Originally posted by stellspalfie
every time you have a loving feeling or thought there are a series of physiological happenings within the body.
these physiological happenings differ depending on the type of 'love' you are feeling.
science can monitor and measure these physiological happenings and describe them.
which of the above statements would you disagree with?
Your first two statements are tautologies, once you accept that thinking is a brain activity and in humans, possibly some other animals, we are conscious of our thoughts.
You make too optimistic a claim when you say that science can monitor and measure these brain activities at a level that would provide an accurate map of the thought process, though the principle I suppose can be accepted and things are moving quite rapidly here. Strictly of course, this is more a matter of technology than science, if the distinction matters to you.
Where you are in danger of over reaching yourself is in the assumption that such physiological mapping of the thought process (incorporating the emotional systems of course, which is not particularly different or more difficult) would result in an explanation of love.
By analogy, I went out with my wife in our car today. The pistons went up and down, driving the wheels round and round, The pistons sent up and down, driving the wheels round and round, The pistons sent up and down, driving the wheels round and round, The pistons sent up and down, driving the wheels round and round, The pistons sent up and down, driving the wheels round and round, The pistons sent up and down, driving the wheels round and round, The pistons sent up and down, driving the wheels round and round, The pistons sent up and down, driving the wheels round and round, The pistons sent up and down, driving the wheels round and round.
Now what do you think of our trip?
Undoubtedly there is a scientific way to describe and discuss love that is meaningful and helpful. An important element of this would be to understand how emotions work, which can include understanding the biology of the brain. However, no scientic account would be adequate if it relied exclusively on the physiological data. Arguably it is not even scientific to attempt that, since it is a category error in its use of the wrong type of explanation for the nature of the problem. I see no reason to think it would be more informative than, for example, the novels or the poetry of Thomas Hardy, which are very informative indeed.
One correct scientific approach to religion (not love) was modelled by William James in his Varieties of Religious Experience. Instead of demanding logical explanations of religous belief systems, he actually investigated religious experiences and reported his findings. A very different approach would be to look into the history of religion and religious ideas. All very interesting stuff. Better than banging around your fallacies with opponents who bang around their fallacies. It might even lead to an interesting debate.