You didn't answer my question about how these different methods could answer different questions.
Assuming everything is reducible to a series of described phenomena is not a "worldview", it's an assumption that science makes with respect to natural phenomena. Methodological naturalism. Kind of like how any philosophy I assume would make the assumption that solipsism isn't useful.
Some might subscribe to a philosophical naturalism, but again I don't see how that's science's fault.
If that forms the world view of modern politics, well that seems to me that that's politics' problem.. maybe it should choose the right tool. Or maybe it's philosophy's problem because it hasn't been vocal enough.
That you think the world view of modern politics is based on the wrong thing doesn't indicate that science and religion and philosophy are all equivalent.
It's even more confusing, first you say that science and religion and philosophy are tools for uncovering understanding, then you reject science as a tool for uncovering understanding.
|