--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <curtisdeltablues@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > One of the things I find myself noticing in Curtis' > > descriptions of David Eagleman's findings and opinions > > is that Eagleman seems to make the same assumption > > that religious people make. That is, that there is > > something called Reality. > > I don't think that doing science requires more assumption > than needed to fix breakfast and sit down at the computer. > Both religious assumptions and the kind of high level > philosophical skepticism about the nature or reality are > on another level and don't intersect.
It's not high-level philosophical skepticism but a truism to note that, even assuming there is a reality, we can never know it directly; it's always only through subjective perception. And that includes science. When we do science, we're comparing subjective perceptions. If they agree, we say that what we've mutually perceived is "objective" reality-- but we don't and cannot know that there's anything "out there" that actually corresponds to it.
