Can science REALLY explain Reality?

[sw85]

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.

Science appears to do these things. I cannot take them at face value without an a priori assumption that (a) reality is objective and independent of our senses, and that (b) our senses are nevertheless basically capable of discerning its nature. If I can’t make those assumptions that I cannot rely on what I am observing, which could after all just be a figment of my imagination, an improper extrapolation of a brain that seeks patterns and is willing to read them where none exist, etc.

But these are not empirical assumptions – i.e., they are logically prior to any empirical observation, and any empirical proof of those assumptions could not be assumed to be valid without making those assumptions – yet without them, the scientific endeavor falls apart.

So clearly, then, it is not the case that empirical observation is the sole source of knowledge. Otherwise, we could not possibly know whether or not the claim “empirical observation is the sole source of knowledge” is true. To say that we can is, from a scientistic perspective, an unprincipled exception. If we can know this one unempirical thing, what reason is there to believe we cannot know any other unempirical thing? Well, there is no reason. That’s why it’s an unprincipled exception.

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

That’s a cute story, but the issue here is that the idiot philosophers who can’t bring themselves to acknowledge common sense in this case are the proponents of scientism, not their detractors. It’s the proponents of scientism whose ideas, rigorously applied, lead to counterintuitive absurdity, such as the idea that there can be efficient causation (X acting so as to produce Y) without final causation (X having the power to produce Y), or belief in nominalism (the idea that there is no objective human form or essence, so that you and I are no more necessary alike than a starfish is to a skyscraper).

Often these silly beliefs interact in sillier ways. For instance, I have never empirically observed my own intestines. I can assume I have them because I’m a human who is alive and healthy and because healthy, living humans have intestines, plus this would explain the occasional burbling in my stomach after a large meal and the fact that I use the bathroom regularly. But these intuitions rely on formal realist assumption, and scientism rejects formal realism. I cannot make the assumption that “healthy, living humans have intestines” because (according to nominalists) that’s a linguistic sleight of hand with no necessary objective correspondence to reality. After all, I cannot “observe” a form or essence!

So I am left in the position of believing that there is no particularly sound reason to believe my own intestines exist – the best I can say is that this explanation might perhaps fit the evidence (i.e., having intestines explains burbling and digestion), even if there’s no way to know if it fits the evidence better than any other possible explanation of which I’m ignorant short of cutting myself open and taking a peek!

Of course, no one thinks or talks like this. We all know we have intestines, and we know we have it because we are all humans and because humans by nature have intestines. Because we all know intuitively that formal realism is correct, no matter how much smart people try to talk themselves into believing otherwise.

We all also know that teleological realism is correct, which is why we have no problem saying that a “healthy heart” is one that pumps blood and an unhealthy (i.e., disordered, diseased) heart is one that does not pump blood well – either pumping it too fast, too slow, with too much pressure or too little, unevenly, etc. Pumping blood is the telos (end) of a heart, and the goodness of a vital thing is its successful execution of its telos – thus a good heart pumps blood, a bad heart pumps blood badly or not at all. Like the kids say, duh. Technically, though, we’re not allowed to acknowledge this, either, because we can’t observe a telos empirically. So we’re left with the idiotic belief that hearts don’t have any particular necessary function from which deviation is problematic, which, rigorously applied, leaves medical science a totally unworkable mess.

So in fact even scientism itself winds up embracing realism informally even as it repudiates it formally! This kind of silliness and internal incoherence is a sure sign that scientism is both false and stupid.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

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

…

OK. I didn’t read “poof” as “proof.”

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.

Tends to be. It is in the extremes that we get new discoveries. Like quantum physics shows electrons are much screwier than any model most engineers and scientists ever need to use. But the Three Axioms (why am I thinking of “I Robot?”) are still used because for macroscopic things like how do I get power from the wall socket to a light bulb, quantum physics is irrelevant.

Semiconductor physics is one place it’s really weird. Solids act like liquids. Gold dissolves into silicon. The conductors in a chip have a high enough “current density” that atoms are actually “blown” by the electron winds, creating open circuits and shorts. And did you know if a small particle gets inside a hermetic chip (luckily there aren’t many anymore) where it will be? It will be between the power and ground – because it seeks the strongest electric field in the can which, at those sizes, is some ungodly number of times stronger than gravity or vibration.

Here’s an example of “whiskers” that grew in a chip because of the current density in the conductor, probably 1000 or more times the current density in an electric stove element (because of the size).



But science didn’t seek these things out. They encountered them as they kept trying to shrink stuff and put more into electronic devices. Complexity doubles about every 18 months in the business. Models break every day, so science is and has to be a living thing.

I don’t know what point I’m making. I just love to talk about this stuff.

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

np. I’ve loved science my whole life. I’ve only “loved” religion for a couple decades, and only intensely for six years. But I still defend religion and philosophy against claims that somehow science is better.

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.

I didn’t say it was “rudderless.” Only that philosophy leads to scientific interest. For example, “I wonder what it would be like to take a ride on a light beam,” seems very “philosophical.” But Einstein asked himself that question, and the world will never be the same.

But more directly, Einstein was the one who said, “science without religion is lame.” He was not a theologian; he was a scientist. What better qualified scientist says that science is not enhanced by religion?

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.

Oh? When was the last time you had a discussion with people who honestly believe Genesis is 100% literal and historic? Mine was last year, and my hair hasn’t completely grown back. The writer hopefully would have known it was not a science treatise, but there are a God-awful number of people who think it is.

I’m reminded of Prov 27:22 (NIV)
Though you grind a fool in a mortar, grinding them like grain with a pestle, you will not remove their folly from them.

Pretty insightful for an old religion book, eh?

Alan

 

[atheistgirl]

Pretty insightful for an old religion book, eh?

Naw, not really.

Every culture, going back to the dawn of man, has had it’s fair share of fools, and wrote about them

Human nature was ever so

Sarah x

 

[tonyrey]

Every culture, going back to the dawn of man, has had it’s fair share of fools, and wrote about them.

The point is that there are fools who write about fools and don’t include themselves! It probably takes a fool to write about fools.

But that’s what both you and I are doing.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

The point is that there are fools who write about fools and don’t include themselves! It probably takes a fool to write about fools.

But that’s what both you and I are doing.

 

[atheistgirl]

The point is that there are fools who write about fools

So the writer of Proverbs was a fool?

Sarah x

 

[tonyrey]

So the writer of Proverbs was a fool?

We are all fools in some way or other because we are all fallible but some are far more foolish than others! You don’t come into the “very foolish” category, of course.

I’'m not quite so sure about myself… :ehh:

 

[Solus_vistor]

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”

I admit that I did not succeed in getting the meaning of the metaphor through to you, (and perhaps to others as well). I am sorry for that, however, one cannot explain a metaphor any more than one can explain a joke.

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

I did not write that any one scientist was confused, only that the totality of them, when trying to put together their perspectives, like those blind men not beinbg able to see that they were all experiencing the same elephant. However, as said, one should not try to explain a metaphor.

I apologise again if I upset you with the wording of that metaphor, and/or with my attempts to react to your objections. So, please, let us leave it at that.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

Maybe we’re making this too complicated.

1. At the current state of the art, can science REALLY explain Reality? – NO.
2. Is there anything philosophical or religious that science would refuse to investigate given a chance? – NO.

---

And for those questions not asked …

1. Can either philosophy or religion REALLY explain Reality? – NO.
2. Is there anything scientific they wouldn’t ponder, given a chance? – NO.

---

Done.

You’re welcome.

---

Unsolicited bonus comment: as long as philosophy ponders anything science hasn’t completely examined, and/or science has figured out something that philosophy has yet to come to unanimous agreement about, 1 and 3 above will remain as NO. And until science or philosophy becomes consumed by and consequently a subset of the other, the answers to 2 and 4 will remain as NO. I suggest we hold off on setting a date when any of that will happen.

You could look at religion and philosophy as the same for this analysis – or if you want to count them as different, then there is a three-way challenge, each pairing of which still will answer NO.

 

[Sair]

Maybe we’re making this too complicated.

1. At the current state of the art, can science REALLY explain Reality? – NO.
2. Is there anything philosophical or religious that science would refuse to investigate given a chance? – NO.

---

And for those questions not asked …

1. Can either philosophy or religion REALLY explain Reality? – NO.
2. Is there anything scientific they wouldn’t ponder, given a chance? – NO.

---

Done.

You’re welcome.

---

Unsolicited bonus comment: as long as philosophy ponders anything science hasn’t completely examined, and/or science has figured out something that philosophy has yet to come to unanimous agreement about, 1 and 3 above will remain as NO. And until science or philosophy becomes consumed by and consequently a subset of the other, the answers to 2 and 4 will remain as NO. I suggest we hold off on setting a date when any of that will happen.

You could look at religion and philosophy as the same for this analysis – or if you want to count them as different, then there is a three-way challenge, each pairing of which still will answer NO.

Well put, sir.

The only issue I would mention is that the thread really seems to be asking, can science theoretically, or in principle, explain all of reality? In other words, is it possible for us to detect and understand everything that exists? As you rightly imply, the answer at present has to be “no”. As Irish comedian Dara O’Brien aptly put it, if science knew everything, it would stop.

Furthermore, the question contains an assumption about the nature - if I may so put it - of reality. The supposition that everything is, in principle, accessible to science is tantamount to the claim that natural reality is all that exists. Even then, there are some things that, because of the nature of reality, we are not in a position to know - such as the actual existence and kind of life that may or may not be present on distant planets, orbiting suns whose light we are only now able to see, perhaps millions of years after these stars have burnt themselves out. But at least, in this regard, it could be said that science has helped us to manage our expectations!

The supposition that there exist aspects of reality that science cannot, even in principle or from a distance, approach, strikes me as premature. Anything of which we may be aware is theoretically open to scientific investigation, and that, I would have thought, would include so-called “supernatural” realities - which, if they are detectable, are a possible object for scientific study. If it’s possible (and some cosmologists think it should be) to detect dark matter, even though it passes through us - and through the vast majority of “regular” matter - without our noticing, then it ought to be possible to detect god!

 

[tonyrey]

The supposition that there exist aspects of reality that science cannot, even in principle or from a distance, approach, strikes me as premature. Anything of which we may be aware is theoretically open to scientific investigation, and that, I would have thought, would include so-called “supernatural” realities - which, if they are detectable, are a possible object for scientific study.

If everything of which we may be aware is theoretically open to scientific investigation
scientific investigation itself is open to scientific investigation - which implies that it can explain itself. Do you believe that is feasible?

 

[Crescentinus]

A better question is, can science explain science?

 

[inocente]

Science appears to do these things. I cannot take them at face value without an a priori assumption that (a) reality is objective and independent of our senses, and that (b) our senses are nevertheless basically capable of discerning its nature. If I can’t make those assumptions that I cannot rely on what I am observing, which could after all just be a figment of my imagination, an improper extrapolation of a brain that seeks patterns and is willing to read them where none exist, etc.

But these are not empirical assumptions – i.e., they are logically prior to any empirical observation, and any empirical proof of those assumptions could not be assumed to be valid without making those assumptions – yet without them, the scientific endeavor falls apart.

Surely this is irrelevant though. Putting a man on the moon, ridding the world of smallpox, and thousands of other examples demonstrate that science doesn’t just appear to do things, it gets results, it gets the job done (and this then also extends to fundamental research, since the common success factor is the methodology).

The proof of the pudding then is in the utility, not in assumptions. (In any case I’d debate the assumptions as stated, since our senses are only independent of reality if we define reality as independent of our senses, which seems a bit circular.)

So clearly, then, it is not the case that empirical observation is the sole source of knowledge. Otherwise, we could not possibly know whether or not the claim “empirical observation is the sole source of knowledge” is true. To say that we can is, from a scientistic perspective, an unprincipled exception. If we can know this one unempirical thing, what reason is there to believe we cannot know any other unempirical thing? Well, there is no reason. That’s why it’s an unprincipled exception.

Agreed, I’m not arguing for scientism. For instance, scientists in charge of morality would be plain kooky. But solipsists might be just as bad - autodidactproject.org/quote/hitch1.html

That’s a cute story, but the issue here is that the idiot philosophers who can’t bring themselves to acknowledge common sense in this case are the proponents of scientism, not their detractors. It’s the proponents of scientism whose ideas, rigorously applied, lead to counterintuitive absurdity, such as the idea that there can be efficient causation (X acting so as to produce Y) without final causation (X having the power to produce Y), or belief in nominalism (the idea that there is no objective human form or essence, so that you and I are no more necessary alike than a starfish is to a skyscraper).

I’m very happy whenever philosophers are criticized, since I reckon that the various schools of thought offer so many incompatible positions that philosophy is useless in explaining reality.

The Church takes almost the same position, as it seems to have given up on all philosophy too, excepting only that of Thomas Aquinas.

We all also know that teleological realism is correct, which is why we have no problem saying that a “healthy heart” is one that pumps blood and an unhealthy (i.e., disordered, diseased) heart is one that does not pump blood well – either pumping it too fast, too slow, with too much pressure or too little, unevenly, etc. Pumping blood is the telos (end) of a heart, and the goodness of a vital thing is its successful execution of its telos – thus a good heart pumps blood, a bad heart pumps blood badly or not at all. Like the kids say, duh. Technically, though, we’re not allowed to acknowledge this, either, because we can’t observe a telos empirically. So we’re left with the idiotic belief that hearts don’t have any particular necessary function from which deviation is problematic, which, rigorously applied, leaves medical science a totally unworkable mess.

We never need assign purpose, we can instead simply observe that life relies on blood moving around the body, that the blood is moved by the heart, that a heart with certain attributes moves the blood more effectively and so on. It seems innocent enough to say informally that the purpose of a heart is to pump blood, but then someone will say there would be no purpose in doing so unless life also has a purpose, so then an industry develops to assign purposes to life, the universe and everything, and pretty soon people disagree and form different schools of thought, which is why philosophy is so useless at explaining reality.

 

[tonyrey]

A better question is, can science explain science?

In a nutshell!

 

[inocente]

…

OK. I didn’t read “poof” as “proof.”

OK. npatrol:

I don’t know what point I’m making. I just love to talk about this stuff.

I’ve always been a bit surprised that the science and engineering behind the design and fabrication of chips isn’t better known. It contains some amazing stories which would make a great book and spin-off TV series. You’re a good writer, ever thought of doing it?

I didn’t say it was “rudderless.” Only that philosophy leads to scientific interest. For example, “I wonder what it would be like to take a ride on a light beam,” seems very “philosophical.” But Einstein asked himself that question, and the world will never be the same.

OK, but no doubt he also wondered what it would be like to win the lottery, and how to remove the cabbage between his teeth, yet somehow they are not philosophical.

But more directly, Einstein was the one who said, “science without religion is lame.” He was not a theologian; he was a scientist. What better qualified scientist says that science is not enhanced by religion?

This is often quoted, but Einstein was never on the side of theism, let me clue you in:

*The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this. … For me the Jewish religion like all others is an incarnation of the most childish superstitions. - guardian.co.uk/science/2008/may/12/peopleinscience.religion

It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropomorphic concept which I cannot take seriously. I feel also not able to imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere. My views are near to those of Spinoza: admiration for the beauty of and belief in the logical simplicity of the order and harmony which we can grasp humbly and only imperfectly. - en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein#Einstein_and_Religion_.281999.29

For any one who is pervaded with the sense of causal law in all that happens, who accepts in real earnest the assumption of causality, the idea of Being who interferes with the sequence of events in the world is absolutely impossible. Neither the religion of fear nor the social-moral religion can have any hold on him. A God who rewards and punishes is for him unthinkable, because man acts in accordance with an inner and outer necessity, and would, in the eyes of God, be as little responsible as an inanimate object is for the movements which it makes. - en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein#Einstein.27s_God_.281997.29*

Oh? When was the last time you had a discussion with people who honestly believe Genesis is 100% literal and historic? Mine was last year, and my hair hasn’t completely grown back.

But also, I found this from inocente’s Anthropology By Dummies - “Genesis is a literary artifact around which Homo sapiens continues to form various tribal beliefs. It has helped drive a modern development, unthinkable in all tribes outside the loose affiliation known as Christianity, that there are different simultaneous realities, such as a religious reality alongside a completely different scientific reality. This bizarre hokum is a form of “double-think”, originally conceived as a terrible warning by George Orwell, a member of an atheist tribe.”

 

[AlanFromWichita]

If everything of which we may be aware is theoretically open to scientific investigation
scientific investigation itself is open to scientific investigation - which implies that it can explain itself. Do you believe that is feasible?

A better question is, can science explain science?

Science examines itself all the time. Used correctly, it knows its limitations and is cautious about making conclusions that don’t result from the knowledge at hand. It reexamines how it discovers and concludes things all the time. Even when we believe we have found conclusions – e.g. electrons are the smallest “particle” no wait a minute “wavicles,” or space is cartesian, or there is dangerous global warming from bovine flatulence (sorry had to throw that in ) – later discoveries cause us to reexamine everything. For those who don’t know what I mean, I’m meaning that Newtonian physics was THE scientific way, truth, and light. Then comes Uncle Al asking the highly explosive question, “what would it be like to ride on a light beam?” Newtonian physics is but an approximation of what we know now, rather than the gospel end-all of science.

Oh wait. I forgot. Science is “real” and “objective” and doesn’t conclude things without proof. If we’d known Einstein was going to disrespect all of reality by speaking of a reality “beyond science” at the time, we should have killed his parents so that nobody like him would be born. Oh wait – is that science, philosophy, or religion that protects itself in this manner? Anybody who thinks their discipline is the cat’s meow and others are lower than it, watch out! Watch out! One day the rocks will come to life.

Alan

 

[inocente]

I did not write that any one scientist was confused, only that the totality of them, when trying to put together their perspectives, like those blind men not beinbg able to see that they were all experiencing the same elephant. However, as said, one should not try to explain a metaphor.

I believe I understood but still think religion is actually quite straightforward to study. The leading edge of any endeavor probably always looks like confused blind leading the blind, but that aside differences are limited by the fact that in order to be classed as science, conclusions must be supported by and not contradicted by the evidence, and it’s quite easy to collect evidence on religion.

I apologise again if I upset you with the wording of that metaphor, and/or with my attempts to react to your objections. So, please, let us leave it at that.

You didn’t upset me (a few posters can, but only a few). Apologies, I must have come on too strong. It’s just banter.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

OK, but no doubt he also wondered what it would be like to win the lottery, and how to remove the cabbage between his teeth, yet somehow they are not philosophical.

Ah, thanks for reminding me.

When my cousin Ooga Magook first told me of the cabbage problem, there were several rival camps. Some were convinced that the particles were placed by Sun, and to remove them except in the natural process of eating and swallowing other things would cause Sun to bring about storms or drought – or maybe both at once. Others believe that if a single piece stayed in place for two full Moons in a row, the person must be severely beaten in the mouth area, as the teeth are clearly evil. Others thought that Sun gave us our option on this, and we may decide individually whether to severely beat each other in the mouth area, based on our individual beliefs. Finally they decided to develop something called “language” so they could symbolically beat each other in the mouth even over the Internet.

I confess this isn’t an original story. I modeled the name “Ooga Magook” after the character in the Allan Sherman song “Good Advice” – which any inventor, scientist, or philosopher worth his/her salt needs to watch at least once in a lifetime.

Alan

 

[sw85]

Surely this is irrelevant though. Putting a man on the moon, ridding the world of smallpox, and thousands of other examples demonstrate that science doesn’t just appear to do things, it gets results, it gets the job done (and this then also extends to fundamental research, since the common success factor is the methodology).

The proof of the pudding then is in the utility, not in assumptions. (In any case I’d debate the assumptions as stated, since our senses are only independent of reality if we define reality as independent of our senses, which seems a bit circular.)

All these things do is validate science as a methodology in light of a given (non-scientific) epistemological assumption. They do not and cannot validate it as an epistemology.

Let me give you an example. Metal detectors are very, very good at detecting metal. That’s a methodological claim. An epistemological claim would be “Therefore metal is all there is.” This is kind of the claim scientism makes: science is very good at describing the natural world; therefore the natural world is all there is.

So yes, it’s irrelevant to the question of science as a methodology, but not irrelevant to the question of scientism as an epistemology.

Agreed, I’m not arguing for scientism. For instance, scientists in charge of morality would be plain kooky. But solipsists might be just as bad - autodidactproject.org/quote/hitch1.html

OK, but who here is arguing for solipsism (besides the occasional leftist who isn’t knowledgeable enough to confess scientism)?

Also, “would be” plain kooky? Make no mistake my friend, they are kooky, and worse. The recent article about “post-natal abortions” is a perfect example of what happens when you trust ethical reasoning to philosophically illiterate and morally degenerate scientists.

We never need assign purpose, we can instead simply observe that life relies on blood moving around the body, that the blood is moved by the heart, that a heart with certain attributes moves the blood more effectively and so on.

This doesn’t wave away teleology, it just involves going to torturous extremes to avoid speaking teleologically.

It seems innocent enough to say informally that the purpose of a heart is to pump blood, but then someone will say there would be no purpose in doing so unless life also has a purpose, so then an industry develops to assign purposes to life, the universe and everything, and pretty soon people disagree and form different schools of thought, which is why philosophy is so useless at explaining reality.

Well, if you mean philosophy taken as a whole, yes. But then no one believes in philosophy as a whole.

In truth there is one philosophy that acts as a kind of theory of everything. That’s the one I call “Christian reaction.” Lots of books have been written about how and why we moved away from Christian reaction, and most of them involve people embraced stupid ideas like nominalism, usually for politically-motivated reasons. The solution is to abandon the stupid ideas, not the entire enterprise.

 

[Sample]

Science doesn’t make it impossible to believe in God. It just makes it possible to not believe in God. ~Steven Weinberg.