As I was mentioning in class, isn't Science a paradigm a construct of our own making? If Religion / Faith and perhaps even Philosophy are faulty of making assertions that are not vigorous and data-rich and verifiable, can we also not accuse science of making a human experience dry, too atomic and devoid of the human element??!!
For a man of science, validation is a requirement; data is a requirement. Similarly for a man of philosophy an insight may be a requirement; for a man of religion a dogma and personal experience may be a requirement. To each his own, is it not?
The issue, I believe, comes when a man of science tries to evaluate and judge the corpus of subject under philosophy or religion, or any other discourse for that matter. It is my belief that Science is a construct of a scientist; philosophy is a construct of a philosopher. It is not only by a scientist and a philosopher -- it is also FOR their own community. So, when a cross community evaluation happens, when a scientists talks about a point of a philosopher, there then is the first gap.
Experience, dogma maybe enough for a philosopher, but is not enough for a scientist. Scientific data is enough for a white-coat, but that is too clinical for the man of religion. where then do the twain meet?
My take is that we should (1) be aware that a construct of philosophy is limited to the discourse in philosophy, and likewise, a construct of science in limited to the discourse in science and not cross compare. (2) We SHOULD take learnings and values from one to crosspolinate the other. Kind-a like the Medici effect of old Florence. (3) and, finally, we should NOT hold one world view much higher than the other.
Here is the clencher: If there are so many perspectives, isn't that an implication in itself of having one absolute on which these relative constructs are built?!
Comments?
SaiGo
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment