Humans; we are quite the curious bunch. And because of this, we like to know if something is "true" or "false". However, I feel that we don't know exactly what can even be proven true or false, and we often miss the point of a lot of things.
One of the most prominent examples of this is religion. It is very often that someone will try to say that their religion is "right" or that another person's is "wrong", when in fact there is no empirical evidence for one way or the other, and having such logic in this context misses the point of religion. The point of religion is to provide a set of convictions to live by, and such notions of being "correct" is pointless in such a discussion; and sadly, this is lost on far too many people.
There are also other things that are impossible to prove. For example, in ancient Greece, there were debates in which neither side could prove the other false or theirs right, due to everyone having their own perspective. For example, if I were to argue to a Communist that Communism is evil and a failure due to it causing tyranny and mass famines, a Communist would just argue that it isn't real Communism, and it is just tyrants under the guise of Communism. Due to this now being a battle of semantics, neither side can prove the other false, or theirs right.
This kind of trouble with applying science to the humanities is much different than applying it to what it was made for; observations of the world. For example, if I say that the Earth revolves around the sun, that can be scientifically proven; or that all objects on Earth fall at 9.8 meters per second, that can also be scientifically proven. You can use empirical evidence to prove these kinds of things, but people, again, far too often miss the point, and try applying science for things it cannot effectively be used for.
I would like to hear any of your guys' views on the matter. Maybe I am just thinking too much, and spewing rubbish.
Humans; we are quite the curious bunch. And because of this, we like to know if something is "true" or "false". However, I feel that we don't know exactly what can even be proven true or false, and we often miss the point of a lot of things.
One of the most prominent examples of this is religion. It is very often that someone will try to say that their religion is "right" or that another person's is "wrong", when in fact there is no empirical evidence for one way or the other, and having such logic in this context misses the point of religion. The point of religion is to provide a set of convictions to live by, and such notions of being "correct" is pointless in such a discussion; and sadly, this is lost on far too many people.
There are also other things that are impossible to prove. For example, in ancient Greece, there were debates in which neither side could prove the other false or theirs right, due to everyone having their own perspective. For example, if I were to argue to a Communist that Communism is evil and a failure due to it causing tyranny and mass famines, a Communist would just argue that it isn't real Communism, and it is just tyrants under the guise of Communism. Due to this now being a battle of semantics, neither side can prove the other false, or theirs right.
This kind of trouble with applying science to the humanities is much different than applying it to what it was made for; observations of the world. For example, if I say that the Earth revolves around the sun, that can be scientifically proven; or that all objects on Earth fall at 9.8 meters per second, that can also be scientifically proven. You can use empirical evidence to prove these kinds of things, but people, again, far too often miss the point, and try applying science for things it cannot effectively be used for.
I would like to hear any of your guys' views on the matter. Maybe I am just thinking too much, and spewing rubbish.