Limits of Science

[Ratman_tf]

This thread wasn't meant as an attack on the scientific method.
It was merely meant as a reminder to remember its limitations.

However, as Lucianarchy has shown us, sometimes the one is a cover for the other.

 

[Iacchus]

Actually, Iacchus, your own statement refutes itself. "If we had a soul" implies uncertainty, i.e. we cannot detect the soul. If the soul is immaterial, then it cannot be detected.

Yes, it implies uncertainty to those who don't know we have one. So, how else would you have me phrase it? I just can't come right out and say so without you having the means to detect it can I? While the same thing applies to God. It's just a big "if" to most of us, right?

 

[Iacchus]

Now, a brief pause to address Iacchus...

You say the human mind is an instrument which can detect God. Given that concept, then we must also accept the reality of unicorns, dragons, faeries, witches who fly on brooms, other Gods, water turning to blood, moons made of green cheese, alternate universes where demons rule, and anything else we can imagine.

However, within the mythological dimension/realm, otherwise known as the collective unconscious, all these things are possible. Now who's to say the imagination is not alive and well and living in all of us? ... as much as we try to repress it? We are living beings aren't we? So what is it about the imagination that's not alive? Do dead things have imaginations?

The human mind is an instrument which can imagine God, but not detect God. God has never once been verified as existing, and as an instrument, the human mind is notoriously faulty. So, try again.

Really? Why have we had religion for thousands of years then? Just one of those totally arbitrary occurrences, right? You know, like the beginning of the Universe and the Big Bang?

I agree. Therefore, no single instance of God's direct interaction is possible.

Unless of course, there was this immaterial thing called a soul or, spirit if you will.

Actually, no. Matter and energy are interchangeable properties... It appears uncertain to some whether matter came first, or energy, but this is really a chicken-and-egg argument. Saying energy is the precursor to matter assumes that matter cannot revert to energy. Small point, though.

If, in fact energy can't be destroyed, where was all this latent energy stored before the Big Bang?

Without the human mind to create Science, Science would not exist - but this concept is entirely beside the point. And you're the one wagging the heck outta that poor Doberman..

Without the human mind, Science would not be a possibility, neither would Religion, at least for human beings anyway.

 

[Gestahl]

Very cute.

My arguments are based on a profound study of metaphysics.

Solipsism is not profound, Radrook. It's naive. If there is not an objective, real base to what is going on "out there" (no matter whether your monism is mind or matter), then there is only solipsism, and you can just plug your ears and say 'I am the only thing that exists and everything else isn't real'. Stop eating and tell me reality is totally based upon our subjective experience. If there is, we can study the patterns: that's science.

What you seem to want to know is whether there is anything that is purely subjective. There are! Like beauty, art, and the divine. The kicker is these are all human inventions, and qualities we imbue upon things, and the only measuring instrument is us. Part of science is determining what we make up, and what is really there. The ideomotor effect is a great example or this. We have yet to find a physical process that has anything to do with beauty, other than ourselves. That should tell you the source of "beauty".

Science is nothing more than a test for *external* truth, at least as much as we can muster. You seem to think science should be able to answer the questions about everything, but obviously it can't, since it doesn't concern itself with "why?" in any more than a causative sense. Nor does it answer "internal questions" since multiple people cannot observe it.

Furthermore, either we can observe something, or not. If we cannot observe it, we cannot say it exists. Science is the study of the patterns of observation, no more.

 

[Radrook]

Originally posted by zaayrdragon

The story you mentioned only serves to illustrate the point: all those other wavelengths exist, all around us, all the time, yet we are unable to perceive them without specific tools and instruments. Does that mean, because we do not perceive them, that they are not there?

I am not trying to prove that what is unperceived by the human senses is not there.

 

[UserGoogol]

My favorite argument against solipsism (or roughly comparable theories) is this one I picked up from Wikipedia.

Since you have no control over the "universe" you are creating for yourself, there must be some unconscious part of your mind creating it. If you make your unconscious mind the object of scientific study (e.g. by conducting experiments) you will find that it behaves with the same complexity as the universe offered by materialism; therefore, the distinction between materialism and solipsism collapses - what materialism calls "the universe", solipsism calls "your unconscious mind", but these are just different names for the same thing: both are massively complex processes external to your conscious mind, and the cause of all your experiences -- possibly merely a semantic distinction.

Materialism might be the wrong word though.

 

[dmarker]

One can embrace a concept as expressed by an atheist and not be obligated to embrace his atheism. For example, I have books by Asimov on Astronomy and agree with the accuracies he has taught me. But that does not obligate me to be an atheist. I also am aware that Asimov has written books criticizing the biblical account. In fact, I read that book. Does that mean that if one of his short stories contains a truth that I agree with I should reject it because--well--Asimov is an atheist? Of course not. All of us agree on different issues with people who are not of our religious views. President Clinton wrote a book recently recounting his presidency. Do you agree with everything he says in that book? Most people will agree with some and not with others.

If this is so and I am more than certain that you are very aware that it is, then why hone in on Asimov and try to make his writings an exception to the generally accepted rules?

Sorry, but it doesn't make any sense.




This thread wasn't meant as an attack on the scientific method.
It was merely meant as a reminder to remember its limitations.



BTW

You are entitled to see irony in my usage of Asimov's short story.
However, that perception does not invalidate its relevancy to the matephysical issue.

LOL, but why is it relevant? The story is fiction about Martians. Where is the truth in it? That some other species can see in a different spectrum than us? We don't have to go any further than bees for that. Bees see in the ultraviolet which humans do not. Using a camera to take pictures of flowers in ultraviolet wave length, we can see what the bees see. Solid colored flowers have ultraviolet X's, landing strips, all leading to the free gift of nectar and the load of pollen to start the next generation.

And guess what opened our eyes to the world of the honey bee, science. All the religion of the world would never give us the glimpse into this part of nature.

And what are the limitations of science?

 

[dmarker]

Yes, and what if we applied this to the same notion of God?

Then why are some people able to percieve god and others aren't?

 

[dmarker]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Limits of Science

Why couldn't successful communication solve the confusion? Being able to look at something in two different ways would be incredibly illuminating. The more information one has, the better able they are to refine their ideas.

Kind of like my bee example, if aliens percieved things in vastly different ways, we could build instruments to bridge the gap just as we have with the bee.

Oh, and the elephant who commicate using sounds pitched lower than the human ear can detect.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Science is the most reliable method in determining what is real and what is not. Is there any other method that even comes close? There is no limit on what science can do, only what scientists can.

 

[Radrook]

Then why are some people able to percieve god and others aren't?

Perceptual usage of freedom of choice does not prove inherent perceptual inability.

 

[Z]

To Interesting Ian: Until you can actually argue coherently, I choose to ignore the majority of your spam.

After all, just shouting "Read and understand" does nothing. I read your so-called rebuttal (refutation, whatever).... AND gave my responses to it, point for point.

Your philosophy is meaningless claptrap, and doesn't even come close to making any sense.... and since your main answer to a point-by-point rebuttal is "Read and understand" it is clear that it is you who is unable to communicate or understand.

Obviously, I've read your silly post... and obviously, I disagree heartily with said post. Further, I understand the point you are trying to make - but it is a very weak point at best, and easily refuted on so many levels.

Further, you display an amazing ignorance of simple science. For example, you insist that color is purely subjective, when in fact science has known for quite some time now that objects either absorb or reflect certain wavelengths of light (or allow them to pass through, obviously), and these wavelengths can be interpreted by the optic nerves as colors... And just as we can firmly claim that a particular flower is yellow, if we have the means we can also claim said flower is also ultra-violet (which many are; bees are amazing little critters!) in spite of being utterly unable to perceive this ourselves.

Likewise, a flower remains yellow whether observed or not, or observed by the color-blind or the totally blind. Color is therefore an objective quality, not a subjective one.

This argument of "what you see as red, I see as green" is a very old argument that generally shows the logical immaturity of the person making the argument. The simple fact is, if wavelengths of light which yield 'red' to my brain also reach your brain, and we share a common experience base, education, and system of communication, assuming no deficiency in your visual capabilities, you will also see 'red'. In fact, if you state that you see 'green' when I declare 'red', only a handful of possible explanations exist:

1) you are lying about what you see;

2) you have been educated to believe that this particular wavelength is called 'green' and will therefore call all other red things 'green';

3) you have suffered a recent injury, illness, or other condition causing alterations either in your optic system or in your brain causing mis-interpretation of colors, which means once again that you will continue calling 'red' 'green';

4) you are insane.

At any rate, the color Red continues to exist, regardless of observation. This is elementary education at best; it's a fine indicator of the validity of the remainder of your argument.

Already, though, I've wasted valuable time and energy on you. Since you cannot properly address my comments without crying about your original missive on 'materialism' (which, methinks, you do not fully understand), there is no further purpose in discussion with you.

As to Iacchus...

Really? Why have we had religion for thousands of years then?

For the same reason we've had mythology for thousands upon thousands of years. In fact, isn't religion just another term for mythology?

Man has believed in sea monsters, werebeasts, faeries, and animal-spirits far longer than Man has believed in what we would now call 'religion'. Man likes to believe in things. Since Man fears what Man cannot understand, Man makes every attempt to understand it that He can. This, too, is elementary.

Religion is nothing more than a modern mythos, one that even I fall prey to. But, then, I'm also willing to believe in faeries and dragons...

The point I was making was that God falls firmly in line with Dragons, Faeries, Elves, Angels, Demons, Werewolves, Vampires, and all other critters of the imagination. We might have believed once that these things existed, but we've proven ourselves wrong on most of them... so they've been relegated safely to the realm of the imaginary and the fantastical. Unfortunately, God is very difficult to disprove, and a lot of people would prefer to believe in something until it's disproven, rather than believe in only what has already been proven... thus religion persists. Plus, with God, you think your soul is at stake. Damnation can be a helluva motivational factor in maintaining outlandish belief. Look at how many cultures and people today STILL are afraid of getting cursed by witch doctors, avoid black cats, tremble at the thought of a Friday the 13th popping up, and read horoscopes! All nonsense, of course, but somewhere in the back of the human mind, there's a tiny voice saying, "But what if it's true? I could be in trouble!"

Religion, unfortunately, has been amplifying this voice for ages. "Believe in God, or burn in Hell!" "If you don't love Jesus, you are a terrible person!"

What's a child supposed to think, raised with this kind of terror? I can just imagine how prevalent Santa would be if we threw in some horrors around his story too.. "Now go to sleep, or Santa will come in the night and EAT YOUR SPLEEN! Look, it's written, here, in the Book of Clause, chapter 15-3..."

So it's no wonder religion has existed for thousands of years... right alongside superstition, mythology, and idiocy.

 

[Radrook]

And what are the limitations of science?

Of course we do not have to go beyond the bees or any other insect for that matter to illustrate the point. I could just as easily have used the examples you mention or others easily at my disposal. But I chose aliens didn't I?

Furthermore, if you have not understood what I am referring to YET, then I strongly suggest that you read Descartes and become familiar with his Methodical of Doubt approach and follow it up with a study of Hume and become familiar with his sense impressions concepts.

Only then will we have a common ground for communicating on the subject. Otherwise it is useless to continue since everything I say might otherwise come across as silly.

 

[Interesting Ian]

To Interesting Ian: Until you can actually argue coherently, I choose to ignore the majority of your spam.

After all, just shouting "Read and understand" does nothing. I read your so-called rebuttal (refutation, whatever).... AND gave my responses to it, point for point.

Your philosophy is meaningless claptrap, and doesn't even come close to making any sense.... and since your main answer to a point-by-point rebuttal is "Read and understand" it is clear that it is you who is unable to communicate or understand.

Obviously, I've read your silly post... and obviously, I disagree heartily with said post. Further, I understand the point you are trying to make - but it is a very weak point at best, and easily refuted on so many levels.

Further, you display an amazing ignorance of simple science. For example, you insist that color is purely subjective, when in fact science has known for quite some time now that objects either absorb or reflect certain wavelengths of light (or allow them to pass through, obviously), and these wavelengths can be interpreted by the optic nerves as colors... And just as we can firmly claim that a particular flower is yellow, if we have the means we can also claim said flower is also ultra-violet (which many are; bees are amazing little critters!) in spite of being utterly unable to perceive this ourselves.

Likewise, a flower remains yellow whether observed or not, or observed by the color-blind or the totally blind. Color is therefore an objective quality, not a subjective one.

This argument of "what you see as red, I see as green" is a very old argument that generally shows the logical immaturity of the person making the argument. The simple fact is, if wavelengths of light which yield 'red' to my brain also reach your brain, and we share a common experience base, education, and system of communication, assuming no deficiency in your visual capabilities, you will also see 'red'. In fact, if you state that you see 'green' when I declare 'red', only a handful of possible explanations exist:

1) you are lying about what you see;

2) you have been educated to believe that this particular wavelength is called 'green' and will therefore call all other red things 'green';

3) you have suffered a recent injury, illness, or other condition causing alterations either in your optic system or in your brain causing mis-interpretation of colors, which means once again that you will continue calling 'red' 'green';

4) you are insane.

At any rate, the color Red continues to exist, regardless of observation. This is elementary education at best; it's a fine indicator of the validity of the remainder of your argument.

Already, though, I've wasted valuable time and energy on you. Since you cannot properly address my comments without crying about your original missive on 'materialism' (which, methinks, you do not fully understand), there is no further purpose in discussion with you.

I agree that there is no purpose communicating with you. You comprehensively fail to understand, as do the vast majority of people on this board.

I just feel occasionally obliged to refute some of the cr@p that people spew forth on here.

 

[Iacchus]

The point I was making was that God falls firmly in line with Dragons, Faeries, Elves, Angels, Demons, Werewolves, Vampires, and all other critters of the imagination. We might have believed once that these things existed, but we've proven ourselves wrong on most of them... so they've been relegated safely to the realm of the imaginary and the fantastical. Unfortunately, God is very difficult to disprove, and a lot of people would prefer to believe in something until it's disproven, rather than believe in only what has already been proven... thus religion persists.

This is called the collective unconscious by the way, and it does exist. Albeit some gods are more relative than others.

 

[Yahweh]

The human mind.

How does the mind detect God?

Is not energy the precursor to matter?

Energy and matter are identical, they are two sides of the same coin.

Matter is congealed energy, much like ice is congealed H₂O.

 

[Z]

The year 1641 saw the appearance of Descartes' Meditationes de prima philosophia, in quibus Dei existentia, & animae à corpore distinctio, demonstratur In 1649, on the eve of his departure for Stockholm to take up residence as instructor to Queen Christina of Sweden, Descartes sent the manuscript of the last of his great works, Les passions de l'ame[3], to press. Les passions [see figure 3] is Descartes' most important contribution to psychology proper. In addition to an analysis of primary emotions, it contains Descartes' most extensive account of causal mind/body interactionism and of the localization of the soul's contact with the body in the pineal gland. As is well known, Descartes chose the pineal gland because it appeared to him to be the only organ in the brain that was not bilaterally duplicated and because he believed, erroneously, that it was uniquely human. In February of 1650, returning in the bitter cold from a session with Queen Christina, who insisted on receiving her instruction at 5 a.m., Descartes contracted pneumonia. Within a week, the man who had given direction to much of later philosophy was dead. By focusing on the problem of true and certain knowledge, Descartes had made epistemology, the question of the relationship between mind and world, the starting point of philosophy. By localizing the soul's contact with body in the pineal gland, Descartes had raised the question of the relationship of mind to the brain and nervous system. Yet at the same time, by drawing a radical ontological distinction between body as extended and mind as pure thought, Descartes, in search of certitude, had paradoxically created intellectual chaos.

So one kook, whose basic paradigms were proven wrong, albeit he may have been on the right track, and...

http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Philosophy-David-Hume-Philosopher.htm

Another kook, who just didn't have all the facts in at the time to make any sense. Well, here's the solutions to Hume's problems, neatly spelled out by a theory (JUST A THEORY) that neatly fits quite nicely with what we know.

OK, so I've looked through Descartes and Hume - Once again, Radrook, you'd rather trust in the words and philosophies of long-dead and debunked authors, than in modern knowledge and facts.

Frankly, anyone debating science from the standpoint of philosophy is doing so pointlessly - throwing pebbles at a steel wall, hoping the wall will erode away.

I.I., what IS it in your mental make-up that makes you fail to understand that YOU ARE WRONG? Painfully, woefully, and completely WRONG?? Now, mind ye, I'm not suggesting that a majority consensus determines fact or fantasy, but in this case, I'd think you'd have to at least consider how ridiculous and ignorant your arguments are.

And finally Iacchus (part III of the kooks trilogy) - The only 'relevance' involved in imaginary beings are the weight given them by populations of people. I will, therefore, agree that the Christian God bears more relevance than the Easter Bunny, let's say, since more people are convinved of the former's reality than the latter, and since more people are likely to take specific action based on said belef. This does not, however, cause the former to be any less imaginary than the latter.

Radrook, you are definitely the 'father' of the Trilogy - you OCCASIONALLY make some sort of sense, and seem to act most maturely - up to the point where anyone refutes your arguments. Iacchus, you'd be the son, as your posts tend to be more erratic and immature. As for I.I. - He's gotta be the ghost, 'cuz he just lacks substance.



edited to change 'kiiks' to 'kooks'

 

[Iacchus]

Do you mind if I ask why you continue to flip-flop on the matter? Why do you seem to be open to the possibility that God exists for yourself, and then turn around and call eveyone else a kook for believing the same thing? Is there something that we all seem to be missing here? ... Or what?

 

[Iacchus]

How does the mind detect God?

How does the mind detect anything? Regardless, both Science and Religion manifest themselves through the human mind.

Energy and matter are identical, they are two sides of the same coin.

Matter is congealed energy, much like ice is congealed H₂O.

Energy is unbound matter? Or, is energy bound into matter? It's not possible for matter to permeate energy is it? Albeit it is possible for energy to permeate matter, right? This would be my guess anyway.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Why do you seem to be open to the possibility that God exists for yourself, and then turn around and call eveyone else a kook for believing the same thing?

It's possible for pink unicorns to exist as well, but people that actually believe such things to exist are kooks.

his is called the collective unconscious by the way, and it does exist.

What the hell is collective unconscious? What is the definition, and do you really have evidence that it exists?