if you could fit foucault into that box, he would no longer be foucault, yes? Just another piece of science. perhaps there is a single box of knowing--explicit, falsifiable knowing--and everything else is noise. this is attractive: learn a set of rules, apply them rigorously, yield knowledge, repeat. clearly productive, many fruits.
alternately, perhaps this box is a subset of knowing. it's conceivable. and necessarily, the whole wouldn't follow the same rules as the part. it could be a challenge to leave our box, like learning a foreign language without cognates. i mean, it does all sound like noise, doesn't it? gives me such a headache.
> if you could fit foucault into that box, he would no longer be foucault, yes? Just another piece of science.
This grossly misunderstands science. If you think science is just everything we can fit in a box you've missed the past few centuries and still think everything is ultimately down to which religious leader has the most followers who haven't died of religion yet.
If you demand pithy quotes, here's one: Science is the process by which we gradually learn to stop fooling ourselves about things.
Remember, asking why the sun rises in the East was once a moral and philosophical question.
> If you think science is just everything we can fit in a box...
no, I don't. you misunderstand. willfully? or just hubris?
box == frame of reference == paradigm == system of thought == set of axioms, habits, etc, that fit together into a semi-cohesive whole.
you may, or course, not be able to perceive the box as a box, and invert the negative space into something substantial. that is, you may not be smart enough to understand, to avoid the wrong questions.
alternately, perhaps this box is a subset of knowing. it's conceivable. and necessarily, the whole wouldn't follow the same rules as the part. it could be a challenge to leave our box, like learning a foreign language without cognates. i mean, it does all sound like noise, doesn't it? gives me such a headache.