= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
lessdazed comments on No One Knows What Science Doesn't Know - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (104)
I know it's pedant(errif)ic of me to point out, but it seems poor epistemic hygiene to let equivocations pass by unremarked:
is a very different claim from
For one, the sort of person who places limits on SCIENCE's grasp usually has some mechanism in mind which makes it possible to bypass them (really good drugs, for instance). For two, I don't see any assertion of a causal relationship between the Universe's ever-changingness and SCIENCE's inability to put a tape measure to it. For three, I'm struggling to come up with a way to know the Universe is changing without being able to measure it.
What?
What if it had read "the length and width of Universe, which is big"?
That is, the sort of New Agey people that tend to say "Science can never understand the nature of the soul!" don't mean that the soul can never be understood, just that understanding it requires divine revelation / seeing past the veil of Maya / altered mindstates corresponding suspiciously to the effects of LSD.
Oh, I see - I parsed "Universe, which is ever changing" as a catechistic epithet, a la "Atomic Flux operating Near the God" or "Holy Mary, mother of God". It could be an implication of causality, but it still doesn't seem certain.
Good point. Sometimes they might mean one and other times the other.