Quote:
Originally posted by Melusine:
Some people define science in the narrowest definition of the word, thinking labs, experiments, calculation, hard evidence. Some of you define it in the broadest possible sense, as in "anything studied by humans". 
|
I think this hits the nail on the head. Some are limiting science to chemistry, physics and biology. In this case a narrow definition leads to a particular way of thinking, as language shapes thought.
It's like the narrow view of "culture" leads one to feel that they have no culture or that popular culture is not culture.
One needs to step back and look at things laterally, and that includes examining what definitions one is using and whether those definitions are restricting ones ability to ascertain knowledge. Restricting science.
Conscience, prescience, ominscience. All are based on the root word SCIENCE being "a state of knowing". "Scientific thought" is thought based on a "state of knowing", not merely a collection of chemical experiements.
Similarly faith is not the exclusive domain of religions. We excercise faith everyday, in small and large portions. Narrowing the defintion of faith leads one to closing off self-understanding and understanding how similar we are as people.
I would guess you and I are not so different Kathen. We have just come up with different conclusions given the experiences we have been given.
You are married to a Mormon. You do not share the Moprmon worldview. With all respect to Larry and Lady Aberdeen, neither do I. You've chosen atheism, I've chosen my interpretations of Christianity.
Differing conclusions does not mean we have different mindsets. What creates difference can be the RESULT of our conclusions.
But vive le difference. We then get to assess the others experience of life and compare it against our own, furthering the advance of knowledge. Knowledge of what this life is all about.