Quote:
Originally Posted by jammies
This is wrong.
You are conflating the epiphenomena of the human mind with its nature. Science may not be able to pronounce on morality (although logic, its close ally, certainly can), but that is no basis for saying it cannot unveil the workings of the mind. The things you believe are intractable matters of viewpoint are not the mind itself, they are its products.
|
Science can surely indicate the tendencies of a mind within a certain context. Science can also give valuable insight into the physical processes of the mind. I would argue that science is a valuable resource in many ways ( to many to list). The problem is that science can only describe and define the nature of the human mind in terms of numbers and words. The human mind, and existence for that matter can not be defined in simple terms of numbers and words, because it is a multi sensory component. The primary limitation of science is that it uses words or numbers to assert a truth, and when this occurs the nature of the human mind is fundamental misrepresented. This is why claiming the science of the mind can be absolutely true can be (but not always is) dangerous.
The point of post modernism is to challenge common sense, common knowledge and "truth." I am not undermining the legitimacy of upholding these concepts, I am trying to prove there is a legitimate role for those who challenge these beliefs.