MZungu said:
I beg to disagree; Science in its very nature is empirical. Science does not indulge in the unfalsifiable, hence the spiritual world is beyond the scope of science.
If you think you can do science without using the rules of science ie: empirical evidence, a theory to explain those evidences, and peer review, then you have grossly misunderstood what science is!
His spirit is scientistic I was just pointing out the subjective grounding of science claims. Ad if the subjective is allowed we can talk about thinks like elebnis, life energy, beauty, value, time awareness, intentionality, being in the world, perceptual semantics etc too cant we? Or are these "phenomenological" ideas plain crazy and about as rational as the idea that the moon is a dreaming pixie on drugs, just because they can't be reduced to empirically gathered data sets?
Establishing other minds by analogy rather than direct observation.
Ok fair comment but their being is dependent on subjectivity. If the spiritual world is beyond the scope of science I cannot know I exist, in a world, finding beauty in things, never mind that I can collect data from a subset of that experience. The idea of eliminating all subjectivity is nonsense, and like I asked one has to learn to draw a line (probably a fuxxy one) rather than a priori say "if not objective then not a ground for knowledge in any sense."