Can science REALLY explain Reality?

[sw85]

No. That’s an incorrect understanding of the scientific method. Science is a skeptical endeavor, a culture of doubt, which cannot prove anything absolutely true but rather gives reasons backed by evidence why a claim can be false. In other words it is also a culture of probability when it comes to positive claims. And I’ve addressed the term scientism elsewhere.

I am not even sure what this post, which references mine, is supposed to be addressing.

Is it my saying that evidence is a proof of a physical phenomenon? But clearly saying “a proof” is not the same thing as saying “proof.” I’m aware, by the way, what the scientific method entails – I am a researcher by trade.

If you are referring to my claim that there is no way to observe the truth of the metaphysical claims which scientism makes, then your objection is hardly interesting. It implies that scientism is simply specious on its own terms than definitively false. Given that what I’ve been saying here repeatedly is that there is no reason to believe scientism is true, it doesn’t even touch on my objection, which is that, err, there’s no reason to believe it’s true without an a priori assumption that it’s valid – i.e., that it’s true. Science cannot furnish evidence for its own validity. That validity derives from a larger network of (unempirical) epistemological assumptions. Surely any idiot can see this.

In any event, I use “scientism” simply to refer to the improper elevation of science from a methodology to an epistemology. i.e., it is not merely methodological but metaphysical. In this sense it is improper to call it “science,” hence the use of the different word.

 

[InJesusItrust]

If the universe isn’t really orderly, if orderliness is just an illusion, then God has no control and is merely a god of chaos. I guess that would be annoying.

The universe can still have order even though parameters vary. Unlike in math, physical constants are not deduced from first principles.

 

[InJesusItrust]

I don’t know if you know any scientists personally, but they don’t tend to get annoyed. They constantly strive to understand, and if that means turning over previously dearly held ideas, that actually excites them, not annoy them.

Sarah x

Science enthusiasts are not necessarily scientists. Some science enthusiasts subscribe to scientism.

 

[Gaber]

Originally Posted by atheistgirl
I don’t know if you know any scientists personally, but they don’t tend to get annoyed. They constantly strive to understand, and if that means turning over previously dearly held ideas, that actually excites them, not annoy them.

Sarah x

Science enthusiasts are not necessarily scientists. Some science enthusiasts subscribe to scientism.

---

“It is as true of democratic fraternity as a divine love; sham love ends in compromise and common philosophy; but real love has always ended in bloodshed.” – G.K. Chesterton

Does your Chesterton quote explian marital strife?

Scientism. btw, is so much better than some of the alternatives.

 

[brumano]

If we haven’t explained or observed all of the natural universe, how does anyone claim to know that there is a level of existence beyond the natural? It seems to me that the assumption that not all of reality is natural implies that we already know the limits of natural reality, when it’s quite apparent that we don’t. Supposing that there are extant phenomena which are, in principle, beyond the scope of scientific investigation seems premature, to say the least. Any phenomena that are beyond science are thus also beyond our ability to experience in any way and so would seem to be irrelevant to our existence.

Well, as you say because we couldn’t possibly explain anything near to all of the natural universe that we cannot possibly have observed, this leads, no, forces us to perceive there must be a higher knowledge, higher being, higher concioussness than ourselves. It follows just as factually in that higher realm that we can and do experience this…greater reality; the spiritual reality which science may or may not be able to apply itself. If there are phenomenae beyond the scope of science that occur, that you might have in mind; they did and they do occur regardless of quote unqoute scientific proof. If the sum total of all human experience were limited to only on our own abilities to create our own experiences relevant to our existence we probably would never have had one thought of that higher being that we aspire to.

 

[tonyrey]

I am not even sure what this post, which references mine, is supposed to be addressing.

Is it my saying that evidence is a proof of a physical phenomenon? But clearly saying “a proof” is not the same thing as saying “proof.” I’m aware, by the way, what the scientific method entails – I am a researcher by trade.

If you are referring to my claim that there is no way to observe the truth of the metaphysical claims which scientism makes, then your objection is hardly interesting. It implies that scientism is simply specious on its own terms than definitively false. Given that what I’ve been saying here repeatedly is that there is no reason to believe scientism is true, it doesn’t even touch on my objection, which is that, err, there’s no reason to believe it’s true without an a priori assumption that it’s valid – i.e., that it’s true. Science cannot furnish evidence for its own validity. That validity derives from a larger network of (unempirical) epistemological assumptions. Surely any idiot can see this.

In any event, I use “scientism” simply to refer to the improper elevation of science from a methodology to an epistemology. i.e., it is not merely methodological but metaphysical. In this sense it is improper to call it “science,” hence the use of the different word.

A forthright and flawless post!

 

[Solus_vistor]

surely religion is easy to study? .

Well, “easy” is a relative term. What seems easy to you might not look that easy to scholars in the fields I mention. Some people think mathematics is easy because they can understand only its restriction to arithmetics. Perhaps something similar is true about religion.

I’d have thought most people don’t approach religion as a philosophical quest, they simply either believe or don’t

I agree, most people are not philosophers or interested in philosophy.

 

[Solus_vistor]

how does anyone claim to know that there is a level of existence beyond the natural?

I am not sure whether anybody “knows” that there is something Extra beyond the natural. It would probably depend on how you define knowledge, but mostly a naturalist believes that there is nothing but the physical world investigated by natural science, whereas others (e.g. Catholics) believe in that Extra, for instance because they cannot accept that the cause and purpose of the natural world lies within it.

As I tried to explain in my previous post, from a purely rational perspective, the difference between a naturalist/atheist and a religious world view is in their metaphysical presuppositions on which they are built. One does not “know” such presuppositions, one accepts one or the other.

Supposing that there are extant phenomena which are, in principle, beyond the scope of scientific investigation seems premature, to say the least. Any phenomena that are beyond science are thus also beyond our ability to experience in any way and so would seem to be irrelevant to our existence.

Phenomena, if understood as objects of observation, belong by their very definition to “the scope of scientific investigation”. If understood as what the senses or mind notice, they include not only phenomena investigated by (natural) science but also subjective experiences where the psychological, cultural, sociological etc factors play their roles. These subjective factors lead one to accept the a priori position of a “believer”, the other that of an “unbeliever”. For a believer his/her a priori faith (a state of mind) plays a decisive role in accepting the existence of that Extra that is beyond the natural. In case of a Christian this Extra is “modeled” around the concept of a triune Godhead.

 

[inocente]

Science cannot furnish evidence for its own validity. That validity derives from a larger network of (unempirical) epistemological assumptions. Surely any idiot can see this.

While it could be argued that seeking after Truth[sup]®[/sup] was always a waste of time.

Science furnishes lots of evidence for its validity: vaccination does its job, your computer confirms the applied science that went into its development and so on. In other words no one needs an epistemologist to tell them it hurts when they hit their thumb with a hammer.

Richard Feynman made a little joke about philosophers - youtube.com/watch?v=X8aWBcPVPMo

 

[inocente]

The universe can still have order even though parameters vary. Unlike in math, physical constants are not deduced from first principles.

Special tuning is fashionable, but no one seems to have noticed that just because a constant is currently determined empirically doesn’t mean it can’t and won’t one day be derived from first principles, and then poof, how sad, that particular god-of-the-gaps bubble will burst.

 

[inocente]

Well, “easy” is a relative term. What seems easy to you might not look that easy to scholars in the fields I mention. Some people think mathematics is easy because they can understand only its restriction to arithmetics. Perhaps something similar is true about religion.

Heh, first you claim that scholars are blind to religion, now you imply I’m blind to scholarship. An uncharitable person might assume you have no case other than argumentum ad hominem on a grand scale, by which you cursorily dismiss anyone and everyone who doesn’t see things your way.

To dispel any such wayward impression, please give a few examples of those aspects of religion which you think confuse scholars. (You can safely omit any mystic incantations, as most of your ”blind men” are scientists who won’t get confused by things for which there’s no possibility of evidence.)

I agree, most people are not philosophers or interested in philosophy.

Sure, but in passing, that’s not what I said.

 

[Solus_vistor]

Heh, first you claim that scholars are blind to religion, now you imply I’m blind to scholarship. An uncharitable person might assume you have no case other than argumentum ad hominem on a grand scale, by which you cursorily dismiss anyone and everyone who doesn’t see things your way.

Sorry if I offended you, that was not my intention. I just repeated your claim that the phenomenon “religion” was easy (to understand, to solve problems within, or what) and I dared to disagree. I never wrote you were blind to scholarship. Neither that scholars were blind to religion, though if you think so you apprantly misunderstood the metaphor. Neither didi I dismiss you, or anybody else on this thread.

please give a few examples of those aspects of religion which you think confuse scholars.

There are a variety of opinions about religion written by professionals in the seven professions I listed (psychologists, anthropologists, sociologists, evolutionists, philosophers, ethicists, historians) and you may add also theologians. They are far from agreeing even when they consider religion from within the same field. You can use Google to have some insight into this variety of professional (or psuedo-professional) opinions.

 

[tonyrey]

I have been off this thread for a while because my computer is being repaired and I’ve had limited access to the internet since then, but I have to repsond to this-----------

SOME scientists DO act in this way (and properly so)--------

But why do you not tell the scientists and professors at various universities around the country to behave like that when one has the GALL to question the standard model for evolution (i.e., Darwinian evolution) and suggest and alternate model, like, let’s say, “intelligent design?”

Thetre are many cases of priofessors and students who have had their careers ruined and thri reputations destroyed becauser they DARED to question certain aspects of evolution and instead posited whether ID was not a more credible alternative.

Watch the EXPELLED doumentary by Ben Stein as an example.

Scientists DO get excited-----------too often, though, they get excited about ideas that only tend to uphold the staus quo in scientific circles and agree with their version of what the “evidence” is.

So yes, not EVERYBODY in the scientific community is as open-minded as you just described.

The scientific Establishment is notorious for being a closed shop hostile to religion.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

Special tuning is fashionable, but no one seems to have noticed that just because a constant is currently determined empirically doesn’t mean it can’t and won’t one day be derived from first principles, and then poof, how sad, that particular god-of-the-gaps bubble will burst.

What of this “proof?”

Every proof begins with axiomatic beliefs, and agreed upon steps starting from those axioms.

For example, everything electromagnetic starts with three axioms a) the existence of charge, b) the attractive/repulsive forces of one charge on another, and c) superposition. Given those three axioms, you can describe what we know about electromagnetism.

But the axioms are accepted without proof. We see effects that we attribute to these principles, but with current knowledge and technology it is a philosophical estimation because we can’t prove them – we just accept them. So everything electrical or electronic is faith-based because it is built on unproven philosophical axioms. No “normal” person would deny the existence of electromagnetic charges, but they give us something to work on that works for us for now and that’s good enough because it gives us these computers to argue about it.

Issues that are philosophical are sought out by science, and scientific discovery give philosophy reasons to change their arguments. Philosophy suggests tentative facts or relationships that we don’t know, and gives science a direction and reason to investigate. Saying one is “adequate” over the other is like the hand saying to the foot, “I don’t need you.”

Just think; if scientists hadn’t put the three axioms into place, we wouldn’t have Maxwell’s Equations and therefore it would be dark all around us. No science would be able to explain why, but philosophers and theologians would help point science in the right direction to discover them. Such was the our plight after the Big Bang, (almost typed Big Band) and before Gen 1:3. Of course everyone knows Genesis is a simplified explanation for the non-technical… here’s a more detailed account, from which Gen 1:3 was drawn:

Rock Valley Bible Church

www.rvbc.cc

Alan

 

[AlanFromWichita]

The scientific Establishment is notorious for being a closed shop hostile to religion.

Maybe so. That’s a result of people being fools, not a weakness of science itself.

But what about all the religious (this thread included?) that are hostile to science? Or for that matter, the religious who relentlessly argue with other religious? Really, if we’re going to judge a field of endeavor based on the stupidity level of some of its people, science and religion both need to go to hell, don’t they? Music and art, too. And marketing – it would definitely have to go.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

Thetre are many cases of priofessors and students who have had their careers ruined and thri reputations destroyed becauser they DARED to question certain aspects of evolution and instead posited whether ID was not a more credible alternative.

What about religion? It persecutes and has not refrained from burning at the stake, those who DARE question her? This is far from a one-way street.

Scientists DO get excited-----------too often, though, they get excited about ideas that only tend to uphold the staus quo in scientific circles and agree with their version of what the “evidence” is.

Sure they do. We were all trained to respond to the “norm” when we were little.

Some still dare to color outside the lines, but not many of us.

So yes, not EVERYBODY in the scientific community is as open-minded as you just described.

True. But I hope you’re not trying to distinguish scientists from philosophers or theologians on these criteria.

Alan

 

[atheistgirl]

Richard Feynman made a little joke about philosophers - youtube.com/watch?v=X8aWBcPVPMo

I love it

Sarah x

 

[inocente]

Sorry if I offended you, that was not my intention. I just repeated your claim that the phenomenon “religion” was easy (to understand, to solve problems within, or what) and I dared to disagree. I never wrote you were blind to scholarship. Neither that scholars were blind to religion, though if you think so you apprantly misunderstood the metaphor. Neither didi I dismiss you, or anybody else on this thread.

You didn’t offend me . But you did call them “six blind men” and said they are “confused about what is its [religion’s] cause and purpose or why it is there at all” (post #351).

There are a variety of opinions about religion written by professionals in the seven professions I listed (psychologists, anthropologists, sociologists, evolutionists, philosophers, ethicists, historians) and you may add also theologians. They are far from agreeing even when they consider religion from within the same field.

Saying that scholars have different opinions about religion is very different from your original contention that they are confused about/by religion. Confused people don’t tend to have opinions and opinionated people don’t tend to be confused. So I’m not sure of your point now, especially as you added theologians to the mix. If you’re saying that people don’t all think the same and that must be incorporated into any explanation of reality, agreed.

You can use Google to have some insight into this variety of professional (or psuedo-professional) opinions.

I see. First you tell me, apropos of nothing, that math is more than arithmetic, and now inform me that I can use a search engine to find out stuff. Thanks so much for not making me feel patronized. Let’s restart. Hi Solus vistor, pleased to meet you.

 

[inocente]

What of this “proof?”

Did you read “poof” as “proof”? Tell me you didn’t read “poof” as “proof”.

*Every proof begins with axiomatic beliefs, and agreed upon steps starting from those axioms.

For example, everything electromagnetic starts with three axioms a) the existence of charge, b) the attractive/repulsive forces of one charge on another, and c) superposition. Given those three axioms, you can describe what we know about electromagnetism.

But the axioms are accepted without proof. We see effects that we attribute to these principles, but with current knowledge and technology it is a philosophical estimation because we can’t prove them – we just accept them. So everything electrical or electronic is faith-based because it is built on unproven philosophical axioms. No “normal” person would deny the existence of electromagnetic charges, but they give us something to work on that works for us for now and that’s good enough because it gives us these computers to argue about it.*

Ultimately everything comes down to some form of faith, since sooner or later everything depends on axioms. But there’s a world of difference between a faith in astrology, which tends to be refuted as more evidence is collected, and a faith in electromagnetism, which tends to be confirmed as more evidence is collected.

And that’s another good reason why science is so successful, thanks for pointing that out.

Issues that are philosophical are sought out by science, and scientific discovery give philosophy reasons to change their arguments. Philosophy suggests tentative facts or relationships that we don’t know, and gives science a direction and reason to investigate. Saying one is “adequate” over the other is like the hand saying to the foot, “I don’t need you.”

To your suggestion that science is rudderless without philosophy, I can only respond “nuts” . Every scientist can do philosophy just fine if and whenever she needs to, while philosophers rarely have the training even to know how to roll up their sleeves.

Just think; if scientists hadn’t put the three axioms into place, we wouldn’t have Maxwell’s Equations and therefore it would be dark all around us. No science would be able to explain why, but philosophers and theologians would help point science in the right direction to discover them. Such was the our plight after the Big Bang, (almost typed Big Band) and before Gen 1:3. Of course everyone knows Genesis is a simplified explanation for the non-technical… here’s a more detailed account, from which Gen 1:3 was drawn:

Well it’s mighty generous of philosophy and theology to help little old lady science across the road, but I think you might just be over-simplifying a bit, not much mind, but just maybe a tinsy bit.

As for Gen 1, the cosmology is very different to the standard model. First off, it assumes the universe was created in its current form, while big bang has the universe evolving into its current form over an astronomically (forgive pun) long time. It’s hard to think of a bigger desparity. I think neither the writer nor original audience would have seen Genesis as a science treatise.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

Confused people don’t tend to have opinions and opinionated people don’t tend to be confused.

(you were kidding, right?)