Can science REALLY explain Reality?

[AlanFromWichita]

Science can never explain all of reality. It will always strive to, and never achieve it.

Scientific discovery will always be limited by measurement technology. Until then, it’s theory and math and even philosophy.

“String theory,” for example, is no more or less science, religion, math, or philosophy. It just happens that statistically, a lot of people who work on it self-describe as science. Even they know they’re out on a limb, and a few are arrogant enough to believe they’ve proven it along the way. It has gone 7 dimensions beyond what we know; science can’t begrudge one or two little dimensions for the mechanics of the Christian spiritual world, and any “scientist” who does is IMO being dishonest to self and others.

At one time, the “elements” we what, earth, fire, water?

What do scientism people think is going to happen? Once we find the Higgs Boson, is it going to tell us “there is nothing smaller?” And if it does, what of the subsystems in it that tell us that? I’m asking because I haven’t heard the term “scientism” before this thread. So I’m trying to figure out if it’s an “-ism” that needs to be beaten.

I love all of these fields of endeavor so if I’m coming across as pro-one thing over another, then we’re not on the same page yet.

Alan

 

[Gaber]

…At one time, the “elements” we what, earth, fire, water?

Alan

And air. There being four of those, and four directions, and some oother “fours.” by convention, it was also argued at the time of selecting “inspired” gospels, that there ought be four of those also. I’ve got the reference somewhere if some soul is burning to have it.

 

[sw85]

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.

It’s also completely irrelevant to the question of whether scientism is a complete explanation of reality, which is exactly what’s under discussion here. You’re saying “But it’s a good one!” It doesn’t matter if it’s a good one. It isn’t a complete one. Treating it like a complete one when it isn’t leads to problems.

Yes, science is good at describing the natural world. That doesn’t mean the natural world is all there is. Duh. Again, metal detectors are good at detecting metal. It doesn’t follow metal is all there is. Not only does it not follow, there’s not any particularly good reason to say it’s true.

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.

I’m not sure what I said that this is supposed to be in response to.

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.

When was it decided that “people on CAF” are wholly representative of an intellectual tradition that goes back two and a half millennia? Try reading a book at some point. Again, Ed Feser’s Aquinas is a great place to start.

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?

What?

I’m saying a sane society would not tolerate such people in its midst. It certainly would not produce them. Yet we can’t deny that that sort of thinking (the kind that legitimizes the slaughter of newborn infants) is perfectly consonant with 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.

Thomism. And Thomism is the ethical and theological face of that theory of everything. Again, the broader construct I call “Christian reaction.”

 

[Sair]

Just thought I’d throw this in, since it seems a rather pertinent - not to mention eloquently phrased - take on the subject at hand:

All my moral and intellectual being is penetrated by an invincible conviction that whatever falls under the dominion of our senses must be in nature and, however exceptional, cannot differ in its essence from all the other effects of the visible and tangible world of which we are a self-conscious part. The world of the living contains enough marvels and mysteries as it is - marvels and mysteries acting upon our emotions and intelligence in ways so inexplicable that it would almost justify the conception of life as an enchanted state. No, I am too firm in my consciousness of the marvelous to be ever fascinated by the mere supernatural which (take it any way you like) is but a manufactured article, the fabrication of minds insensitive to the intimate delicacies of our relation to the dead and to the living, in their countless multitudes; a desecration of our tenderest memories; an outrage on our dignity.

• Joseph Conrad, quoted in Christopher Hitchens, God is Not Great.

As I’ve suggested before, the unspoken assumption at the heart of this thread’s initial question is that there absolutely and undoubtedly exist aspects of reality that are inaccessible to science, even in principle, because they are not natural, but supernatural or divine. My contention is that if such is the case, then such aspects of reality are also quite irrelevant to our own existence, since they could have no possibly perceptible effect upon us or our interaction with the world, indeed could not even be detectable by us in any manner. Indeed, in my less charitably-minded moments, I am inclined to think that the insistence upon the necessary limits of scientific enquiry is a reactionary response, on the part of those who are determined to preserve religious faith, to the encroachment of scientific explanation into areas that were previously considered the domain of theology - such as the structure of the cosmos, the development of life and our relationship to other animals; the nature of disease and mental illness, the causes of natural disasters, and so on - an encroachment, it must be said, that shows no signs of slowing down or stopping.

 

[tonyrey]

As I’ve suggested before, the unspoken assumption at the heart of this thread’s initial question is that there absolutely and undoubtedly exist aspects of reality that are inaccessible to science, even in principle, because they are not natural, but supernatural or divine.

1. Questioning that assumption implies that there are absolutely and undoubtedly no aspects of reality that are inaccessible to science even in principle.
2. No reason whatsoever has been given for that further assumption.
3. The default position is that no one knows the nature of reality.

My contention is that if such is the case, then such aspects of reality are also quite irrelevant to our own existence, since they could have no possibly perceptible effect upon us or our interaction with the world, indeed could not even be detectable by us in any manner.

1. To argue that there are no other aspects of reality that could have no possibly perceptible effect upon us or our interaction with the world and could not even be detectable by us in any manner implies that one** knows** there are no other aspects.
2. The detection of thoughts and emotions is not self-evidently in the same category as the detection of external events.

Indeed, in my less charitably-minded moments, I am inclined to think that the insistence upon the necessary limits of scientific enquiry is a reactionary response, on the part of those who are determined to preserve religious faith, to the encroachment of scientific explanation into areas that were previously considered the domain of theology - such as the structure of the cosmos, the development of life and our relationship to other animals; the nature of disease and mental illness, the causes of natural disasters, and so on - an encroachment, it must be said, that shows no signs of slowing down or stopping.

1. The argument that a belief is false on the ground that it is a reactionary response is obviously fallacious.
2. It **could **be argued that the insistence that there are no limits to scientific enquiry is a reactionary response, on the part of those who are determined to preserve materialism from the encroachment of philosophical and theological explanation into areas that are necessarily beyond the scope of science - such as the **origin **and **orderliness **of the cosmos, the progressive development of **rational **beings and our **moral **relationship to other animals; the psychological and spiritual causes of disease and mental illness, the **reasons **for natural disasters, and so on - an encroachment, it must be said, that shows signs of accelerating under the influence of propaganda on the part of materialists like Richard Dawkins who abuse their academic position in science to trespass into metascientific territory and promulgate fallacious arguments about the nature of religion.

 

[inocente]

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.
sw85;9362357:

It’s also completely irrelevant to the question of whether scientism is a complete explanation of reality, which is exactly what’s under discussion here. You’re saying “But it’s a good one!” It doesn’t matter if it’s a good one. It isn’t a complete one. Treating it like a complete one when it isn’t leads to problems.

I was still arguing against your original claim (post #357) - science laughs at your assumptions and is more transparently and robustly validated by its own results.

Yes, science is good at describing the natural world. That doesn’t mean the natural world is all there is. Duh. Again, metal detectors are good at detecting metal. It doesn’t follow metal is all there is. Not only does it not follow, there’s not any particularly good reason to say it’s true.

Science can work on anything as long as there’s evidence. If you’re saying there’s no evidence for a supernatural parallel world of angels, demons and whatnot, agreed. Lack of evidence doesn’t rule it out but makes it very unlikely, not really worth bothering about in terms of explaining reality.

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.
sw85;9362357:

I’m not sure what I said that this is supposed to be in response to.

You said scientism has it’s faults, I suggested it was birthed by religionists and mirrors the faults of those religionists.

When was it decided that “people on CAF” are wholly representative of an intellectual tradition that goes back two and a half millennia? Try reading a book at some point. Again, Ed Feser’s Aquinas is a great place to start.

You asked if I would acknowledge that scientism is agenda-driven and unsound, and I declined as it is no less so than the superstition and prevarication of the religionists who spawned it. Feser is one of the religionists I had in mind. As far as your personal remark - try some deep breaths.

*What?

I’m saying a sane society would not tolerate such people in its midst. It certainly would not produce them. Yet we can’t deny that that sort of thinking (the kind that legitimizes the slaughter of newborn infants) is perfectly consonant with scientism.*

Oh … and who decides what is sane, and what dark delights “would not tolerate” might mean, and what social engineering will ensure society does not “produce” them? Sounds like The Taliban meets Brave New World, good luck explaining that one at the pearly gates.

Thomism. And Thomism is the ethical and theological face of that theory of everything. Again, the broader construct I call “Christian reaction.”

Christian means follower of Christ, not follower of Thomas.

I’d suggest the value of philosophy is in constantly challenging our conclusions with an open mind, not in sticking a poster of our favorite philosopher on our bedroom wall.

 

[Sair]

1. Questioning that assumption implies that there are absolutely and undoubtedly no aspects of reality that are inaccessible to science even in principle.
2. No reason whatsoever has been given for that further assumption.
3. The default position is that no one knows the nature of reality.
4. To argue that there are no other aspects of reality that could have no possibly perceptible effect upon us or our interaction with the world and could not even be detectable by us in any manner implies that one** knows** there are no other aspects.
5. The detection of thoughts and emotions is not self-evidently in the same category as the detection of external events.
6. The argument that a belief is false on the ground that it is a reactionary response is obviously fallacious.
7. It **could **be argued that the insistence that there are no limits to scientific enquiry is a reactionary response, on the part of those who are determined to preserve materialism from the encroachment of philosophical and theological explanation into areas that are necessarily beyond the scope of science - such as the **origin **and **orderliness **of the cosmos, the progressive development of **rational **beings and our **moral **relationship to other animals; the psychological and spiritual causes of disease and mental illness, the **reasons **for natural disasters, and so on - an encroachment, it must be said, that shows signs of accelerating under the influence of propaganda on the part of materialists like Richard Dawkins who abuse their academic position in science to trespass into metascientific territory and promulgate fallacious arguments about the nature of religion.

Uh, you haven’t actually said anything here that addresses or goes any way to refuting my point - if anything, it is fair to say you are being reactionary. If we can detect any aspect of reality, then that aspect of reality is in principle investigable by science; you claim undetectable realities exist, but there’s no way you could actually know this - that’s what “undetectable” means. And it seems rather ironic, to say the least, to claim that science is struggling under the encroachment of philosophy and religion - the latter have had millennia in which to explain the world, and have come up with hardly a fraction of what has been elucidated by scientific inquiry. Indeed, there is hardly a philosophy worth its salt in our time that has not been informed by science.

 

[inocente]

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

According to USNO that’s just over eight minutes slow. Are you posting from the Sun?

 

[inocente]

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?

Outside of his electro-weak stuff and the like, he’s no more of an authority to me than Beyonce, and Beyonce looks better in a dress.

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.

I’m not going to defend Weinburg but don’t see how you get that implication - you quoted him as saying “Science doesn’t make it impossible to believe in God. It just makes it possible to not believe in God.”

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

Where does God give this explanation? Isn’t it science’s job to uncover the explanation - Rom 1:20?

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.

Still can’t see your point. Why are truth et al held to originate in divine nature and not gravity?

If God didn’t originate gravity, did it come as a big surprise to God?

 

[Gaber]

…
If God didn’t originate gravity, was it a big surprise to God?

Excellent! Perhaps God loves to surprise “Himself” by constant discovery of “His” own Nature! “Fresh manna daily’”

 

[AlanFromWichita]

It just occurred to me this word “explain” is problematic.

Science describes reality to the best of its ability at any given time. It provides models of reality that persist sometimes for many years. It refines and replaces older models as new things are discovered. It investigates reality to the extent it can observe it.

But explain? No. Explain to me why is a tree? That’s not science, but it’s part of reality.

Science can discuss seeds, and biology, and photosynthesis, and investigate how a tree works, but not “why.” And if science tries to say it’s because they have a niche in an ecosystem they must fulfill – providing shade and shelter for animals for example – that’s a circular argument and is non-causal. Would it suggest that without trees in the current form they are in, the world could not exist? If so, it is once again into philosophy and to claim such a suggestion as fact would be the height of arrogance. After all, we know plenty of areas in the world where trees don’t. Places they are “needed,” too.

Unless, of course, one recognizes that all efforts of the human mind are the same in essence, but for discussion purposes only we specialize into philosophy and science. These are artificial distinctions that not all scientists and philosophers even make. It’s just that in one college course they use the textbook that requires lab equipment and teaches “science vocabulary” and in another course they use “philosophy vocabulary.”

And of course, college kids, focusing on the 1% of their vocabulary that distinguishes groups of them from other groups, presume the others are not as literate as them and therefore are inferior to them. Because each college kid knows it all, dontcha know.

For example let’s say an engineer goes into a restaurant and asks if there are any dishes prepared with a non-Newtonian fluid whose viscosity changes under the conditions of shear force. The waiter checks with the cook and they have no idea what he’s talking about. Finally it escalates into a shouting match, “I just want you to answer me one simple question before I decide what to order!”

The engineer and the cook are thus separated and unable to converse until an exacerbated interpreter at the next table says, “he wants to know if any dishes contain corn starch!” And it wasn’t because the cook was stupid or unaware of the properties of cornstarch, just didn’t know the exclusive, fancy words to describe it – fancy words that a cook does not need to know. Knowledge divides; that’s how it even works in the first place.

For Christians – we know that’s because knowledge puffs up with pride. Adam and the tree divided up the world’s knowledge from an innate knowledge written in our very being to an intellectual version that was then divided into billions of pieces and is still dividing as more humans are born and become specialists. So we invented the calculus view – take a complex world and chop it into tiny bits, give the bits names, and expect we can integrate them. Adam started the differentiation process with dualistic (diabolical?) thinking, and Jesus started the integration process with wisdom, which unites, by teaching us non-dualistic thinking. Adam “dismembered” the Body of Christ, and it stayed dismembered until Jesus enlisted His followers to “re-member” Him by sharing His Body.

1 Cor 8:1a-3
… we realize that “all of us have knowledge”; knowledge inflates with pride, but love builds up. If anyone supposes he knows something, he does not yet know as he ought to know. But if one loves God, one is known by him.

Religions have the same problem btw. One religion calls something “enlightenment,” another calls essentially the same thing (but in different “species”) “awakening.” Another calls it “renewed in spirit.” Another calls it “nirvana.” The religions called “science” call it many things including “self-actualization.” These describe essentially the same human experience – getting past the dualistic mindsets that make us squabble over things like chopping reality into subsets called “philosopy” and “science” – but all with different names. And no religion can tolerate using the name substitution because each religion has its own traditions built about using a particular word.

It’s really all just a word game.

Alan

 

[tonyrey]

It just occurred to me this word “explain” is problematic.

Science describes reality to the best of its ability at any given time. It provides models of reality that persist sometimes for many years. It refines and replaces older models as new things are discovered. It investigates reality to the extent it can observe it.

But explain? No. Explain to me why is a tree? That’s not science, but it’s part of reality.

Science can discuss seeds, and biology, and photosynthesis, and investigate how a tree works, but not “why.” And if science tries to say it’s because they have a niche in an ecosystem they must fulfill – providing shade and shelter for animals for example – that’s a circular argument and is non-causal. Would it suggest that without trees in the current form they are in, the world could not exist? If so, it is once again into philosophy and to claim such a suggestion as fact would be the height of arrogance. After all, we know plenty of areas in the world where trees don’t. Places they are “needed,” too.

Unless, of course, one recognizes that all efforts of the human mind are the same in essence, but for discussion purposes only we specialize into philosophy and science. These are artificial distinctions that not all scientists and philosophers even make. It’s just that in one college course they use the textbook that requires lab equipment and teaches “science vocabulary” and in another course they use “philosophy vocabulary.”

And of course, college kids, focusing on the 1% of their vocabulary that distinguishes groups of them from other groups, presume the others are not as literate as them and therefore are inferior to them. Because each college kid knows it all, dontcha know.

For example let’s say an engineer goes into a restaurant and asks if there are any dishes prepared with a non-Newtonian fluid whose viscosity changes under the conditions of shear force. The waiter checks with the cook and they have no idea what he’s talking about. Finally it escalates into a shouting match, “I just want you to answer me one simple question before I decide what to order!”

The engineer and the cook are thus separated and unable to converse until an exacerbated interpreter at the next table says, “he wants to know if any dishes contain corn starch!” And it wasn’t because the cook was stupid or unaware of the properties of cornstarch, just didn’t know the exclusive, fancy words to describe it – fancy words that a cook does not need to know. Knowledge divides; that’s how it even works in the first place.

For Christians – we know that’s because knowledge puffs up with pride. Adam and the tree divided up the world’s knowledge from an innate knowledge written in our very being to an intellectual version that was then divided into billions of pieces and is still dividing as more humans are born and become specialists. So we invented the calculus view – take a complex world and chop it into tiny bits, give the bits names, and expect we can integrate them. Adam started the differentiation process with dualistic (diabolical?) thinking, and Jesus started the integration process with wisdom, which unites, by teaching us non-dualistic thinking. Adam “dismembered” the Body of Christ, and it stayed dismembered until Jesus enlisted His followers to “re-member” Him by sharing His Body.

1 Cor 8:1a-3
… we realize that “all of us have knowledge”; knowledge inflates with pride, but love builds up. If anyone supposes he knows something, he does not yet know as he ought to know. But if one loves God, one is known by him.

Religions have the same problem btw. One religion calls something “enlightenment,” another calls essentially the same thing (but in different “species”) “awakening.” Another calls it “renewed in spirit.” Another calls it “nirvana.” The religions called “science” call it many things including “self-actualization.” These describe essentially the same human experience – getting past the dualistic mindsets that make us squabble over things like chopping reality into subsets called “philosopy” and “science” – but all with different names. And no religion can tolerate using the name substitution because each religion has its own traditions built about using a particular word.

It’s really all just a word game.

Alan

If the Christian name is also a part of word game what distinguishes it from others?

In his (now online) Two Dogmas of Empiricism explains(!) how all our concepts are mental constructs - which highlights our inability to get to direct grips with reality. Curiously he was a physicalist who seems not to have considered the role of the constructor of mental constructs. I would have thought that the constructor would have pride of place in any system yet there is one problem:

Isn’t the constructor of mental constructs is itself a mental construct! Where do we go from there?

“O, that way madness lies; let me shun that;
No more of that.” - King Lear

The answer is that the constructor of mental constructsisa mental construct but not only a mental construct: a** person**. That is the logical **foundation **of any investigation of reality:

“O, that way sanity lies; let me embrace that;
Much more of that!”

 

[AlanFromWichita]

If the Christian name is also a part of word game what distinguishes it from others?

Our faith. The power of the Word is through the faith of its believers.

In his (now online) Two Dogmas of Empiricism explains(!) how all our concepts are mental constructs - which highlights our inability to get to direct grips with reality. Curiously he was a physicalist who seems not to have considered the role of the constructor of mental constructs. I would have thought that the constructor would have pride of place in any system yet there is one problem:

Isn’t the constructor of mental constructs is itself a mental construct! Where do we go from there?

Since I don’t know anything about this, my opinion is unbiased by facts. But to me, the constructor of mental constructs is indeed another mental construct; we don’t know if “causality” is even a valid term in however many dimensions you have to think to get beyond the human imagination.

The answer is that the constructor of mental constructsisa mental construct but not only a mental construct: a** person**. That is the logical **foundation **of any investigation of reality:

OK. Now I’m getting lost-er. What do you mean here by “person?” A particular human brain? I’m a newbie to discussing philosophy so I don’t the terms all that well, yet.

Edit: I don’t know if this is even related, but I have a question. If I show two people and ink blot, and one says it’s a butterfly and feels nice, and the other says it’s a monster and feels scared, what is the essence of the ink blot, that morphed into totally different experiences for the same clinical situation, for two different people? Have they not created their own separate and unique realities – one a world of comfort and the other of anxiety – and who is to tell them which, if either, is correct?

Alan

 

[Mystic_Banana]

If we can detect any aspect of reality, then that aspect of reality is in principle investigable by science

Beep beep! Beep beep! Scientism detector ALERT!! :bluelite:

Science is only as practicible as an investigational tool according to our ability to practice it - to assume we can scientifically detect, analyse and understand the complete and utter entitity of existence is the modern ages greatest, indefensible pretension. To assume that that which we cannot quantify according to our ability is a convenient illusion is an assumption rooted in superstition, and that is surely what your argument is rooted in, isn’t it?

 

[tonyrey]

Beep beep! Beep beep! Scientism detector ALERT!! :bluelite:

Science is only as practicible as an investigational tool according to our ability to practice it - to assume we can scientifically detect, analyse and understand the complete and utter entitity of existence is the modern ages greatest, indefensible pretension. To assume that that which we cannot quantify according to our ability is a convenient illusion is an assumption rooted in superstition, and that is surely what your argument is rooted in, isn’t it?

You now have a full-time job!

 

[FurtherSuntime]

It does a perfect infinite job of it in everything. The science has at its core infinity. Look at a circle…the moon for example.

 

[kevinerose]

It just occurred to me this word “explain” is problematic.

Science describes reality to the best of its ability at any given time. It provides models of reality that persist sometimes for many years. It refines and replaces older models as new things are discovered. It investigates reality to the extent it can observe it.

But explain? No. Explain to me why is a tree? That’s not science, but it’s part of reality.

Science can discuss seeds, and biology, and photosynthesis, and investigate how a tree works, but not “why.” And if science tries to say it’s because they have a niche in an ecosystem they must fulfill – providing shade and shelter for animals for example – that’s a circular argument and is non-causal. Would it suggest that without trees in the current form they are in, the world could not exist? If so, it is once again into philosophy and to claim such a suggestion as fact would be the height of arrogance. After all, we know plenty of areas in the world where trees don’t. Places they are “needed,” too.

Unless, of course, one recognizes that all efforts of the human mind are the same in essence, but for discussion purposes only we specialize into philosophy and science. These are artificial distinctions that not all scientists and philosophers even make. It’s just that in one college course they use the textbook that requires lab equipment and teaches “science vocabulary” and in another course they use “philosophy vocabulary.”

And of course, college kids, focusing on the 1% of their vocabulary that distinguishes groups of them from other groups, presume the others are not as literate as them and therefore are inferior to them. Because each college kid knows it all, dontcha know.

For example let’s say an engineer goes into a restaurant and asks if there are any dishes prepared with a non-Newtonian fluid whose viscosity changes under the conditions of shear force. The waiter checks with the cook and they have no idea what he’s talking about. Finally it escalates into a shouting match, “I just want you to answer me one simple question before I decide what to order!”

The engineer and the cook are thus separated and unable to converse until an exacerbated interpreter at the next table says, “he wants to know if any dishes contain corn starch!” And it wasn’t because the cook was stupid or unaware of the properties of cornstarch, just didn’t know the exclusive, fancy words to describe it – fancy words that a cook does not need to know. Knowledge divides; that’s how it even works in the first place.

For Christians – we know that’s because knowledge puffs up with pride. Adam and the tree divided up the world’s knowledge from an innate knowledge written in our very being to an intellectual version that was then divided into billions of pieces and is still dividing as more humans are born and become specialists. So we invented the calculus view – take a complex world and chop it into tiny bits, give the bits names, and expect we can integrate them. Adam started the differentiation process with dualistic (diabolical?) thinking, and Jesus started the integration process with wisdom, which unites, by teaching us non-dualistic thinking. Adam “dismembered” the Body of Christ, and it stayed dismembered until Jesus enlisted His followers to “re-member” Him by sharing His Body.

1 Cor 8:1a-3
… we realize that “all of us have knowledge”; knowledge inflates with pride, but love builds up. If anyone supposes he knows something, he does not yet know as he ought to know. But if one loves God, one is known by him.

Religions have the same problem btw. One religion calls something “enlightenment,” another calls essentially the same thing (but in different “species”) “awakening.” Another calls it “renewed in spirit.” Another calls it “nirvana.” The religions called “science” call it many things including “self-actualization.” These describe essentially the same human experience – getting past the dualistic mindsets that make us squabble over things like chopping reality into subsets called “philosopy” and “science” – but all with different names. And no religion can tolerate using the name substitution because each religion has its own traditions built about using a particular word.

It’s really all just a word game.

Alan

I agree. Science can only define what it is able to detect. It can not explain anything. Any attempts by science to explaining anything is purely speculative. (or scientific faith).

Science, at its best, only perpetuates wars, hunger, torture, oppression, confusion, chaos, bigotry, and death.

On the other hand, religion (especially Christianity) seeks to do the opposite. God has intended science for good but man as devised it for evil. The Faith of Science is an apostacy to true faith.

 

[pgnat1]

Science can never explain all of reality. It will always strive to, and never achieve it.

Scientific discovery will always be limited by measurement technology. Until then, it’s theory and math and even philosophy.

“String theory,” for example, is no more or less science, religion, math, or philosophy. It just happens that statistically, a lot of people who work on it self-describe as science. Even they know they’re out on a limb, and a few are arrogant enough to believe they’ve proven it along the way. It has gone 7 dimensions beyond what we know; science can’t begrudge one or two little dimensions for the mechanics of the Christian spiritual world, and any “scientist” who does is IMO being dishonest to self and others.

At one time, the “elements” we what, earth, fire, water?

What do scientism people think is going to happen? Once we find the Higgs Boson, is it going to tell us “there is nothing smaller?” And if it does, what of the subsystems in it that tell us that? I’m asking because I haven’t heard the term “scientism” before this thread. So I’m trying to figure out if it’s an “-ism” that needs to be beaten.

I love all of these fields of endeavor so if I’m coming across as pro-one thing over another, then we’re not on the same page yet.

Alan

Thank you Alan. You could not have said it any better. Science tries answer everyone’s questions, even the unanswerable… But science is man made

 

[Solus_vistor]

It just occurred to me this word “explain” is problematic.

Science describes reality to the best of its ability at any given time. It provides models of reality that persist sometimes for many years. It refines and replaces older models as new things are discovered. It investigates reality to the extent it can observe it.

But explain? No.

I think you hit the nail on the head: Not only the word “explain” but many other abstract terms used in “philosophising” - unlike their everyday uses - have many meanings, often only subconsciously assumed by the person using them in his/her argument. If one tries to define them, one needs also to define in turn the abbstract terms used in their definition, and so on … and one soon or later arrives at a circular set of definitions. (This is unlike the situation in mathematics, where there are only a few primitive terms that do not need to be defined, the rest follows by pure logic.)

St Augustine expressed this in his famous ““What, then, is time? If no one ask of me, I know; if I wish to explain to him who asks, I know not.” (Confessiones lib xi, cap xiv, sec 17). Here we can replace “time” by words like “explain” even “really exlain”, “truth”, “exist”, “meaning”, “evidence”, “detect” (e.g. in my understanding of the term, “If we can detect any aspect of reality, then that aspect of reality is in principle investigable by science” (Sairs) is nothing but a tautology), “reality” (physical, i.e. natural or supernatural), etc.

As I tried to argue - assuming we can agree on what is that reality that science can investigate in principle, which is also easy - there are only two world-view presuppositions in this matter: either one believes (as e.g. Sagan or Sairs does) that this is all there is, or one believes that there exists also Something, an aspect of Ultimate reality, that is not detectable by science (as e.g. I do). I suppose also the meaning of “really explain” would depend on one’s a priori given world-view depending on one of these two beliefs.

in my less charitably-minded moments, I am inclined to think that the insistence upon the necessary limits of scientific enquiry is a reactionary response, on the part of those who are determined to preserve religious faith, to the encroachment of scientific explanation… (Sairs)

Well, here we differ essentially, not only in our beliefs, in that I do not see the need to disparage the alternative belief in similar terms (e.g. by claiming ignorance of not only Christianity but also of contemporary philosophy of science interpreting contemporary understanding of theoretical physics).

 

[sw85]

I was still arguing against your original claim (post #357) - science laughs at your assumptions and is more transparently and robustly validated by its own results.

For like the ninth time, this is completely irrelevant. We aren’t talking about science. We are talking about scientism. The former is a methodology. It is validated because it derives from an epistemology which is not obviously stupid. The latter is not.

Saying “all knowledge is scientific” begs the question of how exactly we know this to be true. Saying “it appears to work” doesn’t answer anything, because the appearance of its utility is itself a nonscientific fact that, according to scientism (rigorously applied), cannot be trusted. Either we can trust nonscientific intuitions or we can’t. If we can, scientism is false. If we can’t, we can’t know scientism is true. If the solution is that we must not rigorously apply scientism, then let’s not rigorously apply it to everything. QED.

Science can work on anything as long as there’s evidence. If you’re saying there’s no evidence for a supernatural parallel world of angels, demons and whatnot, agreed. Lack of evidence doesn’t rule it out but makes it very unlikely, not really worth bothering about in terms of explaining reality.

Unlikely by what standards, exactly? The ones scientism furnishes, according to which the probability of a thing is determined by the degree to which it can be explained naturalistically?

Is your calling yourself a Baptist ironic or is this how people actually think in fundamentalist Protestant circles?

You said scientism has it’s faults, I suggested it was birthed by religionists and mirrors the faults of those religionists.

Which is irrelevant to the discussion. I am increasingly getting the sense you have a soft spot for these idiots born of an irrational hatred of Catholics and Catholic thinkers.

You asked if I would acknowledge that scientism is agenda-driven and unsound, and I declined as it is no less so than the superstition and prevarication of the religionists who spawned it. Feser is one of the religionists I had in mind. As far as your personal remark - try some deep breaths.

Again, irrelevant, and sort of stupid too. Blasting Ed Feser as a “religionist” “prevaricator” is the height of ridiculousness.

Oh … and who decides what is sane

Is this a serious question?

and what dark delights “would not tolerate” might mean,

I mean it in the loose sense that society presently does not tolerate “racism.”

and what social engineering will ensure society does not “produce” them? Sounds like The Taliban meets Brave New World, good luck explaining that one at the pearly gates.

Yeah, because clearly if anything in our unverifiable religion is true, it’s that it frowns on social engineering.

Oy vey. I am always impressed by people who conflate modernity with their religion. For the vast majority of Christianity’s history, it was a state-established religion, with temporal enforcement of Church law and bishops serving on royal councils, etc. Fasting laws were enforced and blasphemers were routinely executed. To believe none of this is compatible with Christianity you’d have to believe God actually allowed the whole of Christendom to get everything wrong for the whole of its existence until approximately five minutes ago. Then again, this is basically exactly what Protestants believe in principle, so hardly surprising that you believe it.

I deny at any rate that “non-social engineering” is even a possibility. Every society does it, including this one. FYI, I’m a monarchist.

Christian means follower of Christ, not follower of Thomas.

I withdraw my earlier lack of clarity as to whether you were actually a Protestant. No one but a Protestant would indulge in such rank theological-epistemological reductionism.