Originally Posted by
Mocari
It seems we agree on most things. Like, i don't believe every explanation is a right one. And i do believe science is almost never wrong. But it does change to become right.
Science may have gotten us somewhere, but if there is room for infinite improvement without a comparison of experiences i can't say whether it is really one of the best or one of the worst approaches to getting where we want. This shows a big difference between our two views. You might say, there are comparable experiences approaching objective truth. And to me that is all still part of just one experience.
I can understand You believe prejudicial judgment to be bad. I only like getting a grasp on what prejudicial judgment is true to someone though, i don't just approve any kind of prejudicial judgment.
I do defend people who believe in something convenient as i think anything can be believed, but i hate ignorance as it distances someone from the truth. But again from Your point of view it's very understandable You don't like the look of it.
When i give an example of science being wrong, You can always state it was the people behind science who were wrong, not a true scientist or science itself. That is, if You look at science as never letting people drawing a fairly sure conclusion but as always adjusting hypothesis. That would mean science never gets us closer to truth but that it's the scientists themselves who sometimes do, sometimes don't, without being based on science. If You do believe science means something in regard to truth, i think things like the Newton incident springs to mind, or any court of law drawing a wrong conclusion based on science.
The developed difference between our views is interesting. Where it all starts though, is that You perceive, i think?, us as being part of the world, experiencing a coloration of objective truth.
And in my eyes, there is nothing but and nothing outside our one experience. Which makes us just as much part of the world as the world itself, our experience a reflection of ourself, equal to what we perceive.
They are both based on different realizations, and science can't prove either one of us right easily, since in both cases science would show us the truth as long as we view it that way. But both versions do state science can prove either one of us wrong, which in my point of view would be a shame as it may throw away a lot of possibly true, more wished for, approaches.