Posted: Nov 12, 2010 6:18 am
by sanja
IanS wrote:
IanS wrote:
sanja wrote:Niels Bohr and Werner Heisenberg also thought that science cannot discover everything, that there are some things where intuition suits better.
They were scientists.


OK good. So when you said the above, although you were quoting famous scientists and talking about science and also about intuition, what un-scientific things were you proposing to be better understood simply through "intuition"?

Do you mean claims about supernatural Gods?


Let me quote Bergson:

Bergson rejected what he saw as the overly mechanistic predominant view of causality (as expressed in, say, finalism). He argued that we must allow space for free will to unfold in an autonomous and unpredictable fashion. While Kant saw free will as something beyond time and space and therefore ultimately a matter of faith, Bergson attempted to redefine the modern conceptions of time, space, and causality in his concept of Duration, making room for a tangible marriage of free will with causality. Seeing Duration as a mobile and fluid concept, Bergson argued that one cannot understand Duration through "immobile" analysis, but only through experiential, first-person intuition.

So, "duration" would be one of things that science cannot examine/explain.

I do not quite understand how things can be "scientific" or "un-scientific".
Some things are in domain of science, some are not. I believe that is more proper way to say it.

But none of those things are basicly religious issues.
All of them are, primarly, philosofical.
(free will, elan vital, schopenhauer's transcedent will,, etc. Even god, if you like it so much :grin: Btw, I think "supernatural god" is a pleonasm :grin: Although I'm not quite sure what "supernatural" means :scratch: )