Can science REALLY explain Reality?

[tonyrey]

tonyrey, you’ve demonstrated a talent for putting together words and sentences that I can only compare to what it must be like to play hockey without a puck.

A superb example of an

***Argumentum ad Hominem ***(abusive and circumstantial): the fallacy of attacking the character or circumstances of an individual who is advancing a statement or an argument instead of trying to disprove the truth of the statement or the soundness of the argument.

“I understand science doesn’t explain itself”

That quote is one such example.

Yet another Argumentum ad Hominem!

This claim says more about philosophy than methodological naturalism. A claim like that is both ironic and tragic. It’s ironic because philosophy depends on the epistemic success of the scientific method and it’s tragic because such a claim forces teleology into a type of feedback “round-about” rather than an open road for discovery.

False! Science depends on metascientific principles which have been established by the philosophy of science. It is absurd to think science is the
be-all and end-all of knowledge.

I’m not going to say that science has made philosophy completely out of date, but nothing you’ve said compels me to even consider that philosophy can provide knowledge in a manner that is not available by other means. Philosophy is a shell of its former radiant self, but that’s alright in my opinion as the shell (the desire for knowledge) remains as a beautiful, and still important, afterglow.

Science tells us absolutely nothing about the nature of truth, goodness, freedom, justice and love. It is advisable to read the work of the great philosophers (including that of atheists) before rejecting philosophy as non-informative. Otherwise there is no point in participating on a philosophy forum.

 

[Sample]

tonyrey,

Perhaps your feeling are hurt, but after a careful re-reading of my words, I’ll leave it to the Mods to decide if your particular claim is at all credible. I have no compelling interest here except to address ideas and my history bears this fact out.

I’m no longer interested in addressing the straw-army you’ve constructed.

Cheers.

 

[tonyrey]

tonyrey,

Perhaps your feeling are hurt, but after a careful re-reading of my words, I’ll leave it to the Mods to decide if your particular claim is at all credible. I have no compelling interest here except to address ideas and my history bears this fact out.

I’m no longer interested in addressing the straw-army you’ve constructed.

Cheers.

1. It has nothing to do with feelings.
2. It is a question of logic.
3. It is appropriate that you terminate with a final argumentum ad hominem.
4. You will discover on other threads whether you are using them.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

1. It is appropriate that you terminate with a final argumentum ad hominem.

 

[inocente]

The idea that science makes it possible not to believe in God implies that it was not possible before - or at least that it was less reasonable - neither of which is true.

Before science, the only good explanation for how everything got here was special creation, so Weinberg is right, for any reasonable person there wasn’t a choice.

Science has done nothing to explain the nature of truth, goodness, freedom, justice, beauty and love.

If you’re serious then you’ve never looked, so to get you started, google “psychology of justice”. Amongst other hits you’ll find a journal on applied psychology in criminal justice, in the current issue there are articles on fear in schools, effects of attorneys’ personal characteristics on jurors and appraisal of trauma in police officers. This is the level of detail at which science explains the nature of truth, goodness, freedom, justice, beauty and love, and it’s not finished explaining yet.

But surely you’re joking, it’s like saying science has done nothing to explain gravity.

 

[inocente]

Again, no one is disputing the methodological validity of science, which you are strangely insistent on.

I’m insistent because whether or not science is “true” it has reduced infant mortality, and whether or not we “know” what an electron is, electronics still work. What we absolutely “know” to be “true” is irrelevant to reality.

Even if it we could say “everything revealed by science is true,” that’s not the claim adherents to scientism are making. They are saying “everything that is true is revealed by science.” That’s quite a different sentiment. It has problems of its own. Those problems should be obvious.

Religionists carry most of the blame for compartmentalizing religion and science. It was religionists who demanded we choose between special creation and evolution, between demonic possession and mental illness, and so on and so forth. It was them that insisted on keeping all the old explanations and forcing us to choose, and I’ve no sympathy if as a result some kids decide to only play in the science park from now on.

So you are prepared to acknowledge, then, that scientism is agenda-driven and not, in fact, sound?

No. Some people (on CAF) tell me the human mind is supernatural but have never (and I do mean never) provided one word of explanation or reasoning, they just tell me I’ll go to hell if I don’t accept their mantra. Now that’s unsound. As far as agenda, while I’m no fan of scientism, those who perceive that existing religion can only prevaricate and has nothing left to say will form a new religion, stands to reason.

My understanding is that medical ethicists are typically researchers by training. But even if not, replace “scientist” with “scientician” (i.e., adherent to scientism) and my point stands.

I looked at the paper, the authors are in philosophy departments, but I’m not sure of your point - you can’t be suggesting we deny the right of free speech in academic journals?

*I agree that the bulk of what passes for philosophy in the modern world is useless because it’s obviously stupid. E.g., scientism.

Again, the solution is not to abandon philosophy. It’s to abandon obviously stupid philosophies like scientism.*

I’ll take a wild guess that you’ll shortly pull Thomasism out the hat as the one shining beacon that isn’t obviously stupid.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

But surely you’re joking, it’s like saying science has done nothing to explain gravity.

Science explained gravity via Newton.

Guess what? Newton had sooo no clue about gravity. What he came up with worked for a while to get physicist off the starting block, but it wasn’t “factual.” And the conclusions that would be drawn based on strictly Cartesian space and Newtonian gravity and fixed time, were wrong. Close, but wrong enough that today’s technology wouldn’t exist if it weren’t for science updating and refining its claims.

So yes, science does examine its own claims especially when we have measurements that contradict them – happens every day.

But at any given time to sit back and say “science has this figured out” is to live in a house of cards. Sooner or later, science finds that its previous “proven things” weren’t that way at all. And I’ll go to my grave believing that will never change.

Alan

 

[Sample]

Sooner or later, science finds that its previous “proven things” weren’t that way at all.

Alan,

You seem to deny that this a celebratory strength. If science is anything, it is about discovering how to be less wrong. I’m all ears if you have evidence of a more successful methodology to consider.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

Alan,

You seem to deny that this a celebratory strength. If science is anything, it is about discovering how to be less wrong. I’m all ears if you have evidence of a more successful methodology to consider.

Yes I do see that as a strength, but at any given time it could be wrong. So when people say that science has “proven” something I usually see that as a red flag. At best, science “proves” things within its current ability to understand how to set up the proof. Too many science snobs think they have the answers. The best of scientists always have unanswered questions.

I also cringe when people say one field of endeavor is better than another. Artists, philosophers, and the guys shoveling concrete in road construction zones all give meaning and drive to science.

I see all the arts and sciences and philosophical things and religious things and stuff that goes bump in the night – all as different members of the same body that is collectively called “humanity.”

Alan

 

[tonyrey]

*The idea that science makes it possible not to believe in God implies that it was not *

I wasn’t not aware that science has explained how the universe and persons in particular originated. Please direct me to your source of information.That is certainly inconsistent with Christian doctrine…

Science has done nothing to explain the nature of truth, goodness, freedom, justice, beauty and love.

If you’re serious then you’ve never looked, so to get you started, google “psychology of justice”. Amongst other hits you’ll find a journal on applied psychology in criminal justice, in the current issue there are articles on fear in schools, effects of attorneys’ personal characteristics on jurors and appraisal of trauma in police officers. This is the level of detail at which science explains the nature of truth, goodness, freedom, justice, beauty and love, and it’s not finished explaining yet.

No doubt science will soon explain the nature of God because truth, goodness, freedom, justice, beauty and love are all aspects of the divine nature. How far has science progressed in explaining the nature of truth - and love in particular? It will obviously soon make both theology and philosophy redundant - but that is to be expected in view of its resounding success in recent years… with even a **theory of everything **well under way. Nothing is beyond its scope.

But surely you’re joking, it’s like saying science has done nothing to explain gravity.

Only materialists put gravity in the same category as truth, goodness, freedom, justice, beauty and love…

 

[Sample]

Yes I do see that as a strength, but at any given time it could be wrong. So when people say that science has “proven” something I usually see that as a red flag. At best, science “proves” things within its current ability to understand how to set up the proof. Too many science snobs think they have the answers. The best of scientists always have unanswered questions.

I also cringe when people say one field of endeavor is better than another. Artists, philosophers, and the guys shoveling concrete in road construction zones all give meaning and drive to science.

I see all the arts and sciences and philosophical things and religious things and stuff that goes bump in the night – all as different members of the same body that is collectively called “humanity.”

Alan

I pretty much agree with this.

Alan, you know scientific predictions are about probability not proof, the latter is for mathematicians only (and theologians who actually do claim special knowledge!) Further, I am going to have to assert that it’s simplistic to play the “science could be wrong” card as if that means the entire edifice of preceding layers of evidence gets tossed out whenever a new theory supplants an old one.

And yes, there are certainly stupid scientists, but that really shouldn’t reflect upon the method. Consider there’s a guy at Harvard at the top of his game in geology as far as academic credentials go, yet he believes the earth is less than 6,000 years old.

 

[inocente]

Science explained gravity via Newton.

Guess what? Newton had sooo no clue about gravity. What he came up with worked for a while to get physicist off the starting block, but it wasn’t “factual.” And the conclusions that would be drawn based on strictly Cartesian space and Newtonian gravity and fixed time, were wrong. Close, but wrong enough that today’s technology wouldn’t exist if it weren’t for science updating and refining its claims.

So yes, science does examine its own claims especially when we have measurements that contradict them – happens every day.

But at any given time to sit back and say “science has this figured out” is to live in a house of cards. Sooner or later, science finds that its previous “proven things” weren’t that way at all. And I’ll go to my grave believing that will never change.

Yes, our strong intuition is to think that we know the absolute truth, and science tells us hang on, intuition can be dead wrong.

One area where it’s really hard to question our intuition is morality. We tend to think we have the bestest morality ever, as there’s no way we would ever own slaves, or think of others being in lower classes, or that our daughters should be seen and not heard. But chances are in two hundred years time people will berate us too and think they have the bestest morals ever. It’s hard (for me anyway) to gauge what we’re doing that the future will think is sin, but morality has always developed so it’s unlikely we happen to be at the at-time pinnacle.

So there’s yet another thing science tells us about reality.

 

[inocente]

I wasn’t not aware that science has explained how the universe and persons in particular originated. Please direct me to your source of information.

I’m not going to arbitrate on the relative merits of “are we there yet” compared with such fulsome “explanations” as “Thor dun it, honest gov”.

My source is Monsignor Georges Lemaître, Catholic priest and originator of the big bang theory: As far as I can see, such a theory remains entirely outside any metaphysical or religious question. It leaves the materialist free to deny any transcendental Being. He may keep, for the bottom of space-time, the same attitude of mind he has been able to adopt for events occurring in nonsingular places in space-time. For the believer, it removes any attempt at familiarity with God, as were Laplace’s “flick” or Jean’s “finger [of God agitating the ether]” consonant, it is consonant with the wording of Isaiah’s speaking of a “Hidden God,” hidden even in the beginning of creation. - catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=8847

That is certainly inconsistent with Christian doctrine…

I assume an atheist/Buddhist/Hindu/Muslim/Jew would be relaxed about that. Certainly as a Baptist, doctrine-free by definition, I’m very relaxed about what a lay Catholic tells me is inconsistent with Christan doctrine, since sooner or later another lay Catholic always tells me the dead opposite.

*No doubt science will soon explain the nature of God because truth, goodness, freedom, justice, beauty and love are all aspects of the divine nature. How far has science progressed in explaining the nature of truth - and love in particular? It will obviously soon make both theology and philosophy redundant - but that is to be expected in view of its resounding success in recent years… with even a **theory of everything ***well under way. Nothing is beyond its scope.

Truth cannot contradict truth. Faith can never conflict with reason. These are Catholic sayings, are they not?

Only materialists put gravity in the same category as truth, goodness, freedom, justice, beauty and love…

No doubt if I asked you’d regale me with how these categories were arrived at rationally and how they form part of objective reality. O go on then, regale away.

 

[tonyrey]

I wasn’t not aware that science has explained how the universe and persons in particular originated. Please direct me to your source of information.

Your statement “Before science, **the only good explanation **for how everything got here was special creation, so Weinberg is right, for any reasonable person there wasn’t a choice” implies that the only good explanation for how everything got here is by science.

My source is Monsignor Georges Lemaître, Catholic priest and originator of the big bang theory: As far as I can see, such a theory remains entirely outside any metaphysical or religious question. It leaves the materialist free to deny any transcendental Being. He may keep, for the bottom of space-time, the same attitude of mind he has been able to adopt for events occurring in nonsingular places in space-time. For the believer, it removes any attempt at familiarity with God, as were Laplace’s “flick” or Jean’s “finger [of God agitating the ether]” consonant, it is consonant with the wording of Isaiah’s speaking of a “Hidden God,” hidden even in the beginning of creation. - catholicculture.org/cultu…fm?recnum=8847

Father Le Maître did not have the arrogance to claim he had explained the origin of the universe.

That is certainly inconsistent with Christian doctrine…

I assume an atheist/Buddhist/Hindu/Muslim/Jew would be relaxed about that. Certainly as a Baptist, doctrine-free by definition, I’m very relaxed about what a lay Catholic tells me is inconsistent with Christan doctrine, since sooner or later another lay Catholic always tells me the dead opposite.

The claim that science - rather than God - has explained how the universe and persons in particular originated is inconsistent with the Christian doctrine that God created everything.

No doubt science will soon explain the nature of God because truth, goodness, freedom, justice, beauty and love are all aspects of the divine nature. How far has science progressed in explaining the nature of truth - and love in particular? It will obviously soon make both theology and philosophy redundant - but that is to be expected in view of its resounding success in recent years… with even a theory of everything well under way. Nothing is beyond its scope.

Truth cannot contradict truth. Faith can never conflict with reason. These are Catholic sayings, are they not?

You are assuming there** is **a scientific explanation of truth, goodness, freedom, justice, beauty and love.

Only materialists put gravity in the same category as truth, goodness, freedom, justice, beauty and love…

No doubt if I asked you’d regale me with how these categories were arrived at objectively and how they form part of reality. O go on then, regale away.

Only materialists put gravity in the same category as truth, goodness, freedom, justice, beauty and love - and presumably as God…

 

[inocente]

Your statement “Before science, **the only good explanation **for how everything got here was special creation, so Weinberg is right, for any reasonable person there wasn’t a choice” implies that the only good explanation for how everything got here is by science.

Nope, it says what it says, that there’s a choice. Free will and all that. If you’re kindly offering to put words in my mouth, I decline.

Father Le Maître did not have the arrogance to claim he had explained the origin of the universe.

Correct. In fact he warned his pope not to think big bang proved Genesis, as I think we’ve discussed before.

The claim that science - rather than God - has explained how the universe and persons in particular originated is inconsistent with the Christian doctrine that God created everything.

Not sure of your point. There are plenty of Catholic scientists who don’t find any inconsistency in being Catholics and scientists. Are you saying you think we must be YEC literalists or something to follow Christ crucified?

You are assuming there* is ***a scientific explanation of truth, goodness, freedom, justice, beauty and love.

Why not first explore the scientific explanation (I suggested a start point in post #420) rather than continuing to insist there isn’t one? Alternatively, if you happen to be set on being cynical on this point, I’ve learned that cynics are rarely open to free discussion and it just goes round in circles.

Only materialists put gravity in the same category as truth, goodness, freedom, justice, beauty and love - and presumably as God…

I think you may find that implying I must be a naughty materialist for daring to ask on what basis you arrived at this categorization is a classic argumentum ad hominem. I still ask.

 

[inocente]

I see all the arts and sciences and philosophical things and religious things and stuff that goes bump in the night – all as different members of the same body that is collectively called “humanity.”

Noticing that today your religion is showing as “You tell me”, you could always take a lead from Rev. Lovejoy (The Simpsons): “We’re here to bring you back to the one true faith: the Western Branch of American Reform Presby-Lutheranism.”

 

[Gaber]

Noticing that today your religion is showing as “You tell me”, you could always take a lead from Rev. Lovejoy (The Simpsons): “We’re here to bring you back to the one true faith: the Western Branch of American Reform Presby-Lutheranism.”

I prefer the Wholely Church of What’s Happening NOW.

Note to AlanFromWichata: Can you post that clock on here? I think you know the one.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

Noticing that today your religion is showing as “You tell me”, you could always take a lead from Rev. Lovejoy (The Simpsons): “We’re here to bring you back to the one true faith: the Western Branch of American Reform Presby-Lutheranism.”

I like it! I might just have to try it on.

Yeah, in the past few months I’ve been “” and “X”, “Catholic mystic,” “Catholic Contemplative,” “What do you need me to be”, “Does it show,” and even “Catholic +” and “Catholic,” and “RCC.” I’m sure I’m missing a few.

I prefer the Wholely Church of What’s Happening NOW.

Note to AlanFromWichata: Can you post that clock on here? I think you know the one.

Cytanly!

https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.ne...38428476989_552341988_9910597_201971906_n.jpg

 

[Gaber]

Thanks, Alan!

 

[tonyrey]

Your statement “Before science, the only good explanation for how everything got here was special creation, so Weinberg is right, for any reasonable person there wasn’t a choice” implies that the only good explanation for how everything got here is by science.

Statements should be interpreted in the light of subsequent statements and not taken at their face value. Are you aware of Weinberg’s views on religion?

Father Le Maître did not have the arrogance to claim he had explained the origin of the universe.

Correct. In fact he warned his pope not to think big bang proved Genesis, as I think we’ve discussed before.

The issue is that he did not subscribe to Weinberg’s implication that the only good explanation for how everything got here is by science.

The claim that science - rather than God - has explained how the universe and persons in particular originated is inconsistent with the Christian doctrine that God created everything.

Not sure of your point. There are plenty of Catholic scientists who don’t find any inconsistency in being Catholics and scientists. Are you saying you think we must be YEC literalists or something to follow Christ crucified?

Catholic scientists do not believe science - rather than God - has explained, can explain or will explain how the universe and persons originated.

You are assuming there is a scientific explanation of truth, goodness, freedom, justice, beauty and love.

Why not first explore the scientific explanation (I suggested a start point in post #420) rather than continuing to insist there isn’t one? Alternatively, if you happen to be set on being cynical on this point, I’ve learned that cynics are rarely open to free discussion and it just goes round in circles.

The issue is whether truth, goodness, freedom, justice, beauty and love originate in the divine nature or in phenomena that can be explained by science - unless of course science is deemed capable of explaining God.

Only materialists put gravity in the same category as truth, goodness, freedom, justice, beauty and love - and presumably as God…

I think you may find that implying I must be a naughty materialist for daring to ask on what basis you arrived at this categorization is a classic argumentum ad hominem. I still ask.

You stated “it’s like saying science has done nothing to explain gravity” as a follow up to “This is the level of detail at which science explains the nature of truth, goodness, freedom, justice, beauty and love, and it’s not finished explaining yet”.