Reply to comment

In response to Terrible2s:

"You can't observe a soul (that I know of)."

In defense of art, creative writing, etc-- yes, you can observe a soul. We just don't know how to observe it empirically. In my opinion, not being able to prove something with definite measurements/numbers doesn't mean that thing doesn't exist. I think spirituality and religion exist for a reason-- I don't think spirituality is just made up. My mother claims that new born babies have clear personalities (which would contradict JPierre's statement that fetuses don't have a life).

This is something from another class I'm in, but it definitely has to do with "the type of science we're doing in this class" vs what I've found to be called "reductionist science" ([T]ruth science).

In The Omnivore's Dilemma, the author (Michael Pollan) talks about a man named Sir Albert Howard (1873 - 1947). He was an English agronomist who formed the philosophical foundations for organic agriculture. He said: "We need to treat the whole problem of health in soil, plant, animal and man as one great subject." Howard did no "hard science" to speak of, only general observation. Yet with that sort of observation, he was able to state confidently that "soil fertility" had a direct impact on "the  national health". 

Then this guy named Baron Justus von Liebig, a German chemist, "set agriculture on its industrial path" by introducing "NPK"-- an acronym for the main chemicals in soil that nourish plants. This forever changed the way we farm. Most/all fertilizers have an "NPK" ratio on them. But here's the catch-- this chemist discovered this, then people took it (and still take it) as the Truth-- as in, people don't question this way of farming at all now. I think it's okay to accept that nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium are in the soil and help plants grow-- but it's not okay (in fact it's dangerously ignorant) to believe that NPK IS ALL THERE IS TO IT. That is reductionist science.