What only lived experience gives
On the axis: Place of science · what is lived
Does objective, third-person knowledge grasp what it is to see red, to suffer, to love? Science presupposes a lifeworld it does not itself describe, and intuition reaches a duration that measurement lets slip.
This problem is brought out by the thought experiment Mary's room:
Mary is a brilliant vision scientist: shut all her life in a black-and-white room, she has nonetheless learned, on a monochrome screen, everything physical science can say about color. Every wavelength, every cell of the retina, every circuit of the brain: no part of the mechanism escapes her. One day she is let out, and for the first time she sees a red rose. Does she then learn something? If she does, then a complete knowledge of the still left a remainder: what it is, for a living being, to see red.
Frank Jackson, "Epiphenomenal Qualia" (1982)
On seeing red for the first time, does Mary learn something that science had not given her?
Your choice above is recorded in your profile. See my profile →
Justification
Husserl does not contest the fruitfulness of the exact sciences, but their claim to state the real on their own. Since Galileo, nature has been treated as a pure mathematical fabric, and we forget that this garment of idealities covers over the (Lebenswelt), the sensed, perceived, lived world that is the ground and source of meaning of every theory. The objectivism that takes the measure for the thing itself is an abstraction mistaking itself for the whole: science always presupposes a pre-scientific experience it cannot itself ground. Hence a derived, second place for science, which must be led back to its lived origin rather than set up as the sole measure of truth.
The garment of ideas of the mathematical sciences makes us take for true being what is only a method.The Crisis of the European Sciences, §9
The Crisis of the European Sciences, §9 and §33-34
Anchors: Husserl · Bergson · Merleau-Ponty
leads to: The enigma of consciousness