Limits of Science

[Radrook]

There is a general misconception that scientific observations are the last word on reality.

That is not so.

Scientific observations are bounded by the senses and can only record sense impressions. Such observations and conclusions can only guarantee certainty within the parameters of the senses. They cannot comment on things beyond the senses.

In fact, even in reference to things recorded via the senses there is no guarantee that what is being recorded is really what is out there. Even the existence of an exterior world based on the senses cannot be proven.'


So it behooves those who use science as the last word on reality to keep these things well in mind.

Illustration:

Three aliens are each shown what humans visually perceive as a metallic sphere'

Alien one sees it as a hollow cylinder
Alien two sees it as an ever occilating blade.
Alien three doesn't perceive it at all.

Each alien touches a red hot piece of metal.

One describes it as too cold to handle.
Another tells us that it is merely warm,
The other doesn't register any temperature at all.

The examples could be extended to thousands of aliens each perceiving what it is hardwired to perceive.

Numerically:

One sees two objects.
The other three.
The other sees one object and in his perception handles the three as if one.

Who is to say which is right or wrong?

Whose perception is to be given the seal of approval of being the REAL one?

One alien might consider us insane for saying we see what he doesn't see or for claiming existence for which his nervous system does not give any evidence.

In view of this then, scientific discoveries and assertions can only go so far--the senses. Change the senses and an entirely different universe might be perceived. Which universe was right--the original or the now newly perceived one? Or should we consider all other nonhuman perceptions as anomalies?

The diplomatic approach would be to humbly acknowledge that reality is relative to the perceiver and that our particular perceptions are just one possibility among millions.

 

[Iacchus]

The mind by the way, could be perceived as a scientific tool too couldn't it? In fact what would the rest of Science entail, without a mind to study it? So, why is Science so quick to discount what's in other people's minds then? When, in fact this is the very tool which it couldn't dispense with?

 

[Scot C. Trypal]

There is a general misconception that scientific observations are the last word on reality.

I’d hope anyone claiming to be a scientist knows not to accept last words on reality, and in my experience most do.

Scientific observations are bounded by the senses and can only record sense impressions.

Any observation is based on senses: temperature, balance, color, emotion, that certain mystical feeling, and so on. Even religious observations; you’d not have, for example, Muslims if no one could see the written Koran or hear it sung or sense their memory of it, or, for that matter, feel the presence and guidance of Allah, real or no.

In fact, even in reference to things recorded via the senses there is no guarantee that what is being recorded is really what is out there. Even the existence of an exterior world based on the senses cannot be proven.'

Sure.

Whose perception is to be given the seal of approval of being the REAL one?

The seal REAL (TM) is mine, copyrighted in 1983…

There is no such seal in science; everything can be questioned. Though, there is the REAL seal many of our world religions use.

One alien might consider us insane for saying we see what he doesn't see or for claiming existence for which his nervous system does not give any evidence.

(assuming babble fish)

So I look and say “Hey, there is a red hot metal sphere.”

Alien 1 says, “Dumb carbon-based bag of salty water, that’s a couple of frigid hollow cylinders.”

“Fine”, I’d say, “what you call ‘two frigid hollow cylinders’, I call ‘a red hot metal sphere.’ Why?” If he’s game, we’d try to see how our two senses relate to an assumed shared reality. In the end it comes down to comparing the effects on both our senses of our attempted causes.

First the easy one; hot to me is not hot to many known bacteria species, for example. Even one of my hands may feel hot and the other cold at the same temperature. So what?

We could compare the “sphere’s” temp. to absolute zero, or maybe a phase transition, to get a quantitative temperature. If that doesn’t work then we’d have to probably wonder if we are operating under the same laws of physics, and go on to examining that really interesting observation. I mean, if he can cool nitrogen down to my –100 K, that would be very interesting (and useful!).

Regarding shape (still assuming our words mean the same concepts). I could ask him to pass a smaller object or maybe a liquid through it, or, if I’m right, I could show him how the object rolls freely in every vector on a flat plane. Again, if we need to get down to something like the base geometry of space and dimensions, that’d be very interesting.

Number. I could ask him to take the object(s) (after they cool to my likening) and place a “cylinder” in each of my hands, or maybe destroy one or change their location relative to each other and see how that affects my sense of there being a single sphere.

Maybe we can solve it, maybe we can’t… Maybe it’s all a dream, but if we assume we are operating in a reality we share on any significant level, there are likely ways we can test and find our common ground.

Still, maybe each test shows ‘two frigid hollow cylinders’ to him and ‘a red hot metal sphere’ to me. I’ll be standing there with a sphere in my right hand and an empty left hand in my pocket, while he insists I have a cylinder presented in both. But if his ‘two frigid hollow cylinders’ affects my senses in the same way as ‘a red hot metal sphere’ then the difference is only semantic as far as I care. When I talk to him, I’ll use the words ‘two frigid hollow cylinders’ to mean ‘a red hot metal sphere’.

The diplomatic approach would be to humbly acknowledge that reality is relative to the perceiver and that our particular perceptions are just one possibility among millions.

Sure, but it’s a pretty good assumption to think our creator (evolution, God, psychic waves, whatever) created us with the universe “in mind”. Unless we live under different laws of physics, an alien on planet Zognary would have a heck of a time making an irrigation system by trying to flow water through a line of metal spheres instead of hollow cylinders.

 

[chance]

Radrook

There is a general misconception that scientific observations are the last word on reality.

That is not so.

Scientific observations are bounded by the senses and can only record sense impressions.

. It is better stated that they are bound by the observations of the natural world, reality is too subjective as you have demonstrated by your 3 Aliens examples. However one only needs to devise an additional frame of reference for agreement between the Aliens, e.g. a common temperature standard removes subjective hot and cold feelings.

 

[scribble]

There is a general misconception that scientific observations are the last word on reality.

That is not so.

Who is this strawman you've just set on fire? I feel bad for him.

 

[Benguin]

Re: Re: Limits of Science

Who is this strawman you've just set on fire? I feel bad for him.

You beat me to it.

The rest is merely solpsism.

 

[UserGoogol]

Science cannot determine the absolute truth. Skepticism is neccesary. But just because you can't understand something doesn't mean Magic Elves did it. And even if Science can't explain everything doesn't mean that there's something else that can explain what remains.

 

[evildave]

The ultimate limitation to science: "Prove it!"

A great hinderance compared to letting anyone grab the microphone and make any crazy assertion they like, and call that "ultimate, eternal truth" as long as a bunch of people believe it.

 

[Z]

Yep, Radrook, I don't even know if it's worth explaining to you.

Science doesn't give a hoot for whether we've determined 'reality'. What science is looking for is the best way to determine facts while ignoring the subjective as much as possible. That's why we come up with specific indications of things that may be perceived differently, but perception is truly irrelevant.

Let me see if I can put this simply:

The measurement of temperature is based on a set scale. We have verified facts of what is absolute zero, the point at which there is no atomic or molecular movement or vibration. There is no obervation capable of sensing absolute zero, because the warmth of the observer would increase the heat of the object instantly... but we can infer the presence of absolute zero.

Further, in setting our scales, we (arbitrarily) set up a scale that sets the boiling point of water at sea level at one number, and the freezing point at another. Now, obviously, these also infer exact atmospheric pressures, gravity, and other issues, but it gives us a standard for arranging our scale. Thus, when handing this scale to another, both parties can measure a common temperature, in spite of the fact one finds the water to be 'hot' and the other to be 'cold'. This is easy enough to demonstrate with any two people on earth, in fact.

Take, for example, comfort. I might find the air temperature comfortable between 65 degrees fahrenheit and 75 degrees fahrenheit, while you might instead find that too cold. Yet the air temperature in no way changes, and can be measured at, say, 70 degrees whether either of us is comfortable or not.

So your 'red hot' example is nonsense. Yes, three aliens may perceive 'hot' or 'cold' differently - this isn't anything to do with science, merely with semantics. Once the three aliens agree with us on a scale, the temperature will be determined and locked in. All three aliens, if operating on the same scale, will measure that temperature identically.

The remainder of your example is simple nonsense, since it is highly unlikely that such could ever happen. Either there is one object or not; either it is spherical or it is not. Use of terms is irrelevant; assuming that they were taught the same comminucode that we use, then their term for that which they perceive would translate as 'sphere', because we would be agreeing that this object is a 'sphere'. In fact, assuming we could communicate with these three aliens at all, it would be completely impossible for your example to come true.

You'd be much better off dealing with subjective concepts like color or 'hot and cold' than objective concepts such as shape and number. Shape and number are unchanging, but color and 'hot/cold' are biased entirely on the observer. If alien 1 lacks any color vision, the sphere would be some shade of grey; if alien 2 has ultraviolet sensors, he might detect variations in the UV range that we cannot see. If alien 3 lacks any vision whatsoever, but uses sonar to 'see', then color has no meaning whatsoever.

But again, we know that the object reflects (or emits) light in specific wavelength, including light that we (humans) cannot see. When one alien describes it as uniformly grey, from this we can infer a lack of color vision on his part; when the second refers to patterns that we cannot detect, we can infer the presense of UV sensors (such as bees possess). The third alien's sonar sense would probably be blatantly obvious before we ever got this far.

So your example is utter, total bunk... once again, you're speaking from the wrong end of your anatomy, my Reality-challenged friend.

Science never claims that this is all Real, Truth, or Perfect - in fact, we're always adjusting what we've figured out. But one thing is certain: a sphere will always remain a sphere, by definition; that which is measured objectively will always remain measured objectively; and (on the macro scale) we do know many things to be 'true' beyond our ability to perceive them.

Religion, on the other hand, claims the existence of things that cannot be perceived, or things that are true IN SPITE of perception and knowledge. And while I'm more than happy to concede that things may exist in SPITE of what we know, I'd never enter an argument to defend these things that logically cannot exist.

Radrook, my suggestion is, go back to school - and preferably a real school - and learn a little about the real world, and stay away from those crazy holy books for a while. Then, once you actually know something, go back and pick up religion again - maybe you'll be mentally prepared to deal with it then.

 

[Ratman_tf]

There is a general misconception that scientific observations are the last word on reality.

I completely disagree with that statement.

I've heard a few wankers on the internet say something like that, and I've seen a lot of people bring the point up when they're about to take a poke at some scientific finding or another, but I really, really don't see it as a general misconception.

*Edit*

Harf! I posted what other people did.

 

[Dancing David]

The mind by the way, could be perceived as a scientific tool too couldn't it? In fact what would the rest of Science entail, without a mind to study it? So, why is Science so quick to discount what's in other people's minds then? When, in fact this is the very tool which it couldn't dispense with?

Science does grant credence to the content of the mind, but you don't believe the contents of every book do you?

 

[Dancing David]

Radook:

What can you know beyond the realm of the senses?

The limit of science is replication, there after personal belief in the master.

 

[Suggestologist]

Take, for example, comfort. I might find the air temperature comfortable between 65 degrees fahrenheit and 75 degrees fahrenheit, while you might instead find that too cold. Yet the air temperature in no way changes, and can be measured at, say, 70 degrees whether either of us is comfortable or not.

So your 'red hot' example is nonsense. Yes, three aliens may perceive 'hot' or 'cold' differently - this isn't anything to do with science, merely with semantics. Once the three aliens agree with us on a scale, the temperature will be determined and locked in. All three aliens, if operating on the same scale, will measure that temperature identically.

So, when two minds attempt to communicate; if they haven't been calibrated (either culturally or physiologically/environmentally); they must recalibrate mind-to-mind; before they can efficiently communicate and coordinate their actions. In some cases, this recalibration can be fascilitated with measurement instruments; like a thermometer - in the case of temperature.

Apart from instrumentation, the ability to recalibrate will have to do with cultural and physiological similarities; the more similar, the easier the recalibration -- in general. Do you agree?

 

[Z]

Yes... in fact, this required recalibration makes the original argument moot, as the recalibration would turn the alien's 'three hollow cylinders' into a single sphere by means of semantics.

In fact, those 'three hollow cylinders' would, at best, be a mis-interpretation of language, not an actual experience.

If, indeed, some alien did perceive as suggested, then they would be outside of the same reality we inhabit - and communication would be impossible. Further, in bringing such an alien into our reality (or us into theirs) we calibrate the two species yet again, so that perceptions are tuned accordingly.

One might even say that science, to a small degree, is responsible for calibrating the perceptions of the many into a common language.

 

[Interesting Ian]

Re: Re: Limits of Science

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Radrook
There is a general misconception that scientific observations are the last word on reality.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



I completely disagree with that statement.

I've heard a few wankers on the internet say something like that, and I've seen a lot of people bring the point up when they're about to take a poke at some scientific finding or another, but I really, really don't see it as a general misconception.

*Edit*

Harf! I posted what other people did. [/B]

Materialists/Skeptics believe that reality is exhausted by what science can possibly say about it. There can be nothing more to reality than what science can in principle say. Denying this not only commits you to rejecting materialism, but also commits you to rejecting Naturalism.

 

[Iacchus]

Science cannot determine the absolute truth. Skepticism is neccesary. But just because you can't understand something doesn't mean Magic Elves did it. And even if Science can't explain everything doesn't mean that there's something else that can explain what remains.

Yes, but what if the Magic Elves were incredibly good at disguising themselves and, what they did? Does that make it any less magical nonetheless?

 

[Iacchus]

Science does grant credence to the content of the mind, but you don't believe the contents of every book do you?

I only grant credence to those things I understand. However, that does not mean I shouldn't maintain an open mind (hmm ...) about the things I don't should it?

 

[Z]

Materialists/Skeptics believe that reality is exhausted by what science can possibly say about it. There can be nothing more to reality than what science can in principle say. Denying this not only commits you to rejecting materialism, but also commits you to rejecting Naturalism.

Agreed - Science will, eventually, exhaust everything there is to Reality. This is the key, though - Eventually.

Nothing immaterial exists. Science will, provided enough time, learn all that there is to know about the material universe. However, if something immaterial exists, Science will probably never encounter it. The Immaterial may only be experienced if/when it becomes material. If, when all else is exhausted, Science still has phenomenae which are unexplained, then perhaps it will acknowledge the immaterial... until then, it must reject the immaterial as non-existant.

Not sure what you mean by Naturalism per se... please elaborate?

 

[Z]

Yes, but what if the Magic Elves were incredibly good at disguising themselves and, what they did? Does that make it any less magical nonetheless?

'

So, you mean if we never caught the Magic Elves at work, would it make it any less magical? Wouldn't that be a moot point, nonetheless?

Eventually we'd either catch the Elves at work, or they'd be immaterial, in which case we'd have to develop a science for dealing with that which doesn't exist. And once we caught Elves at work, we'd eventually learn HOW they work, moving the 'magic' of Elves into the realm of science.

It's that easy, really.

 

[Interesting Ian]

Agreed - Science will, eventually, exhaust everything there is to Reality. This is the key, though - Eventually.

Nothing immaterial exists. Science will, provided enough time, learn all that there is to know about the material universe. However, if something immaterial exists, Science will probably never encounter it. The Immaterial may only be experienced if/when it becomes material. If, when all else is exhausted, Science still has phenomenae which are unexplained, then perhaps it will acknowledge the immaterial... until then, it must reject the immaterial as non-existant.

Not sure what you mean by Naturalism per se... please elaborate?

I would say consciousness is immaterial ie the intrinsic qualitative feel of experience. We can be more certain than anything else that such experiences exist.

Naturalism just means that the totality of reality is susceptible to being described by fundamental physical laws.