Evolution....of science

[jeremyp]

And only the middle one I quibble with ...

Other answers to that question are possible because you can take it in many ways. My answer is the closest you can get to an externally defined "purpose" for human beings, I think.

[Leonard James]

Other answers to that question are possible because you can take it in many ways. My answer is the closest you can get to an externally defined "purpose" for human beings, I think.

We are here for the same reasons that mountains are here, natural processes.

[Udayana]

ie. For no purpose.

[Leonard James]

ie. For no purpose.

As far as we know.

[Sriram]

No it doesn't. Why should the definition of what science is change? So you can have the stamp of authority ('this is science') for things which aren't science?

I was talking about the premise, assumptions, scope and methodology of science. A new science.

But that will require more people moving out of their Zoom-In mentality and becoming more Zoom-out. That will take a few generations.

[Hope]

Bad examples. Science can give us an answer to all of those questions. The fact that many people do not like the answers, has no bearing on their correctness.

OK, jeremy, give us definititive scientific answers to the 2nd and 3rd questions in the post this is a response to.  I'll add a third one for you to consider: what is it that makes a human a human?

[Maeght]

I was talking about the premise, assumptions, scope and methodology of science. A new science.

Yes I know you were.

So give an example of what you think this new scioence should do/be please, then we can discuss.