Is everything really explainable by science?

  • Thread starter Thread starter sinnerdexter
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

sinnerdexter

Guest
If yes, why?

If not, why not? Or cite things that cannot be explained by science. (For example, Does the soul exist or is it just a faith-based hope enabling those who believe to hold on to the premise that there is a life beyond the one we all share at this very moment as we dwell in this transient state of mortality.)
 
I would contend no. It seems to me that there are a large number of things which cannot be subjected to objective, rigorous, repeatable, verifiable analysis via the hypothetical-deductive method–which is a necessity for something to be proven by science.

There are all manner of interpersonal, social, philosophical, literary, etc concepts and phenomenons which cannot be subjected to this methodology and thus are not questions science can answer.
 
Physical Science cannot prove scientific method,
Physical Science cannot prove mathematics,
Physical Science cannot prove God,
Physical Science cannot prove Souls,
Physical Science cannot prove morality,
Physical Science cannot prove logic,
Physical Science cannot prove other minds,
Physical Science cannot prove meaning,

and so on and so forth. all physical science can do is apply a (philosophical)method to a material thing, observe the result and rework the hypothesis.
 
National Science Education Standards for Science:

1-Observational data
2-Accurate predictions
3-Logical
4-Open to criticism
5-Accurate information
6-No presuppositions
 
stephe1987 said:
National Science Education Standards for Science:

6-No presuppositions
Click to expand...
:rotfl: Well, in that case, let’s just say they’re contradicting themselves right there, bec. saying “no presuppositions” is a presupposition unto itself, but aside from that, there’s no way that anybody can come to anything w/o “presuppositions.” Facts/experiences do not interpret themselves, unavoidably there has to be some sort of framework (aka paradigm) underlying one’s approach to gauging, deciphering and deducing/concluding. If you dig deep enough into any criteria for interpretation, you eventually hit the “rock bottom” of axioms (usually “sacred”:rolleyes:).

The previous posters already gave excellent answers to the OP, but I’ll just sum it up by saying, science deals with empirical phenomena: anything else is by def. outside of its purview.
 
Berean2 said:
:rotfl: Well, in that case, let’s just say they’re contradicting themselves right there, bec. saying “no presuppositions” is a presupposition unto itself, but aside from that, there’s no way that anybody can come to anything w/o “presuppositions.” Facts/experiences do not interpret themselves, unavoidably there has to be some sort of framework (aka paradigm) underlying one’s approach to gauging, deciphering and deducing/concluding. If you dig deep enough into any criteria for interpretation, you eventually hit the “rock bottom” of axioms (usually “sacred”:rolleyes:).
Click to expand...
I’m not sure what exactly the NCSE had to say about disallowing “presuppositions,” but I doubt they were referring to philosophical presuppositions, as opposed to factual presuppositions in some particular context.

That said, and moving on to the OP, I agree with others here that science cannot explain the justification for its own epistemic foundations without a measure of circularity. However, I believe we can ask a far more interesting question:

Is everything explainable by anything?

The answer to this, as I understand explanations, is unequivocally “no.” For in order for an account to explain some observation(s), that account must sit in a context larger than the observation(s) of interest. Otherwise I would regard the account as merely the observation(s) itself (themselves). So no explanation can ever explain its own context.
 
The short answer is no.

Science always starts with a presupposition. It can begin in no other way. A phenomenon is observed: it is either actually real or actually not real.

Once the data is in, it is open to interpretation. I propose the following: the further back you go in history, the greater a small error becomes. It is not uncommon for Egyptologists, for example, to argue about this or that writing/artifact/event in Egyptian history.

I understand that some people believe that science is this somehow pure thing that is immune from corrupting influences but that is simply not true.

hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674047143

I would personally love to believe that scientists are above being influenced by other human beings but that is a fantasy.

Is “global warming” real? I think the honest answer is, who knows? Certainly, trillions of dollars to ‘save the planet’ are at stake. During World War II, I can cite examples of giving aid and comfort to the enemy. Science cannot be examined without realizing that it sometimes serves agendas that involve power, influence and making a buck by twisting or ignoring the data.

Let’s go to human beings. Your choices are:

You are only a bag of chemicals.

Your bag of chemicals somehow upgraded itself in terms of physical and mental function over a long period of time.

You came from nothing and are ultimately accountable to no one and nothing.

You perform preprogrammed adaptive behaviors in response to outside stimuli to safeguard your genetic material in terms of self, offspring and significant supportive members of your tribal group.

You die and nothing happens.

Or, you were willed into existence and are connected to the source of temporal and eternal life - God.

God bless,
Ed
 
I believe it explains the processes that God used to create the universe.
However, I don’t think it can explain all things, such as the existence of God, Souls, heaven and such.
 
Dylpickleh8 said:
I believe it explains the processes that God used to create the universe.
However, I don’t think it can explain all things, such as the existence of God, Souls, heaven and such.
Click to expand...
I am more and more skeptical about that. Most leading scientists reject God. So it doesn’t matter if an invisible soul or if an invisible God exists.

God bless,
Ed
 
Dylpickleh8 said:
I believe it explains the processes that God used to create the universe.
Click to expand...
Well, creation is de facto outside the realm of science. The “laws” of science preclude creation (“matter and energy cannot be created nor destroyed, only changed”).

Can you really imagine a science which allows creation of something out of nothing, creation ex nihilo? I’d love to see that equation!
 
Can science explain the effect produced on us by Mozart’s “Ave Verum Corpus”?
 
sinnerdexter said:
If yes, why?

If not, why not? Or cite things that cannot be explained by science. (For example, Does the soul exist or is it just a faith-based hope enabling those who believe to hold on to the premise that there is a life beyond the one we all share at this very moment as we dwell in this transient state of mortality.)
Click to expand...
Science is in danger of becoming another religion in hands of those who want to attack established religion. Unfortunately, in their attack, they inflate the epistemological reach of the empirical method way beyond its true authority and value. Instead of science being purely a study of physical phenomenon, it is haled as the only valid method for attaining valid beliefs. It is also haled as a method for disproving God and is a salvation for those who wish to be free from so called unintelligent barbarous Christian obligation. This illusion is achieved given the fact that science has the air of intellectual fulfilment about it. The bonfire of disbelief is ignited by the fact that science also legitimately challenges traditional views of the physical world; views which are very close to religious doctrine and are thus easily confused as such. Poor reactionary responses by the religious did very well in fuelling the illusion that Science was in fact giving us a world view that was far from religious; when in actual fact it was not Christian truth that was being over thrown but rather human tradition. Science is perceived as the new provider of spiritual and material fulfilment, and has thus taken the place of God. We no-longer need God now that we have science. This is the slogan of the new age. The new atheist movement has weaved a powerful deception.
 
Science is at the core of the Secular Creation Story. While science can give us some information about the outside world, it cannot address divine revelation. And faith and reality intersect. It is not just some abstract thing to state human beings have souls. It is a concrete fact. Our souls are immortal.

Knowledge has value but it is incomplete if it does not include God who the Church teaches can be discovered by natural reason. The desire to disconnect God from the daily lives of some people is also being used to justify certain behaviors.

God bless,
Ed
 
sinnerdexter said:
If yes, why?

If not, why not? Or cite things that cannot be explained by science. (For example, Does the soul exist or is it just a faith-based hope enabling those who believe to hold on to the premise that there is a life beyond the one we all share at this very moment as we dwell in this transient state of mortality.)
Click to expand...
I would like to give credit to science for the good it has produced. Many dedicated women and men are seeking the truth of the natural world. Glory and honor to the Creator.

Science per se is based in the material/physical realm. As such, it limits its research to what can be put under the proverbial microscope. This works well except for human nature. The Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition, points out that in his own nature, the human person unites the spiritual and material worlds. (CCC 355-368) Catholicism places humanity at the pinnacle of creation because human nature is a profound union of the material anatomy and the immaterial spiritual soul.

Ah, one says. The spiritual cannot be studied by scientific methods. True. But that does not exclude spiritual reality which can be known by the tools of reason, self reflection, logical evaluation, and analytical thought. These tools are part of human nature – the human being one sees in the mirror. We are spirit/matter, rational/corporeal, soul and body. We are destined for eternal life with God.

To answer the OP, a lot can be explained by scientific inquiry. But it takes Divine Revelation to explain human nature.

Blessings,
granny

Human life is sacred from the moment of conception.
 
grannymh said:
I would like to give credit to science for the good it has produced.
Click to expand...
I agree - when we are ill, most of us would much prefer to see a scientifically trained doctor than just hope and pray. But most of the atheists I know have a range of highly unscientific beliefs (astrology, paranormal, etc). It is too hard for them to deny all spirituality, and they enslave themselves by trying to avoid organized religion. The “pure” atheists have got round that by inventing a new religion, with Richard Dawkins and co as the high priests, where salvation depends on bashing all other religions.

It seems that neither faith nor science is winning today. But read this lovely argument as to why the faithful shall inherit the earth (it’s by a rabbi).

timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article7133214.ece

So no, nothing that really matters is fully explainable by science.
 
inocente said:
I agree - when we are ill, most of us would much prefer to see a scientifically trained doctor than just hope and pray. But most of the atheists I know have a range of highly unscientific beliefs (astrology, paranormal, etc). It is too hard for them to deny all spirituality, and they enslave themselves by trying to avoid organized religion. The “pure” atheists have got round that by inventing a new religion, with Richard Dawkins and co as the high priests, where salvation depends on bashing all other religions.

It seems that neither faith nor science is winning today. But read this lovely argument as to why the faithful shall inherit the earth (it’s by a rabbi).

timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article7133214.ece

So no, nothing that really matters is fully explainable by science.
Click to expand...
I would like to read it. But for some reason I keep getting 404 Error.
 
Depends on what you mean.

Science has a particular domain of inquiry – that is, the world that exists outside of our heads.

Anything outside of that domain of inquiry is something that science really can’t be used on. For example, science can’t tell us things about fictional worlds made up by a person. It can’t tell us what the evil Voldemort is going to do next. Further, it can’t “explain” a lot of the emotional and psychological things that go on inside people’s minds, etc. (Psychology attempts to do this, though it really functions as much as an art as it does a “science”)

But applied to its proper domain, science does seem capable of explaining most things. Can it explain everything in its proper domain? The only answer I can give is I don’t know, the option that is missing from the poll.

But importantly, even if science can’t explain everything about the world outside of our heads, that doesn’t make the existence of supernatural things any more likely to be true.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top