Science is very human, which is its limitation
You can always count on Chastek to say something mind-bending and thought-provoking:
…“science” is nothing other than the attempt to understand all things in terms of the form which is most intelligible to us. The character of what we call science reduces to this character of the form that it seeks to understand things in terms of. In the measure that we can understand things in relation to a form that is perfectly intelligible to us and owes its existence to us, we will have a proportionate power over the existence and intelligibility of nature. At the same time, this form which is perfectly intelligible to us prescinds both from matter, end, agency, substance and quality, though not all in the same way.
What is important to remember is that science is a human enterprise, and an attempt to understand that which humans can perceive with their physical senses in ways intelligible to humans. As such, it is necessarily limited in it’s ability to describe the totality of what is real or extant; it is limited by it’s human element, and can only describe things that exist as humans do.
Which is fine if things ONLY exist as humans do. But no field of scientific inquiry can ever tell us that. Anyone who suggests otherwise, as Welsley said, is selling something…philosophical materialism, most typically.
