Every once in a while one comes across a "scientist" like Santosh who,
from his arrogance it seems, does not seem to realize that his
understanding is, at best, limited.
Allwyn,
The thing about scientists is they will freely admit that their
understanding is very limited(if it indeed is, that is). Infact the best
scientists in the world will admit that their knowledege is restricted to a
minute aspect of the natural world.
Further there is no absolutism in Science, a single shred of evidence
contrary to a scientific theory is enough to bring it down. And the beauty
is that Scientists move on after that.
However you will find no such humility among religious chest thumpers. They
claim to know everything from how the universe was created to why
homosexuality exists, and put the onus of disproving their theories on
scientists.
I cannot think of a person more qualified to shed light on the neurological
basis of human experience than Santosh. He is at the very cutting edge of
this field.
Empirical science cannot prove naught.
So would you let yourself be exposed to asbestos or encourage pregnant women
to drink and smoke?
"Pure" science too, for example mathematics, for that matter, cannot
prove naught.
The next time you go shopping, try explaining to the Cashier that your bill
should actuall be minus ten rupees and that arithmetic is only one of many
ways of calculating the amount.
What would you say to your employer if he paid you for three days less in a
month. Would mathematics be involved?
Pure science, too, is based on axioms. The axioms are
taken for granted. There is no proof for the axioms, one simply needs
to believe in them.
Would you care to list a single axiom in pure science that one needs to
believe in with the complete absence of proof.
Regards
Sunith
