Quote from ARogueTrader:
There is no other way of knowing. There is no other practical method to use . There never has been.
Practical? So cavemen weren't practical? Now you know what is "practical" for human beings? More hubris.
Love isn't "practical." Nor is artistic expression. Nor is singing.
You seem to me to be quite "impractical" when it comes to understanding of human nature.
You ask of science âhow do we knowâ when there are endless examples of the results of science.
Humans observe, record data, and then guess as to why, but we don't "know" why.
Why is there gravity? Why is there logic? Why do human beings use only 90% of their brains?
The list of why questions lacking factual and not speculative answers that science is unable to answer is endless.
Yet you donât ask of âthe zoneâ when there are only expressions of it, and non expressions of it, by some athletes.
There are experiences of "the zone" and the expressions of it are the performances seen by the observers.
The athlete knows he is in the zone. He many not know how he got into the "zone" or why he got into the "zone" but he has absolute certainty that he is in the "zone" where he is there.
He knows it.
But you don't know what the "zone" is any more than I do or the next person. Again its simply a noun.
Nonsense. If this were true, then when an athlete "re-entered" the zone, he would not know he was in the zone.
Yet he knows he is in the zone when it happens.
The "zone" will be many things to different athletes. Some describe it as breaking the pain barrier, others as a combination of the perfect working day and good weather and a of feeling 'just right'.
People can describe a sunset differently too based on their subjectivity, mood, point of view, etc.
The zone is a known experience of athletes.
You cannot say that they don't know it, for if they did not know it, they would have no knowledge of having been in it.
Yet they do know.
Then one day a great athlete might tell you this "zone" thing is rubbish, there is no such thing. Then all the athletes stop referring to the "zone" and start wearing their baseball caps back to front.
You are not an athlete. Michael Jordan used to talk about the "zone" when he "knew" he would score.
You can play word and mind games with what Jordan knew, but he knew it and had complete faith in it as well.
He didn't need science to verify it, he didn't need a skeptic's approval of it. He knew it. It was known.
You still don't know what the "zone" is or was.
You still need a method to know what in the "zone" is or was.
Nope, I don't need to know what the "zone" is. It is known on the basis of experience.
A child doesn't need to know why candy is sweet.
The what and the whys are not always necessary to know and experience.
You have just expressed the need for scientific method so as to be sure you have the correct mental programs. In other words, you need to test to know. You need a meaningful method. The scientific one is the only test ever known to be of use.
The limit of the scientific method is that it does well for objectivity, but fails miserably with subjectivity. Yet subjectivity is a known fact for all human beings, as they are much more than computers.
Yet life is not without, or cannot be without subjectivity.
We rely on logic and perception, yet we don't know with absolute certainty that our logic and perceptions are accurate. What check do we have on human logic and perception but human logic and perception?
It is circular and relativistic in nature.
All you want to do is remain in a world of not using the only test ever known to be of practical use, science, and remain in a pretence of wonderland-non-understanding of the supernatural, as if that were more practical or useful 'cause it is made to sound mysterious. Unfortunately for your argument is known as bollocks.
Now you know "all I want to do?"
Hubris.
All you are doing is making a wild guess that that there is a 'different way of knowing' when there is no substantial evidence whatsoever that there is.
No, I am being scientifically skeptical. If it is a possibility that an instrument is not calibrated properly, if we lack certainty that our calculations are 100% accurate, can we draw conclusions with 100% certainty?
Nope.
How do you know that your mind and senses are calibrated properly?
You don't, as you have no reference point of proper calibration that was not subjectively arrived at.
There is no reason to, as math as a method has already provided countless examples of practical benefit from its conception and throughout the ages. Exponents of math such as Einstein and Hawkin's have their work scrutinised endlessly by others of all sorts of capability and capacity.
Faith has provided countless examples and testimony of its value to human beings.
But because it is based upon a scientific method which has shown and proved itself to be monumentally significant, there is a reasonable understanding their findings are in line with the reality of things.
The common man has to trust the work scientists and mathematicians on the basis of faith, not having done the math himself.
