Life to me is the activity generated by consciousness.
We are actually very close on definition because I would say without consciousness one can not make choice.
Mostly the argument is rallied around the superstition that is religion, which has no hard evidence but is simply evident as "belief", which science doesn't take very seriously.
Unfortunately it can't take it seriously because it would require a personal judgement rather than an analytical judgement.
No-one claims the process is perfect but it is objective in it's operation which is the intent.
Purpose is relative.
...snip
Why is simply a question. Answers are derived from the approach, and what kind of baggage the mind making the inquiry carries to create or derive reason.
Correct and sciences purpose is to make knowledge useful it isn't to provide the answer to the meaning of life etc.
Some in science and many outside it forget that at times or go for over reach.
Science as you defined it being a blunt instrument is fixed within the boundaries of what can be studied and measured by instruments derived from a particular understanding of reality and the relationship of mind to the beliefs of that reality. Like putting blinders on a horse it can only see where it is pointed or designed to be pointed. It (science) will ignore what it cannot see, or that which does not fit within the field of vision.
And I like it like that because it fits the purpose I use it for
If you want the "meaning of life" type stuff you need a different discipline .... so ... make one.
That is the bit I am hard on Rev K and you over, why harp on about converting science it is working just fine as is.
If you want to see what science looks like if you start allowing "interpretation" take a look at state of climate science.
What I see is science has gained a certain place and recognition in society.
So when people come along and want to convert it then really it comes down to 3 reasons
a) They want that recognition
b) They can't get enough interest in there ideas as a stand alone discipline
c) Findings conflict with beliefs and it is causing problems in the wider general audience.
So I guess my question to you if you reject your reasons are in the 3 above, why do you want science to change?
