Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.

  1. Are you trying to make the case for science that will one day have the means to answer any question that may arise?

  2. This is not yet the case. The picture isn't complete, and you cannot prove that it will ever be.

  3. Valentin believes there's more there which he cannot prove, either, though there's some evidence - for more, not the complete picture.

  4. Science explores the odds and ends of our existence. So does philosophy. So does Buddhist contemplative science, to cite but one prominent example. The findings of Buddhist scholars cannot be proved with the same methods that you apply to prove your point. Does this make these findings irrelevant?

  5. Maybe 'materialistic science' will make discoveries that have been found long ago in other disciplines. Maybe not. If they do, are these discoveries only given scientific relevance once they'll be proved through the methods you solely acknowledge?

  6. You will not be able to find a consensus because, again, one is talking apples, the other oranges.

So, maybe it is better that each tries to explore the other's view, if interested, and come back in a few diaries' time.

I admit that this is not exactly a balanced approach since Valentin doesn't appear to be a contemplative scientist but knows your side.
This would be different if you were debating each from his own and differing discipline alone.


by Lily (put - lilyalmond - here <a> yahaah.france) on Wed Jun 3rd, 2009 at 06:03:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Others have rated this comment as follows:


Top Diaries

Impeachment gets real

by ARGeezer - Jan 17

A Final Warning

by Oui - Jan 10

Environment Anarchists

by Oui - Jan 13

Occasional Series