Posted: Nov 14, 2010 8:24 pm
sanja wrote:Did you make the assumption that everything that exists can be examined by science?
How would you reply, considering your definition of science?Is that any clearer?
It seem to me that you are searching for ways to avoid answering to that question.
No, you are mistaken. I'm not trying to avoid answering the question; I'm trying to prevent any discussion between us from becoming confused right at the outset.
To answer your question (not that I think it will help much): it's logically possible that there exist things which we humans are incapable of examining, either by science, or by any other means - for example, I can't see any reason why there might not exist other universes in addition to our own, which we would be, of course, incapable of examining.
If you now ask me whether there might exist things which we humans are not capable of examining by using science, but which we are capable of examining by using other means, I would say 'yes' - but I'd stress that I'd be using the word 'science' in a somewhat restricted sense. For example, I can examine my finger nails, but we wouldn't normally call that activity 'science' - though, of course, it's possible that I'd examine my own finger nails in pursuit of a project which we would call science.
I'm sorry if this sounds snotty, but have you actually read the OP? If not, could you please do so, because I took a good deal of trouble over it? Of course, I'll be pleased to have your comments on it.
You'll see in the OP that I suggest that it makes more sense to talk about 'rational method' than 'scientific method'. You, of course, may disagree with that, and, if you do, I'd be interested to hear why you disagree.