Via Coralville

The issue is not fallibility. The issue is whether there is knowledge that lies beyond the capacity for science to find. If such knowledge exists, should we ignore it or should we use nonscientific methods to find it?

Before making my point let me say it isn’t clear to me that there is knowledge beyond the capacity for science to find. I am not touching that part of this discussion.

Your point would have greater credibility if there was another framework for discovering knowledge. All other frameworks don’t appear to so much discover knowledge as decide knowledge.

It’s all good and fine to say that through “mysticism” or some similar you have discovered the name of god or something similar, but since there is no self correcting mechanism, how is this significantly different then deciding god’s name is Joe?

If it is undiscoverable by science than it has no measurable effect on this world. By what method can it be argued/discovered that god’s name is not Joe? Essentially there is no objectivity or measurability and without that we aren’t talking about knowledge in any traditional meaning, we are talking about meaning as a subjective decision.

If your mysticism allows you to decide something I’m under no obligation to treat it as meaningful. The framework has to be demonstrated useful and valid before I’m under an obligation to take it seriously.

–Zafkiel
From someone else’s sig: Quantum Physics: the dreams stuff is made of.