> fra: "Tom C" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > >From: Marco Alpert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > >Tom C wrote: > > > >>As mere humans with finite life spans, none of us can claim to know it all > >>or understand it all. > > > >Exactly. > > > >>But that does not mean there is not a belief system that embraces truth > >>and comes as close as we can possibly hope to know at the moment. > > > >Yes, but it also doesn't mean that there IS such a belief system, either. > >There is, however, an endeavor " that embraces truth and comes as close as > >we can possibly hope to know at the moment." It's called the scientific > >method. Combine that with some skill in critical thinking and you're well > >on your way to ensuring that the Enlightenment was not all for naught. > > > > - Marco > > > > I find that many 'scientists' don't start out from an even playing field in > that search. Their use of the scientific method is often postulated upon > something they have no true empirical evidence for, and therefore they > possess a 'faith' of sorts. > > Tom C.
After Gödel it has been clear that logic (and thus scientific methods) cannot give us a complete understanding of the world, so you are right. The only thing that may be transferred over to some kind of belief system is scepticism, but that only leads to a solution were you cant believe in anything. So you end up being agnostic or just accepting a personal belief and some set of rules related to it. DagT
