So what are we left with? Just to be clear, I’ll restate the major points I’ve tried to establish thus far (sorry if my syntax is not technically right):

[A-1] Humans create knowledge - knowledge is all the mind can work with
[A-2] Use of the senses results in a certain kind of knowledge - particulate knowledge (that is, knowledge from our experience and interaction with particles)
[A-3] Particulate knowledge cannot contain information that the senses cannot capture
[A-4] Our senses do not inform us about everything that exists
[A-5] Humans are able to think apart from particulate knowledge
[A] Particulate knowledge is incomplete

[B1] Humans can only ask questions about what they can think about - that is, they can only ask certain questions
[B2] If we can only ask certain questions, we can only gather certain answers
[B3] As we can only assemble certain questions and answers, we then form certain expectations, inferences, and directives with regards to what can be discovered
[B] Our expectations, inferences, and directives are incomplete

[C1]Any system that advocates the the exclusivity of [A] and [B] is necessarily incomplete as to what knowledge it can form
[C2] Modern-day science claims to to be the path to objective truth
[C3] Modern-day science posits [A] and [B]
[C4] Modern-day science cannot satisfy its claim, that being [C3]
[C] Modern-day science is logically fallacious

* * *

Science, though invaluable to human progress and as a method to answer some “whys,” cannot answer every “why.”

Here is a very delicate point, but in closing, one that I would like to leave you with:

(more…)

Is science the only “way of knowing”?

Forthwith, my arguments have primarily to do with a particular persuasion, and a particular mode of thinking. This position has become the prevalent one within the scientific discipline, and in my estimation is the joining together of two separate philosophies:

Empiricism: experience and the senses are to be emphasized in truth discovery.

Positivism: the only truth that can be discovered is through strict scientific method.

For many people, positivism would simply be seen as the natural result of “empiricism,” in that empiricism (as a method) involves the process of testing a hypothesis, and establishing (or trying to establish) objectivity through evidence.

I, however, see the need list them separately so we can consider the whole equation:

(more…)

A basic framework for the mind

So we have total data – the entirety of existence. I would now like to move on from there to talk about humans, and our capacity to apprehend.

It is my belief that the only thing humans are capable of working with is knowledge. Where we’re talking about logic, history, shopping lists, faith, or hatred, all of this I’ defining as knowledge – the contents of the mind. The analogy of binary – the 1’s and 0’s a computer uses – helps to illustrate what I mean. The exclusive and internal language or processing. Yes, the category of knowledge is far more abstract, open to debate, and uncertain as far as any fundamental property is concerned, but I think it’s fairly safe to say that a mind can only use knowledge. This would seem to be somewhat self-evident – the mind creates and interprets knowledge, and in turn, knowledge only exists in the mind.

(more…)