Can science REALLY explain Reality?

[AlanFromWichita]

Whether those people should be allowed to operate heavy machinery is off-topic.

Before you change the subject, I’d love to hear your response to the original point: that only science avoids the glaring problem that every religion and every school of philosophy has its own different, incompatible explanation of reality.

(And as Baptists are a doctrine-free zone, for the sake of your spiritual welfare please try to avoid the temptation of telling me what I must and must not believe lest it leads you into sin).

Science does not avoid the problem of subjectivity, or disagreement on “known” facts. Different disciplines within science argue. Different “schools of thought.” Different individual scientists bitterly criticize each other, and they do so publicly.

Moreover, with few exceptions, scientific studies are funded by sources with an interest in the outcomes. Scientists have to put food on their tables, too, which means they subject their skills to the requests of somebody paying them. Fact of life. Even “university studies” are usually funded by industry and other interested parties.

There is no such thing as “real science.” It’s all on whom do you believe. Do you believe a NASA web site? How about NSF? What about conflicting biographies of a famous person? What about the food pyramid and Michelle Obama? What about a vegetarian web site conflicting with a web site promoting meat – both sites chock with “scientific findings” and all? There is religion in science, and science in religion.

So science is just as much a “rainbow” of viewpoints as religion. And if you abstract this a bit, science and religion have the same characteristics. They both build a structure of how to think about things that supposedly explain what we want explained.

Science and religion equally suffer from the Tower of Babel syndrome.

Alan

 

[tonyrey]

Your deconstructionism leaves you without any principles on which to base your own conclusions!

Science does not avoid the problem because it is not an explanation of the whole of reality.

(And as Baptists are a doctrine-free zone, for the sake of your spiritual welfare please try to avoid the temptation of telling me what I must and must not believe lest it leads you into sin).

I am not referring to you in particular but simply pointing out that your (= one’s) leaves you (= one) without any principles on which to base your (= one’s) own conclusions! It applies to every deconstructionist without exception.

 

[tonyrey]

Sure, but you support materialism which excludes belief in the supernatural.

Your point needs to be substantiated. If it were true that philosophy is useless when it comes to reality your statement that philosophy is useless is self-contradictory because it is a philosophical proposition.

Second, it’s a bit bizarre to suggest another Christian supports materialism, the position that only matter and energy exist, which would exclude God. Christianity is monotheistic, which means believing in one God. Whether we also happen to believe in hoards of angels, demons, fairies or UFOs is strictly optional whatever you may want.

It is the only logical conclusion from the proposition that only matter and energy exist (according to your hypothesis that science is the only explanation of reality).

Moreover:

I would therefore argue that such things as meaning, purpose and knowing how we know that we know are bound to be subjective and cannot be aspects of objective reality.

This statement implies that all reference to God in terms of meaning, purpose and knowing is meaningless, purposeless and unintelligible - which is certainly inconsistent with Scripture and Christian doctrine.

 

[inocente]

Science does not avoid the problem of subjectivity, or disagreement on “known” facts. Different disciplines within science argue. Different “schools of thought.” Different individual scientists bitterly criticize each other, and they do so publicly.

Agreed, but in science two theories are always one too many, e.g. physicists get embarrassed for not yet finding a way to combine relativity with quantum theory, whereas schools of philosophy bifurcate like there’s no tomorrow (imho this doesn’t matter, philosophy should be more about the journey than the destination, but it makes it pointless to hope philosophers will ever agree on what is real).

*Moreover, with few exceptions, scientific studies are funded by sources with an interest in the outcomes. Scientists have to put food on their tables, too, which means they subject their skills to the requests of somebody paying them. Fact of life. Even “university studies” are usually funded by industry and other interested parties.

There is no such thing as “real science.” It’s all on whom do you believe. Do you believe a NASA web site? How about NSF? What about conflicting biographies of a famous person? What about the food pyramid and Michelle Obama? What about a vegetarian web site conflicting with a web site promoting meat – both sites chock with “scientific findings” and all? There is religion in science, and science in religion.

So science is just as much a “rainbow” of viewpoints as religion. And if you abstract this a bit, science and religion have the same characteristics. They both build a structure of how to think about things that supposedly explain what we want explained.*

Is it just me or is there a hint of nihilism there?

I think you may be unconsciously biasing the evidence. Your examples are about new and developing theories, of which the religious equivalents are here-today-and-gone-tomorrow cults, splinter groups like blogs for women priests, the funding of pseudo-scientific “institutes” and so on. If we’re going to compare apples with apples, I think we have to exclude all that and stick to scripture, the CCC, books on well attested science and such.

I think you’re right though that there are dangers, for instance the philosophical nonsense in many popular speculative science books, combined with zero guidance from those ultra-conservative guys called theologians. Whether or not we agree with him, it might be good to see more writing like the following - the priest Georges Lemaître on an implication of his primeval atom (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

 

[inocente]

Science does not avoid the problem because it is not an explanation of the whole of reality.

Errm… isn’t that still trying to change the subject? Again, since every religion and school of philosophy has its own different, incompatible explanation of reality, none of them explains even a tiny itsy bit of reality to anyone who subscribes to another school.

I am not referring to you in particular but simply pointing out that your (= one’s) leaves you (= one) without any principles on which to base your (= one’s) own conclusions! It applies to every deconstructionist without exception.

If that was really what you intended, I suggest next time instead of writing “Your deconstructionism leaves you without any principles on which to base your own conclusions!” one could more simply write “Deconstructionism leaves an absence of principles on which to base conclusions”.

But as it was you anyway who first set out down the deconstructionist path (post #123), agreed. :compcoff:

 

[inocente]

Your point needs to be substantiated. If it were true that philosophy is useless when it comes to reality your statement that philosophy is useless is self-contradictory because it is a philosophical proposition.

My shortening may have misled you, I was referring to schools of philosophy, saying that as there’s no neutral way to choose between them, philosophy isn’t a lot of use at explaining reality.

Imho your logic that philosophy has discovered a foolproof way to avoid all criticism is, how to put this, up a gum tree without a paddle.

It is the only logical conclusion from the proposition that only matter and energy exist (according to your hypothesis that science is the only explanation of reality).

Methinks you’re using a private definition of science. Plus I’ve not claimed science only, rather that science is the best, the most useful, for explaining reality, not forgetting that reality is partly subjective (e.g. my post #47), which many schools of philosophy would wrongly deny.

I would therefore argue that such things as meaning, purpose and knowing how we know that we know are bound to be subjective and cannot be aspects of objective reality.
tonyrey;9312383:

This statement implies that all reference to God in terms of meaning, purpose and knowing is meaningless, purposeless and unintelligible - which is certainly inconsistent with Scripture and Christian doctrine.

Don’t see how. I know Christ found me, but I’ve met Muslims, Sikhs, Buddhists and so on who are equally certain in their beliefs. Are you suggesting that we are all objectively wrong, or would you agree with me (and the Church) that each has merit?

 

[AlanFromWichita]

Is it just me or is there a hint of nihilism there?

Perhaps. But I am so as an insider.

Example: I went apoplectic once when I was forced – against my bitter protests – to release a report with a misleading statistic, that made the city council look more racist than they were. I know the number was wrong, because I calculated it. BUT the committee leads didn’t want the right number; they wanted what would support the racism charges against the council and my number made them look bad. Sure enough, just like I told the committee it would be, (I got shot down as being “too dramatic”) it WAS the lead story in the evening news that night, and they showed a closeup of that page of the report I typed, with THAT number circled. And it wasn’t a small difference; based on what I had, I knew it was off by at least a factor of 15.

And it was not a survey; it was a mathematical analysis of contracting, based on the records the city engineers printed out for me. So there was nothing subjective about it except it resulted in misleading conclusions.

Funny thing; the head of the NAACP, who had the charges, even agreed with me, but it was out of his hands too, and the report went to the TV news. He was an intelligent and fair man; it was the rabid political task force appointees I couldn’t shake. He said there was no point publishing error because there were real issues we should be working on. I hate it when truth bows to politics, but I’m afraid that is the status quo.

And don’t get me started on the stupidity I encountered as a senior engineer for Bell Labs.

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

This is a topic I find interesting, but I didn’t exactly understand the passage – maybe I’ll get a chance to read the link.

Alan

 

[tonyrey]

Science does not avoid the problem because it is not an explanation of the whole of reality

Please refer to “The Perennial Philosophy” by Aldous Huxley.

I am not referring to you in particular but simply pointing out that your (= one’s) leaves you (= one) without any principles on which to base your (= one’s) own conclusions! It applies to every deconstructionist without exception.

If that was really what you intended, I suggest next time instead of writing “Your deconstructionism leaves you without any principles on which to base your own conclusions!” one could more simply write “Deconstructionism leaves an absence of principles on which to base conclusions”.

!

But as it was you anyway who first set out down the deconstructionist path (post #123), agreed.

?
Which of the following statements leads to that conclusion?

Science is based on the following principles:

1. Physical objects exist

1. Physical events are intelligible

1. The intellect exists

1. The intellect can comprehend physical events

1. Logical principles are valid

1. The principle of induction - the future will resemble the past

1. The principle of causality - events are related

None of these **principles **can be observed, measured, calculated or explained by science.

Science cannot explain itself or the scientist!

 

[OrdinaryMelkite]

If you’ve run out of arguments and the only weapons you have left are thumbs up signs and writing NOT in capital letters, then of course I graciously accept your surrender. :curtsey:

I was agreing with another poster----not you.

I would say-----------if, to defer from dealing with that answer to that statement. you resort to deflecting tactics like “you don’t have an answer to my question, therefore you concede,” then I would say YOU (there, capital letters!!! Shiocking!!) are the one who’s “run out of arguments,” not me.

Indeed.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

I was agreing with another poster----not you.

I would say-----------if, to defer from dealing with that answer to that statement. you resort to deflecting tactics like “you don’t have an answer to my question, therefore you concede,” then I would say YOU (there, capital letters!!! Shiocking!!) are the one who’s “run out of arguments,” not me.

Indeed.

Sometimes I like to use the bold/italics combination. It seems to emphasize without necessarily shouting.

Lighter, less filling.

 

[inocente]

This is a topic I find interesting, but I didn’t exactly understand the passage – maybe I’ll get a chance to read the link.

Lemaître is saying that whereas Genesis assumed the universe was created in its current form, big bang says it evolved over a long 13 billion years, allowing us to ask where in this long development do we see an interventionist God. Yet everywhere He is hidden, even at the very beginning where we might most expect to see signs. Lemaître says that thus his theory tells us to discard the friendly little tribal god who caters to our whims and return to the infinitely more majestic yet remote God of Isaiah.

Of course, Lemaître was an honored Catholic with the ear of his pope, so he didn’t get called a materialist and have his faith questioned for speaking his mind.

 

[inocente]

Please refer to “The Perennial Philosophy” by Aldous Huxley.

It was a simple point, asked three times. Your answer, a 70-year old book about mysticism by a new age British novelist who advocated psychedelic drugs, allows a robust conclusion to be made about the type of “philosophy” you may be advocating, unless you think you’ve given a misleading impression of course.

!

Debate by typography? Really?

?
Which of the following statements leads to that conclusion?

To deconstruct means to break down into components; to dismantle. So all of them together of course.

btw, any comments on my post #166?

 

[inocente]

I was agreing with another poster----not you.

But you were agreeing with that poster’s one-liner comments to me.

*I would say-----------if, to defer from dealing with that answer to that statement. you resort to deflecting tactics like “you don’t have an answer to my question, therefore you concede,” then I would say YOU (there, capital letters!!! Shiocking!!) are the one who’s “run out of arguments,” not me.

Indeed.*

First, I was making a little joke, apologies if it upset you.

Second, you just told me you weren’t posting to me, yet now you say I’ve been avoiding answering you. Anyway, ask away, ask anything you like, I’m off for the rest of today but rest assured I won’t palm you off, I’m nowhere close to running out of arguments.

 

[tonyrey]

It was a simple point, asked three times. Your answer, a 70-year old book about mysticism by a new age British novelist who advocated psychedelic drugs, allows a robust conclusion to be made about the type of “philosophy” you may be advocating, unless you think you’ve given a misleading impression of course.

Argumentum ad hominem.

To deconstruct means to break down into components; to dismantle. So all of them together of course.

You have not refuted any of them.

 

[inocente]

Argumentum ad hominem.

Tony, I fear you will never get the hang of ad hominem. It is not ad hominem for me to complain that after three opportunities, instead of simply answering a point in your own words, you expect me to wade through a book which is not even written by a philosopher but by a mystic hippy who advocated psychedelic drugs.

You have not refuted any of them.

Start from my post #129 again.

PS: I see no point in continuing unless you respond with more than these contemptuous superficial one liners. I don’t have the time to play this game again for, what is it, the third thread in a row.

 

[tonyrey]

Tony, I fear you will never get the hang of ad hominem. It is not ad hominem for me to complain that after three opportunities, instead of simply answering a point in your own words, you expect me to wade through a book which is not even written by a philosopher but by a mystic hippy who advocated psychedelic drugs.

Start from my post #129 again.

PS: I see no point in continuing unless you respond with more than these contemptuous superficial one liners. I don’t have the time to play this game again for, what is it, the third thread in a row.

I am not going to take the risk of being reported by you again for stating the truth - a report which was ignored of course…

 

[inocente]

I am not going to take the risk of being reported by you again for stating the truth - a report which was ignored of course…

I don’t understand - you haven’t done anything to be reported for. On the previous occasion we sorted out our differences and as Christians agreed the matter is closed, done and dusted I think were the words we used.

I’d like to discuss why you think philosophy can explain reality when it has so many schools of thought with incompatible ideas on what constitutes reality. My contention is that even if we choose a particular school, we still have no way of knowing whether it’s right, whereas with science we do at least know that theories are tested against observation. After all this was part of the reason why natural philosophy, aka natural science, separated away in the first place.

This seems pivotal to the OP. I enjoy our conversations and am simply voicing my frustration when you shut down to one line responses. If you’d rather not talk just say so, it’s not like our lives depend on keeping going to some bitter end or anything.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

I’d like to discuss why you think philosophy can explain reality when it has so many schools of thought with incompatible ideas on what constitutes reality. My contention is that even if we choose a particular school, we still have no way of knowing whether it’s right, whereas with science we do at least know that theories are tested against observation. After all this was part of the reason why natural philosophy, aka natural science, separated away in the first place.

They are tested against observation, but observations are at times incompatible, or so they seem. Different observer, different technique, different funding source, all lead to difference conclusions from the same observations and/or different observations of the same event.

Alan

 

[davidv]

I don’t understand - you haven’t done anything to be reported for. On the previous occasion we sorted out our differences and as Christians agreed the matter is closed, done and dusted I think were the words we used.

I’d like to discuss why you think philosophy can explain reality when it has so many schools of thought with incompatible ideas on what constitutes reality. My contention is that even if we choose a particular school, we still have no way of knowing whether it’s right, whereas with science we do at least know that theories are tested against observation. After all this was part of the reason why natural philosophy, aka natural science, separated away in the first place.

This seems pivotal to the OP. I enjoy our conversations and am simply voicing my frustration when you shut down to one line responses. If you’d rather not talk just say so, it’s not like our lives depend on keeping going to some bitter end or anything.

I think the unidentified assumption that is present, or presumed, in both the OP, annd the reactions to it, and your objection here, is the one that science, or philosophy, individualy explain the whole of reality. This simply cannot be the case as the scope of each, though overlapping is not coincident.

 

[Gaber]

I think the unidentified assumption that is present, or presumed, in both the OP, annd the reactions to it, and your objection here, is the one that science, or philosophy, individualy explain the whole of reality. This simply cannot be the case as the scope of each, though overlapping is not coincident.

That is well put. And neither doe religion, or ny other body ofactual or pseudo knowledge. The reason being that the greater cannot be “explaiined” by the lesser. So while Reality includes the phenomenal bodies of “experetise” labled philosophy, science, religion, epistemology, cosmology or whatever, neither those nor anything else within Reality contains Reality within itself. best any of them can do is point beyond themselves at something Greater, without being able to say exactly or approximately what it IS. So all sense-based,or so called “objective” knowledge is relative to the bandwidth of any individual or collective body’s perceptive/affective/intellectual capacity. And all that is, in the end, subjective only as well, while refering in kind and degree to the appearance of an objective quale of experience or expression in the same sense that your thumb can feel the other fingers which appear seperate from it on the same hand.