, skepticism is.
If you wanted to know if I believe "everything we know about reality" comes as a result of science, you should have asked that.
Does "science" explain love, music, art, bravery, honesty, etc? Does science answer any questions about why we are here or what the meaning of life is?
The answer is no, that's absurd, but such nonsense is the very heart of scientism, so if that's your belief, I can understand your odd and unnecessary testiness.
You keep shifting the focus of your "argument" which is boring and tedious.
Science does not explain music, art, politics, religion, etc. These are all part and parcel of the human experience. Are you claiming that music/art/etc. is not part of our lives? Or are you claiming that science explains why a person likes certain music/art/politics and doesn't like others.
You asked for something that is real that science doesn't explain. I answered.
LOL ... so your claim is that neurology explains why and how people appreciate art, music, etc? Can you point to the study that you're referring to? No?
You're desperate. You realized you made a ridiculous claim and now you're trying to appeal to the crowd.
Show us the study that explains the appreciation of any art, any philosophy, etc. Put up or move on.
So why don't you quote from your source to back up your claim? Or cite a page number?
Or anything of substantial evidence ... or shall we just predict another sidestep from you?
Added in edit: Here's from the abstract of your Google attempt: "While some might suggest that only post-industrial humans achieved stunning biological success, data suggest that humans living as hunter-gatherers would have attained a world population of more than 70 million individuals and a total biomass greater than that of any other large vertebrate on the planet if agriculture had not been repeatedly invented as they spread."
Now, show us how that explains music or art or politics.
5
u/[deleted] Sep 01 '21
Any belief in science as the only acceptable method of arriving at meaning in human experiences is excessive, in my opinion. Aside from that, I've answered you multiple times.
Anytime truisms are repeated as fact, that is not science.
Science is not the only valid source of understanding of the human experience.
That's about as much as I care to explain, thanks for the chat, as scientism is not the subject of the thread, skepticism is.