By: Chris
Each of the comments above completely miss the point of the article. Simply that there are other ways, apart from science, through which people understand the world – poetry being one example. And...
View ArticleBy: Alan Cooper
After reading the Sarewitz article and looking over a number of the comments, I have to say that this self-serving defense of a poor editorial decision unfairly misrepresents the positions of most of...
View ArticleBy: alQpr » Blog Archive » The Limits of Science—and Scientists?
[...] on-line editor Ananayo Bhattacharya comes to the defense with an article on Discover magazine’s ‘The Crux’ website which is somewhat disturbingly entitled [...]
View ArticleBy: Ananyo
“Chris Says: Each of the comments above completely miss the point of the article. Simply that there are other ways, apart from science, through which people understand the world – poetry being one...
View ArticleBy: MartinChoops
“About what one can not speak, one must remain silent.” The last line of Ludwig Wittgenstein’s Tractatus tends to resonate with scientists, sceptics, atheists, and other fans of rationality. However,...
View ArticleBy: MartinChoops
His philosophy is often divided between his early period, exemplified by the Tractatus, and later period, articulated in the Philosophical Investigations. The early Wittgenstein was concerned with the...
View ArticleBy: Mr. Anthony
Ananyo, #18: Well here’s a problem. Your article objects to the assertion that science is “the best and only method we have for understanding reality”, but in post 18 above you say you are objecting to...
View ArticleBy: Darren Reynolds
To understand the colour red, you have to perceive it subjectively. Knowing the wavelength of the photons that trigger the sensation, knowing how the signals travel to the brain, knowing the electrical...
View ArticleBy: Geack
“…there other ways, apart from science, through which people understand the world…” is simply not true. There seems to be a confusion here between “understand” and “appreciate” or “experience”....
View ArticleBy: Don Byrd
In general, most people “understand” something when they have accumulated multiple definitions, not unlike when using a dictionary to find a definition brings one full circle to the original word....
View ArticleBy: Jim Clark, Winnipeg, Canada
Any phenomenon can be described scientifically at multiple levels, all intertwined in some complex way. Our ultimate psychological (i.e., scientific) understanding of art, consciousness, and a...
View ArticleBy: Christian Luca
Thank you Ananyo Bhattacharya for this great piece in Discover Magazine! I especially like the following paragraph you wrote: “But what was truly staggering was the support for the notion that science...
View ArticleBy: Mr. Anthony
From what I hear, one of the evolutionary purposes of language is to be vague and ambiguous so that me may safely negotiate relationships by falling back on plausible deniability....
View ArticleBy: A Nature editor defends the value of woo « Why Evolution Is True
[...] echoing is evident from the title of Bhattacharya’s piece, “The limits of science—and scientists.“ After first reprising Sarweitz’s woo-ishness, and admitting that he “has his [...]
View ArticleBy: Ananyo
Geack’s comment summarises a lot of the unhappiness with my piece – but also shows how it has been misunderstood. As Chris says above I’m pointing out that there are many ways of understanding the...
View ArticleBy: Mr. Anthony
If ‘to understand’ means ‘to order and interpret reality’ then by all means: there are infinite possible ‘understandings’ of the universe. Almost none of them are true and consistent with the facts.
View ArticleBy: couchloc
Thank you for this very interesting article Ananyo, which I entirely agree with. Your description of the issues and the philosophical problems involved is very accurate. One could only wish that other...
View ArticleBy: Jon Jermey
“My point about the Dark Night or Long Day’s Journey was that to “understand” these elements of culture, science alone is not enough.” I was taught that the first requirement of science is to c0me up...
View ArticleBy: Naturalism is the new gnosticism | I Think I Believe
[...] you can imagine, a lot of people disagreed. Ananyo Bhattacharya, blogging for Discover Magazine, catalogues some of the critique Sarewitz received. “I have my own problems with the piece,” he...
View ArticleBy: David Evans
“For those who cannot follow the mathematics, belief in the Higgs is an act of faith, not of rationality..” I am an atheist and an enthusiastic follower of science. I don’t know if I could follow the...
View Article
