I guess so, in a holistic, philosophical kind of way. But there is a need for something when considering rational inquiry, which is the subject we are debating. To assert a conclusion is rational is to assert it follows certain criteria, one of which is the need for rational justification.
Wrong on all counts. The only "limitations" science has are the limitations of our current access to knowledge. Our ability and capacity to observe and understand the Universe is increasing. Science is not a box that asserts only that which inside of the box is true and real. Science is a grand and elaborate microscope that we are continually adjusting, increasing in scale and performance, that tells us a great deal about what little it observes, but asserts nothing beyond that until it is large and powerful enough to observe it. That metaphor was torturous, and I hope I never have to use it again...
Because controlling our irrational nature by focusing on developing a rational system of inquiry had demonstrably and dramatically improved our lives for the better, and has the potential to improve our understanding beyond all known limitations. Not long ago, we would have considered heavier-than-air travel impossible. Now, flight is so ubiquitous as to be entirely mundane.
The only thing that hinders us is ignorance.
Good, because it shouldn't and isn't trying to. Science is a method of examining the world around us. It is demonstrably the most effective and best method of doing so, but you are free to adhere or not adhere to it as you wish.
So, are you suggesting that the very idea of asking for justification for a particular claim is unreasonable? In that case, I claim that you are an alien sent to earth to suck the brains out of elephants.
Since you think this is "clearly" true, you have must think you have reason to believe it is true. So, apparently, you do think reason and evidence are useful.
And those people are ignorant of it.
No one said science itself has limitations. Science is not the mind. Two and separate. Doctrined into only science places limitations on the observer's conscious "mind." Limitations on ones experience is polar opposite of limitations of science. I can experience pure and genuine love with no need for science to explain and define it and have knowledge "of" love. Saturation and hindrance are unnecessary and problematic. It's evident that the physical and material world create problems, why would I or anyone want to live in a physical and material trained mind? If anyone preaches a physical, material, and animal world... and also tries to preach an objective and loving world at the same time, it will not work. This is ignorance (unconsciously aware of something.) It creates divide and more problems and the lack of conscious awareness. It is taking one assumptive, dividing, biased extreme without finding the middle and solution.
"Asserting nothing beyond that" is control and limitation. I can know all that which IS, NOW, in the present moment, and experience in this life. . Without being limited and having to wait for promissary gaps to be filled or without assuming anything. That which IS never has needed reason, the mind gets in the way.
If someone "assumed" there would be planes and flying not long ago... They would have been labeled crazy and a mystic and an ignorant idiot because science has yet discovered the new age tech. Also shows the infinite potential of the mind when it's not limited.
"Current access to knowledge." Where is the source for that knowledge? Ancients knew of DNA being "in-formed" consciously and writing about cosmic serpents and twins and ladders. They didn't need knowledge "of," that had something better, knowledge and experience. Even having the luxury of all of this advanced technology and the revelation of knowledge "of" things, many are still unconscious/blinded (ignorant) of truth by a clouded mind. Using scientific law, all knowledge would have to derive from an external source and be received by the internal source (brain). To say knowledge is processed and derives from the brain as the initial source is an illogical contradiction in science. Can't have it both ways. While science waits on "future" access to knowledge "of" this, contradicting it's laws by assuming knowledge "of" anything is derived from the brain would be by blind faith alone and circular reasoning. Using the mechanical approached and measure and definition to anything with science, I will ask how something "new" by its own definition of "new" can arise with scientific law soley arising in the brain as its only and derivative source without being completely hypocritical?
It's only unreasonable to one who has the need for reason.
I have no needs. I don't need a reason or definition or measure for anything. Without a reason, definition, measure... Guess what? It still IS. Doesn't change.
Reason is separate from just "being" and that which "IS."
There is reason/evidence and there is reasoning/evident.
One set is under limit and control, the other has infinite potential.
