Replies

There can be no end to this because one side (mine) says that nothing within space/time can be "objective" per se and on the other side, that that which is not "verifiable" is false per se.

No, not "false per se." At least you're not getting that from me. I've always attempted to be very clear, when discussing "my side," to say that there may indeed be more than that which is objectively observable and verifiable, but that such would, of necessity, be outside of science. In my post 1000, for example, I used phrases like: "the crude limitations imposed by objective verifiability," and "the scientist's limited version of reality." I've never been able to successfully communicate about this. However, I think I'm clear at this point about "your side," and where the fundamental differences are that distinguish our views.

It is such an irreconcilable difference that there is no point in continuing this discussion beyond making the worldviews clear to the Lurkers who might interested in them.

Maybe so. But I'll miss the fun.

[But the only way to know what's out there is to scientifically observe it (or its unmistakable effects). All else is philosophy (nothing wrong with that). -- by PH] This is a great example. In the above construct, to "know" is equal to "scientifically observe". That is one worldview, but it is not mine. In my worldview, knowledge goes way beyond the ability of science to observe much less logic to verify.

Gotcha. Thanks for clarifying the situation.

Thank you so much for your reply!

No, not "false per se." At least you're not getting that from me.

Indeed. Your point of view is not the one to which I was speaking. Because you recognize that there are "things" which cannot be measured or proven logically and yet are of interest - we have a great deal to explore. That you see a hard boundary between science and philosophy is not a barrier to conversation. It's more like a challenge! And a lot of fun! You've always been clear as bell in expressing your worldview (at least to me).

The pointlessness for me is when a correspondent denies the existence of the non-physical altogether. That is the futility to which I was speaking.

Gotcha. Thanks for clarifying the situation.

Sadly, I'm not a philosopher and thus cannot contribute much to the discussion of the study of knowledge per se. It has quite a history and is a fascinating subject on its own, therefore I've pinged my favorite philosophers on the forum to give us some insight.

But for non-philosopher me, there are many things which I "know" but which cannot be scientifically observed. Among them is the affection and respect I have for you, PatrickHenry.