Science Limitations (Apologetic Argument I Haven't Heard)

[mackbrislawn]

I’m inclined to agree with Fomalhaut. In my intro philosophy of science course we were taught that philosophers of science (with respects the the Vienna Circle many were scientists as well as philosophers) generally are in agreement that science offers explanations.

So, science does attempt to explain what water is or why bodies may move as they do or what a human is.

Some people may not be satisfied with those explanations but they are attempts at explanations nonetheless.

Fair enough. Explain what water is. And why do bodies move as they do?

 

[Fomalhaut]

You’re right, really. Science describes, but doesn’t always explain. To say that gravity causes apples to fall to earth does not explain anything.

That’s why my philosophy professor switched from physics to philosophy–he wanted explanations rather than descriptions.

If my nephew asks me why the sky is blue, I can explain to him why. He won’t care about why quantum mechanics works the way it is. We know the sky is blue because molecules behave in a certain way. “Explanation” doesn’t mean you have to go back to the prime cause all the time. In my opinion anyway. We are entering a semantic debate about what “explanation” means.

EDIT: And on a more sneaky note, how does philosophy explain the color of the sky ?

 

[Al_Moritz]

I’m inclined to agree with Fomalhaut.

Me too. I am a scientist.

However, it is partly semantics as Formalhaut suggests. Science cannot answer the ultimate “why” like in “why do things exist”, or “why are the laws of nature the way they are”, but it can explain why things are the way they are (why is the sky blue) based on how the laws of nature work. In many cases we might say that the “why” explanations of science really reduce to “how” explanations (how is it that the sky is blue).

For ultimate “why” questions you need philosophy.

 

[InJesusItrust]

Let us suppose that an ichthyologist is exploring the life of the ocean. He casts a net into the water and brings up a fishy assortment. Surveying his catch, he proceeds in the usual manner of a scientist to systematise what it reveals. He arrives at two generalisations: No sea-creature is less than two inches long. (2) All sea-creatures have gills. These are both true of his catch, and he assumes tentatively that they will remain true however often he repeats it.

In applying this analogy, the catch stands for the body of knowledge which constitutes physical science, and the net for the sensory and intellectual equipment which we use in obtaining it. The casting of the net corresponds to observation; for knowledge which has not been or could not be obtained by observation is not admitted into physical science.
An onlooker may object that the first generalisation is wrong. “There are plenty of sea-creatures under two inches long, only your net is not adapted to catch them.” The icthyologist dismisses this objection contemptuously. "Anything uncatchable by my net is ipso facto outside the scope of icthyological knowledge. In short, “what my net can’t catch isn’t fish.” Or — to translate the analogy — “If you are not simply guessing, you are claiming a knowledge of the physical universe discovered in some other way than by the methods of physical science, and admittedly unverifiable by such methods. You are a metaphysician. Bah!”

• Sir Arthur Eddington

 

[Pugsly]

Ironically, the reason for fundamentalism is the scientific revolution! Spiritual people thought (quite wrongly of course) that empiricism is more scientific. Those spiritual people transposed spirituality for literalism( empirical and quantifiable ). Rather then quality (qualia).

The reason for Fundamentalism is as a response to the Social Gospel preachers who were getting more and more Leftist (Liberal) in their public declarations. “The Fundamentals” is a little booklet that was published in 1903. It circulated over 3,000,000 copies. The Social Gospel was a Christian response to (some aspects of predatory capitalism) rapid industrialization that swept through Western civilization from 1800-1920.
It is true that Social gospel preachers were adherents to the latest scientific theories…like evolution. And they used this idea of an ever evolving world to proclaim that Christ would return when we made Heaven on Earth. [Today’s Christian Leftists still dream that dream…“I believe that we can make Heaven on Earth”–Barack Obama 2012.]

The Social Gospel movement is the reason for the current divide in Western Christianity. The movement started with a Biblical love of the anawim (the poor, the widow, the orphan and the stranger in your land)…but evolved into the Leftist drive for big government goodies that you see today. Probably one of the last real Christians in the Social Gospel movement was MLK.

Now, regarding science and religion…Faith is a way of SEEING into the deeper layers of reality. Reason (science) is a way of ORDERING what one sees. Faith is available to all, to both child and scientist alike. Science, ironically, discovers what is in previously hidden layers of reality…and, therefore, requires a kind of faith from the start.

 

[Fomalhaut]

Now, regarding science and religion…Faith is a way of SEEING into the deeper layers of reality. Reason (science) is a way of ORDERING what one sees. Faith is available to all, to both child and scientist alike. Science, ironically, discovers what is in previously hidden layers of reality…and, therefore, requires a kind of faith from the start.

Mmmh, it really depends what you call “layers of reality”. Faith does not help you see things in the material world, and what you see with faith, spirtual things, cannot be “ordered” by science. These two really are operating on different grounds: material world for science and the rest for philosophy and faith. Science does not requires faith as it relies on experiments, and never claims absolute truth as it is limited by induction. It’s really just a tool.

 

[Pugsly]

Mmmh, it really depends what you call “layers of reality”. Faith does not help you see things in the material world, and what you see with faith, spirtual things, cannot be “ordered” by science. These two really are operating on different grounds: material world for science and the rest for philosophy and faith. Science does not requires faith as it relies on experiments, and never claims absolute truth as it is limited by induction. It’s really just a tool.

What you see with faith can certainly be ordered. Thomas Aquinas spent most of his life ordering what he saw by faith. The fields of Theology and Philosophy very much require a scientific approach to faith.

Scientific “discovery” means uncovering the truth that is already there. Einstien said if you would discover truth “look for the beautiful”. This is a faith-filled statement and one that acknowledges the pre-existence of absolute truth.

 

[edwest2]

Hello Everyone,

I’ll try to keep this short since I tend to ramble.

I was wondering if there is any apologetic argument out there regarding the problems of the foundations of science. I haven’t heard one yet, but think it’s fairly decent.

Science’s main crux is that knowledge is only obtainable through science. My problem is that is not a scientific statement! So for a secularist to say:

**
“Science is the only way to obtain true, legitimate knowable” <----- Not scientific! It’s an absolute statement. It seems to be using a priori knowledge as well. It is an assumption. It can be ever proven through science, the scientific method, peer review, etc. **

I think science can be wonderful and has led to many great things. My critique isn’t with science. It is with those who say (atheist apologists come to mind) that it is the be all end all. Dawkins likes to say religion “smuggles in magic to bolster its cause” or something similar to that, arguing that religion is just a sort of “God in the scientific gaps of knowledge” worldview. I’d say science smuggles in metaphysics to make itself legitimate!

Thoughts?

Thanks!

That argument started long ago and remains the foundation for those who don’t believe. And on an irrational note, I am uncertain as to why Professor Dawkins needs to rail against a fantasy being. My only conclusion is that he wants science to be the end all and be all, and that one day, science will explain it all. This also leads me to conclude that he wants to encourage disbelief in God, the Christian God in particular. That leaves only atheism.

May I offer the following: “There are no absolutes!”

Do you really believe that?

“Absolutely!”

It’s irrational and it shows that scientists who speak about 'magical thinking" or “god” are not speaking about science which cannot study magic, or God/gods or the soul. There are no peer-reviewed papers for any of that. So IT"S WRONG, and totally unscientific.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Khalid]

The reason for Fundamentalism is as a response to the Social Gospel preachers who were getting more and more Leftist (Liberal) in their public declarations. “The Fundamentals” is a little booklet that was published in 1903. It circulated over 3,000,000 copies. The Social Gospel was a Christian response to (some aspects of predatory capitalism) rapid industrialization that swept through Western civilization from 1800-1920…

Whatever The Fundamentals is, it isn’t a “little” booklet - it was originally published, I believe, as four books, and, in my reprint copy, is two books of 600pp. each! It contains, at a guess from memory, about 40 articles by different authors (leading conservative Protestants at the time), varying in length from 10-40pp. each.

Oh, and Dawkins personally strikes me as a misotheist (one who is angry at God, lit “God-hater”), or maybe a misotheistic agnostic - not an atheist by any stretch of the imagination, and he admits it in several interviews, that he will not say “there is no chance that God exists”, but, he believes, the chance is nigh-infinitesimally small.

 

[ejp123]

If my nephew asks me why the sky is blue, I can explain to him why. He won’t care about why quantum mechanics works the way it is. We know the sky is blue because molecules behave in a certain way. “Explanation” doesn’t mean you have to go back to the prime cause all the time. In my opinion anyway. We are entering a semantic debate about what “explanation” means.

EDIT: And on a more sneaky note, how does philosophy explain the color of the sky ?

Me being a novice at all this, would it be safe to say that science explains what and how, when philiosophy explains why?

For example, we can explain how the sky appears blue with science, but not why with science.