Are you saying that scientists generally have a great guffaw when it is pointed out to them that there are serious questions they have not answered? And that there is some likelihood that the answers to such questions are critically important to the future development of their own work? Seems a most cavalier, closed-minded, arrogant attitude, PH -- a certain lack of seriousness, of curiosity, of humility, seems evident in such a reaction.
Why do you suppose that scientists are "the only people who are equipped to provide the answers?" Answers about what?
Let's put it this way: If all that there is, is the physical, and only the physical, then I could be persuaded by your statement. But you cannot prove that the "accident" of physicality exhausts all phenomena in the Universe, actualized or potential; and not only that, but my own experiences/observations suggest a different conclusion.
Therefore, I am forced to conclude that your statement is an expression of faith -- in a materialist/physicalist cosmology. But you do not prove anything, you make an assertion that can neither be falsified nor confirmed on an experimental basis.
The scientific method is constrained to make physical observations, in principle. So are you saying that it is wholly legitimate for scientists to "answer" that ONLY physical objects exist, just because their method cannot engage anything that is not physical? And then you tell me the scientific method is the only legitimate tool for understanding "all that there is?"
There's something quite irrational about this line of reasoning.... or so it seems to me; FWIW. But maybe someday you'll explain it all to me (including why it isn't irrational) dear Patrick; and I will "get it." :^) So keep trying! Thanks so much for writing!
Scientists don't laugh because there are unanswered questions. They laugh when people suggest bogus and unproductive ways of approaching these questions. They laugh when people suggest that perfectly ordinary questions, like the structure and behavior of the brain, are declared off limits to scientific methodologies.
Nope. Not at all what I said. Rather, what I was trying to get across was that unanswered questions are routine. They're expected. They're well recognized. They're the agenda of working scientists. They are NOT some astounding discovery that the ID folks have stumbled onto. So when they (the ID people) leap up and down as if they've uncovered a big secret, then yes, their behavior is a joke.
Seems a most cavalier, closed-minded, arrogant attitude, PH -- a certain lack of seriousness, of curiosity, of humility, seems evident in such a reaction.
Okay.
Why do you suppose that scientists are "the only people who are equipped to provide the answers?" Answers about what?
Because people who are not educated in the sciences just don't have the training and experience. Is this notion really all that difficult?
Let's put it this way: If all that there is, is the physical, and only the physical, then I could be persuaded by your statement.
Yes, of course. But I've never claimed that. And on numerous occasions in the past I've specifically dis-claimed that proposition.
But you cannot prove that the "accident" of physicality exhausts all phenomena in the Universe, actualized or potential;
True. I wouldn't attempt such a proof. Those who assert that there's more than that which is in evidence have the burden of coming forward with verifiable evidence. This is rather basic.
... and not only that, but my own experiences/observations suggest a different conclusion.
I don't deny it. But my experiences are different from yours, so we have a bit of a Mexican standoff. This is why objectively verifiable evidence is so highly prised in such investigations, as it provides a method for resolving such conflicts.
Therefore, I am forced to conclude that your statement is an expression of faith -- in a materialist/physicalist cosmology.
I don't think so. All I'm saying is that I don't see any objectively verifiable evidence for another cosmology.
But you do not prove anything, you make an assertion that can neither be falsified nor confirmed on an experimental basis.
I'm not trying to prove anything. I'm looking for objectively verifiable evidence.
The scientific method is constrained to make physical observations, in principle.
Yes.
So are you saying that it is wholly legitimate for scientists to "answer" that ONLY physical objects exist, just because their method cannot engage anything that is not physical?
I don't think that's what's being said. But scientific answers, of necessity, must be expressed in terms of the physical world. Those are the only answers which are scientific. Any others are philosophy.
And then you tell me the scientific method is the only legitimate tool for understanding "all that there is?"
For the material world, yes. But I don't claim that's "all there is." Merely that it's all science can work with. For spiritual matters, science is entirely useless.
There's something quite irrational about this line of reasoning.... or so it seems to me; FWIW. But maybe someday you'll explain it all to me (including why it isn't irrational) dear Patrick; and I will "get it." :^) So keep trying!
Yes, I'll keep trying.