Can science REALLY explain Reality?

[DeepBlueSea]

I’m sorry, but I do not think so.

Science’s domain concerns explaining the world of nature and its phenomena.

It is PHILOSOPHY (and Religion) that explain Reality, not science.

Anybody who thinks Science=Reality is under the spell of Scientism, and that is faith-based.

And true science is NOT faith-based in any way. It concerns studying and explaining (defined) natural phenomena. NOT reality.

Got this explanation from a response in another forum. Parapharsed this somewhat and added “religion” to it. Made by a scientist, as a matter fact.

Thought it wa a cool response to a question asked there.

Anybody agree/disagree with it?

Agree.

Science can’t explain reality in its totality due to:
(1) Too many hidden variables
(2) Our perceptive limitation and bias
(3) Insufficient computing power to make sense of the complexity of reality (but I’m betting on Moore’s Law )
(4) Human’s scientific endeavor to explain reality is always distracted, detracted or abandoned because of other reasons.

Science can never understand reality in its totality but that does not mean we should stop trying. We should try even harder. I guess we just have to remind ourselves why are we seeking reality and to what ends are we serving.

 

[Sair]

Agree.

Science can’t explain reality in its totality due to:
(1) Too many hidden variables
(2) Our perceptive limitation and bias
(3) Insufficient computing power to make sense of the complexity of reality (but I’m betting on Moore’s Law )
(4) Human’s scientific endeavor to explain reality is always distracted, detracted or abandoned because of other reasons.

These limitations apply to any human attempt to understand reality, including religion and philosophy - it’s just that these have far more room for unfettered speculation than does science. The problem is primarily in assuming that the speculation actually is the reality, in the absence of genuine evidence.

Science can never understand reality in its totality but that does not mean we should stop trying. We should try even harder. I guess we just have to remind ourselves why are we seeking reality and to what ends are we serving.

I agree that we should continue to pursue knowledge and understanding of the universe and of ourselves, but that should not be from the perspective of limitation, as if we somehow know of realities beyond the reach of empirical investigation. It seems premature to suppose that science can’t, in principle, explain any reality we experience. That seems like a declaration that we already know about aspects of reality that are inaccessible to science…which then leads to the question of how we could know so, and why our presumed methods of knowing are reliable. After all, when it comes to making supportable, repeatable and useful statements about reality, science is well ahead of the mob…

 

[inocente]

Do you reject the existence of the soul? If not why do you believe it exists?

You’d first have to define what you mean by the word since everyone seems to mean something different, but if it helps my understanding doesn’t appear to be very far from other Christians I know in real life.

 

[inocente]

Naughty, but very funny

Sarah x

I was totally earnest.

 

[inocente]

Yes, those evil supernaturalists, believing in widespread human experiences which science wouldn’t have the ability to evaluate honestly as anything other than side effects of physical phenomena, because ultimately that’s all we can really evaluate scientifically… tautology, anyone?

**I am a supernaturalist, you numpty!!! ** What you’re after is technical information for something which we don’t have the ability to gather technical information for. But why deny supernature just because we can’t evaluate it as easily as physical objects? I think we should guard against such blatant superstition…

For all we know, a transfer mechanism may have been found, or a whole load of them, or perhaps that’s what the entire brain is, but this would never be determined scientifically to be such, because we wouldn’t have the ability to understand the technicalities of what is happening - inevitably, the scientific default will always be to assume an exclusively physical explanation and causality, however improbable or poorly evidenced, because that’s all we have the technical ability to investigate or formulate

How come you don’t find that implausibly weak? I mean what’s the point, what’s the motive, how does it help anyone to claim we’re so stupid that we’ll never understand and shouldn’t even try?

Luckily most people don’t buy that or we wouldn’t be learning how to help folk with bipolar, depression and a host of other things. As far as I’m aware, Christ never said there are things we’re not supposed to know and that we should stay ignorant and believe in magic.

Ignorance may well be bliss but knowledge is cool dude(tte)!

 

[Sair]

How come you don’t find that implausibly weak? I mean what’s the point, what’s the motive, how does it help anyone to claim we’re so stupid that we’ll never understand and shouldn’t even try?

Oh, I could come up with a number of motives - the least offensive, probably, is to suppose that this allows people to cling to belief in supernatural entities, even though there’s no way of explaining how they could possibly interact with natural entities.

Luckily most people don’t buy that or we wouldn’t be learning how to help folk with bipolar, depression and a host of other things. As far as I’m aware, Christ never said there are things we’re not supposed to know and that we should stay ignorant and believe in magic.

Ignorance may well be bliss but knowledge is cool dude(tte)!

Well said - it’s only oppressive totalitarian regimes that try to limit people’s potential for knowledge, right?

 

[DeepBlueSea]

These limitations apply to any human attempt to understand reality, including religion and philosophy - it’s just that these have far more room for unfettered speculation than does science. The problem is primarily in assuming that the speculation actually is the reality, in the absence of genuine evidence.

Comparing religion and science is like comparing apples to oranges. Using bad science to undermine the rational foundation of religion is just as bad.

I agree that we should continue to pursue knowledge and understanding of the universe and of ourselves, but that should not be from the perspective of limitation, as if we somehow know of realities beyond the reach of empirical investigation. It seems premature to suppose that science can’t, in principle, explain any reality we experience. That seems like a declaration that we already know about aspects of reality that are inaccessible to science…which then leads to the question of how we could know so, and why our presumed methods of knowing are reliable. After all, when it comes to making supportable, repeatable and useful statements about reality, science is well ahead of the mob…

Understanding our limitation is not being restrictive in the pursuit of knowledge. It is about being realistic and grounded in the awareness that our observations are interfered by noise, systemic error, observational error and propagation of uncertainty. Presumptuous overestimation of the capability of science often leads to hubristic misinterpretation of reality which even in the face of incoherence, ego prevents one to face the mistake squarely in the face.

Science has not offered a constant understanding of reality. What we believe as the reality that science tells us now, very soon in the future will degenerate into irrelevance. Who would have thought the universe could be multiverse or there could be 24 dimensions at subatomic level, and who is to say that our current understanding of reality will remain as such in the future. Scientific perception of reality is always challenged and disrupted by paradigm shifts. Such reality is always discordantly uncertain.

At least religion offers an absolute unchanging truth.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

I now predict this thread will die of old age rather than by scrolling down.

 

[Sair]

Comparing religion and science is like comparing apples to oranges.

You’re quite right - science is far more enlightening and useful.

Using bad science to undermine the rational foundation of religion is just as bad.

The “rational” foundation of religion is on shaky enough ground as it is. The problem is in mistaking good science for bad when it happens to disagree with religious dogma…

Understanding our limitation is not being restrictive in the pursuit of knowledge. It is about being realistic and grounded in the awareness that our observations are interfered by noise, systemic error, observational error and propagation of uncertainty. Presumptuous overestimation of the capability of science often leads to hubristic misinterpretation of reality which even in the face of incoherence, ego prevents one to face the mistake squarely in the face.

Science has not offered a constant understanding of reality. What we believe as the reality that science tells us now, very soon in the future will degenerate into irrelevance. Who would have thought the universe could be multiverse or there could be 24 dimensions at subatomic level, and who is to say that our current understanding of reality will remain as such in the future. Scientific perception of reality is always challenged and disrupted by paradigm shifts. Such reality is always discordantly uncertain.

At least religion offers an absolute unchanging truth.

You are attempting to portray science’s capacity for self-correction as a weakness, when it is the greatest strength of the discipline. Of course scientific understanding will change as more research is done. That is far better than clinging to imaginary notions of “absolute” truth which we will not last long enough to test.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

Maybe we should say that science is like philosophy without the color. Or like the alphabet with the letter “X” missing.

Or that philosophy looks at the shadows of science. Or that philosophy leads science into the shadows it so loves to investigate.

Or that unexpected scientific results can give birth to much philosophical musing.

But one thing you cannot say in honesty is that science and philosophy are separable. Neither would exist without the other. And in fact, they judge each other, like a meme-based balance of powers.

Alan

 

[tonyrey]

You’d first have to define what you mean by the word since everyone seems to mean something different, but if it helps my understanding doesn’t appear to be very far from other Christians I know in real life.

CCC 363 In Sacred Scripture the term “soul” often refers to human *life *or the entire human person.230 But “soul” also refers tothe innermost aspect of man, that which is of greatest value in him,231 that by which he is most especially in God’s image: “soul” signifies the spiritual principle in man.
364 The human body shares in the dignity of “the image of God”: it is a human body precisely because it is animated by a spiritual soul, and it is the whole human person that is intended to become, in the body of Christ, a temple of the Spirit:232

Man, though made of body and soul, is a unity. Through his very bodily condition he sums up in himself the elements of the material world. Through him they are thus brought to their highest perfection and can raise their voice in praise freely given to the Creator. For this reason man may not despise his bodily life. Rather he is obliged to regard his body as good and to hold it in honor since God has created it and will raise it up on the last day. 233
365 The unity of soul and body is so profound that one has to consider the soul to be the “form” of the body:234 i.e., it is because of its spiritual soul that the body made of matter becomes a living, human body; spirit and matter, in man, are not two natures united, but rather their union forms a single nature.
366 The Church teaches that every spiritual soul is created immediately by God - it is not “produced” by the parents - and also that it is immortal: **it does not perish when it separates from the body at death, and it will be reunited with the body at the final Resurrection. **

This view is clearly at odds with yours:

If I remember my comparative religion, culturally **animism **varies a lot but the common factor is a notion of a disembodied human soul or spirit.

 

[Mystic_Banana]

I was totally earnest.

Doesn’t surprise me in the least… so much for free thought

 

[Mystic_Banana]

How come you don’t find that implausibly weak? I mean what’s the point, what’s the motive, how does it help anyone to claim we’re so stupid that we’ll never understand and shouldn’t even try?

Honesty??

Well, it’s worth a try, but a widespread delusion of knowledge is the ages greatest folly, and danger, I do think… and popular science, as an industry, appears to be deliberately fueling that…

Luckily most people don’t buy that or we wouldn’t be learning how to help folk with bipolar, depression and a host of other things. As far as I’m aware, Christ never said there are things we’re not supposed to know and that we should stay ignorant and believe in magic.

Are we learning to treat people with bipolar, depression etc.? We live in the age of psychological treatment, in which we define the self (and are encouraged to do so) in psychological terms, and yet psychological problems are more widespread than ever. Pretty sure suicide is on an ever increasing rate as well (UK stats), and the majority of suicides are people who’ve had treatment (again UK stats - I can try and dig them out, if you want).

Within how many minutes does the average doctor prescribe prozac to befuddle their patients these days? At least they’ve stopped turning people into catatonic messes with frontal lobotomies

Ignorance may well be bliss but knowledge is cool dude(tte)!

A shame we won’t admit to ourselves when we don’t really have the knowledge, however… surely the greatest ignorance of all?

 

[DeepBlueSea]

You’re quite right - science is far more enlightening and useful.

Not at all, the intention and application of science and religion are not commensurable. To say that science is more superior than religion is a form of ambiguity aversion. Even so, it does not support the notion that science explain reality better than religion.

The “rational” foundation of religion is on shaky enough ground as it is. The problem is in mistaking good science for bad when it happens to disagree with religious dogma…

Theologian-Scientist such as Sir John Polkinghorne will probably disagree with you that religion (in this case, Christianity) is founded on shaky rationality. His papers are worth reading.

You are attempting to portray science’s capacity for self-correction as a weakness, when it is the greatest strength of the discipline. Of course scientific understanding will change as more research is done. That is far better than clinging to imaginary notions of “absolute” truth which we will not last long enough to test.

I am a bit taken by the claim that I was attempting to portray science self-correcting nature as weakness. My point was about the awareness of responsible scientists who recognize the effect of systematic error and shortcomings of scientific methods in shaping our understanding of reality. Such recognition in no way undermines the contribution of science, on the contrary, reinforces the need to address the shortcomings of scientific approach and improve upon those shortcomings. Our perceived reality is contingent upon scientific advancement and neither will we be able to see the reality in its fullness in our life time but that does not stop you from embracing this contingent state of reality, does it?

I maintain that religion offers an unchanging absolute truth. This truth is the highest order of reality that matters.

Ultimately, this thread begs the question is science ever closer in its pursuit of reality? I used to think so but now I have my doubts. Over 70% of scientific papers were retracted due to error, and 25% due to fraud. This is a pain in my arse not because I bother about the “metaphysical nature of reality” but simply because it complicates my works and causes me to make the wrong decisions because the scientific (name removed by moderator)uts were flawed and that will cost me and my company alot of money.

“The apparent rise in scientific fraud, is a scar on the moral body of science.” Richard Horton, Editor of Lancet. I guess we are still light years away from reality if we rely on science alone.

 

[DeepBlueSea]

You are attempting to portray science’s capacity for self-correction as a weakness, when it is the greatest strength of the discipline.

By the way, do you know who is paying for the self-correction of scientific error and frauds?

The hefty price paid for such correction is not just in monetary term. Consider the opportunity costs and the health risks of millions of patient subjects undergoing secondary trials based on flawed primary scientific studies.

 

[Sair]

By the way, do you know who is paying for the self-correction of scientific error and frauds?

The hefty price paid for such correction is not just in monetary term. Consider the opportunity costs and the health risks of millions of patient subjects undergoing secondary trials based on flawed primary scientific studies.

I hardly need point out the hefty price paid by millions of humans for the maintenance of faith in supernatural entities. That argument has been done to death.

But the ethics of scientific research - in modern Western nations - require that human subjects volunteer for the procedures to which they may be subjected in the course of such research. Often, the volunteers for testing a drug that might have an effect on an otherwise incurable condition are happy to take the chance that it might work. This represents a significant advance over the use of sentient nonhuman animals in medical research - not only because they can’t consent, but because the results of such research can bring only limited insight into how new drugs or procedures will affect human patients.

 

[Sair]

I am a bit taken by the claim that I was attempting to portray science self-correcting nature as weakness. My point was about the awareness of responsible scientists who recognize the effect of systematic error and shortcomings of scientific methods in shaping our understanding of reality. Such recognition in no way undermines the contribution of science, on the contrary, reinforces the need to address the shortcomings of scientific approach and improve upon those shortcomings. Our perceived reality is contingent upon scientific advancement and neither will we be able to see the reality in its fullness in our life time but that does not stop you from embracing this contingent state of reality, does it?

Where are the comparable measures in any religious interpretation of reality? I am aware of some backtracking on the part of the Catholic church, at least, which - to its credit, in a small way - has accepted certain scientific findings such as the facts of heliocentrism and evolution - but where are the self-correcting mechanisms of the religious worldview to be located? It seems that self-correction should be anathema, since one of the most basic religious assumptions is that absolute truth has been directly revealed by one’s relevant deity.

 

[inocente]

Maybe we should say that science is like philosophy without the color. Or like the alphabet with the letter “X” missing.

Or that philosophy looks at the shadows of science. Or that philosophy leads science into the shadows it so loves to investigate.

Or that unexpected scientific results can give birth to much philosophical musing.

But one thing you cannot say in honesty is that science and philosophy are separable. Neither would exist without the other. And in fact, they judge each other, like a meme-based balance of powers.

I can’t see this Alan. Life is just a bowl of cherries is a philosophical statement alright, but scientific not so much.

 

[inocente]

This view is clearly at odds with yours:

Why? I’ve no idea what you’re on about - what has the CCC got to do with animism?

 

[inocente]

Honesty??

Well, it’s worth a try, but a widespread delusion of knowledge is the ages greatest folly, and danger, I do think… and popular science, as an industry, appears to be deliberately fueling that…

Well … I’d suggest that any fringe belief, such as flat earth, dark stars or disembodied minds will tend to invoke conspiracy theories since they provide the believer with an excuse as to why the majority don’t share their belief - we’ve all been brainwashed.

*David Morrison, director of SETI, CSI Fellow and Senior Scientist at NASA’s Astrobiology Institute at Ames Research Center, says he receives 20 to 25 emails a week about the impending arrival of Nibiru: some frightened, others angry and naming him as part of the conspiracy to keep the truth of the impending apocalypse from the public, and still others asking whether or not they should kill themselves, their children or their pets. *

Are we learning to treat people with bipolar, depression etc.? We live in the age of psychological treatment, in which we define the self (and are encouraged to do so) in psychological terms, and yet psychological problems are more widespread than ever. Pretty sure suicide is on an ever increasing rate as well (UK stats), and the majority of suicides are people who’ve had treatment (again UK stats - I can try and dig them out, if you want).

Not comparing apples with apples. Everyone who ever took a math course has died, so on no account learn math.

Saying that “psychological problems are more widespread than ever” is like saying “England had it’s wettest June ever” and missing off “since records began in 1905” (or whenever it was). How can you possibly know that “psychological problems” are more widespread than in 234 BC, or for that matter 1698? It’s also highly likely that the majority of suicide victims sought treatment in the past, in the same way that those who die in diving accidents tend to be divers.

Within how many minutes does the average doctor prescribe prozac to befuddle their patients these days? At least they’ve stopped turning people into catatonic messes with frontal lobotomies

I don’t know if over-prescription is an issue here in Spain. WHO says depression is “the 4th leading contributor to the global burden of disease” and will be the second highest by 2020 - are you suggesting dealing with that by going back to drilling holes in skulls to let out the demons?

A shame we won’t admit to ourselves when we don’t really have the knowledge, however… surely the greatest ignorance of all?

Imho the greatest ignorance of all is the pride of being certain, because that stops us learning and makes us want to stop others learn.