What are the questions science can't answer?

[John_Pascendi]

Prompted by posts in a somewhat unsatisfying thread (“should science be secular?”), I’d like to pose the following: what questions can’t science answer? My own response (speaking as an old physicist) are the following: 1) values–what is good, what is beautiful. Science will never be able to tell us that the Brandenburg Concerto #3 is better than the Symphony Fantastique, or to go to the ridiculuous, dirty rap songs; 2) science can not answer why questions, particularly why science works, or in the words of Eugene Wigner, explain “the unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics in the natural sciences”; 3) there are other mysteries within the scientific project–to mention just one, quantum non-locality, which the French physicist/philosopher, Bernard D’Espagnat, is a manifestation of the veiled face of reality; 4) science cannot prove nor disprove the existence of God, or the mysteries of the Christian faith-the Immaculate Conception, the Resurrection, the Trinity, the Real Presence.

…Fr.John Houle SJ was given the last rites for he had (always fatal)pulmonary Fibrosis, a disintegration of the lungs. His friend,Fr.Parish placed a relic of Blessed Claude on to Fr.Houles fore head and asked all in the hospital room to pray for a cure…it happened. Some 200 pages of x-ray documentation were sent to Rome and soon this happening was offically designated as a miracle…a miracle is something outside of science…not explainable at all. And so after a 300 year wait…one more miracle was needed.Blessed Claude became Saint Claude…his feastday in on Feb.15. I have been honored to have letters from Fr.Houle for I used to present his film ‘Heart of a Priest’ to Catholic organizations…outside of science…cant be explained.not even in a index…Pas

 

[kaid100]

Here are some more:

Does the Higgs Boson exist?
Why does the Universe contain less matter than its mass suggests?
When did human self-awareness evolve?
Is there life on other worlds?

 

[Mimi]

Here are some more:

Does the Higgs Boson exist?
Why does the Universe contain less matter than its mass suggests?
When did human self-awareness evolve?
Is there life on other worlds?

Also:

What is the “mind”?

Seems to me we can know when someone has “lost his mind” – sometimes bc of disease or extreme mental strain. But how do we/I know we/I have a mind?

Do animals have a “mind”?

Are these mindless questions??

Why do humans create (art, music, poetry, dance, etc.)?

How do we (in the collective sense) know something is beautiful?

Why do humans seem to have a need to create?

Where does creativity (or the “creative spirit” ) come from?

(Directed more toward atheists/naturists):
What is the use of this creativity if it really serves no utilitarian or scientific purpose?

Mimi

 

[tonyrey]

As long as it works, who cares if it can explain itself?

My automobile can’t explain itself, but it can still get me to work on time every morning.

Anyone with moral values doesn’t use people like material objects…

 

[thegreypiper]

…Fr.John Houle SJ was given the last rites for he had (always fatal)pulmonary Fibrosis, a disintegration of the lungs. His friend,Fr.Parish placed a relic of Blessed Claude on to Fr.Houles fore head and asked all in the hospital room to pray for a cure…it happened. Some 200 pages of x-ray documentation were sent to Rome and soon this happening was offically designated as a miracle…a miracle is something outside of science…not explainable at all. And so after a 300 year wait…one more miracle was needed.Blessed Claude became Saint Claude…his feastday in on Feb.15. I have been honored to have letters from Fr.Houle for I used to present his film ‘Heart of a Priest’ to Catholic organizations…outside of science…cant be explained.not even in a index…Pas

“Coincidence.”

When all else fails, the atheist falls back to “coincidence” as the explanation, since he cannot or will not accept the miraculous, even when the evidence he so petulantly demands is set before him.

 

[TheDisciple]

Science is given a lot more credit than it deserves. And while certainly it can do somethings and explain certain functions, the amount that it cannot explain is insurmountably larger. Science gives up the answer to how the physical world works. If something is not physical then science is useless. And that is where faith comes in. While you can see the limited things that science does; we can’t even imagine how many things can be done through our faith.

 

[hugh_r.miller]

“Coincidence.”

When all else fails, the atheist falls back to “coincidence” as the explanation, since he cannot or will not accept the miraculous, even when the evidence he so petulantly demands is set before him.

C-14 dating in archaeological studies of artifacts containing carbon has been well accepted. Of course it has its inherent problems because the older the artifact or bone etc. the older the C-14 ages than reality. But basically from fossil animals to wood to shells to cloth to even dinosaurs and diamonds the C-14 dates are there to show that it is a young earth afterall. So how do they handle this hard data that refutes evolution from the get-go and has been published?

Since they can no longer can ignore the evidence against the the long ages required to even make evolution of life from non-life a remote possibility they arrogantly redicule the folks doing the research, laugh, distort the data on their blogs and of course claim they speak from authority that those millions and billions of years really exist.

So not only miracles which science can not explain but even scientific observations and facts are attacked by the atheists if the data goes against their paradigm.

 

[Moonstruck888]

This is just intellectual laziness; it is first important to work out how mathematics works before resorting to a calculator; if you don’t understand mathematical principles you will encounter trouble with the method once it is introducing complex elements.

Right, but what you don’t want to do is spend three thousand years discussing the metaphysical implications of whether or not the calculator actually exists in lieu of just building the damned thing.

If intellectual laziness is eliminating the imponderables of metaphysics that have no bearing on how we actually live our lives, then I suggest a long lie in for everyone…

 

[Moonstruck888]

Scientific results prove science useful, not true. Ancient scientists and astronomers predicted eclipses and storms accurately – does it follow that their ideas about astronomy were accurate?

I’m not saying that modern science isn’t true, by the way. Although, if the past is any indication, some things that scientists consider “conclusively true” today will turn out to be “conclusively false” tomorrow.

Who cares if it’s true?

It works, we can use it. Chasing some vague, nebulous and frankly non existent concept of truth is a waste of time and effort. There are no answers, only choices…

 

[Brett_Holubeck]

Who cares if it’s true?

It works, we can use it. Chasing some vague, nebulous and frankly non existent concept of truth is a waste of time and effort. There are no answers, only choices…

I think Dr. Craig says it the best: youtube.com/watch?v=gkBD20edOco

Moonstruck you are presupposing that science works. I believe it works, but the question was can science prove it works. It cannot. Furthermore, in an earlier post you mentioned that good theories withstand the test of time. Whereas, bad theories are eventually shown to be false. The problem with this view is that it presupposes the uniformity of nature and falls prey to Hume’s problem of induction. The problem is that nature may not be uniform. Therefore, the theories could be true for this time and false for another time.

The problem goes as follows:

If all matters of fact are based on causal relations, and all causal relations are found by induction, then induction must be shown to be valid somehow. One cannot prove that induction (forming a generalization about something based upon past observations. For example, a man could touch 100 pieces of ice and conclude based on the observations that ice is cold) by induction because that is a circular argument. Furthermore, no one has successfully formed a solution to this problem that most philosophers would accept.

I hope this helps.

 

[Moonstruck888]

I think Dr. Craig says it the best: youtube.com/watch?v=gkBD20edOco

Moonstruck you are presupposing that science works. I believe it works, but the question was can science prove it works. It cannot. Furthermore, in an earlier post you mentioned that good theories withstand the test of time. Whereas, bad theories are eventually shown to be false. The problem with this view is that it presupposes the uniformity of nature and falls prey to Hume’s problem of induction. The problem is that nature may not be uniform. Therefore, the theories could be true for this time and false for another time.

The problem goes as follows:

If all matters of fact are based on causal relations, and all causal relations are found by induction, then induction must be shown to be valid somehow. One cannot prove that induction (forming a generalization about something based upon past observations. For example, a man could touch 100 pieces of ice and conclude based on the observations that ice is cold) by induction because that is a circular argument. Furthermore, no one has successfully formed a solution to this problem that most philosophers would accept.

I hope this helps.

Not really. It’s this inability to deny the evidence of observation that is the difference between philosophy and science, to wit: the reason why science works and philosophy doesn’t.

Modern Science is only five centuries or so old. Philosophy is thousands of years old. science has built Hydorgen Bombs, Saturn V rockets, Microprocessors… All that is evidence that science works. The Achillies of science has overtaken the Tortoise of philosophy long ago…

The Philosopher is quite literally his own worst enemy. He cannot learn anything because he doubts everything except his own mental processes. Egotism run riot.

 

[AntiTheist]

Scientific results prove science useful, not true. Ancient scientists and astronomers predicted eclipses and storms accurately – does it follow that their ideas about astronomy were accurate?

I’m not saying that modern science isn’t true, by the way. Although, if the past is any indication, some things that scientists consider “conclusively true” today will turn out to be “conclusively false” tomorrow.

And that’s when we update our knowledge, when we get more evidence – if you have a better way of arriving at knowledge, I’d like to hear it, along with how you know that it’s a better way of arriving at knowledge.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

And that’s when we update our knowledge, when we get more evidence – if you have a better way of arriving at knowledge, I’d like to hear it, along with how you know that it’s a better way of arriving at knowledge.

Science is the best way we have found of acquiring *practical *knowledge. But all this knowledge amounts to “The world acts as if ___________.” The world acts as if there are electrons that behave in a certain manner, but this theoretical description does not prove that electrons ***do in fact ***exist or behave as we take them to.

But there are arguments like this that are not accepted by scientists, i.e. “the world acts as if it were designed.” If I am told that design is a bad inference, I wonder why electrons are a good inference. Certainly, there are differences – electrons are, in principle, falsifiable. But this just shows that, when you are seeking (theoretical) knowledge, you are always looking at the limitations – and strengths – of your method. And that cannot be done within the method, itself.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Who cares if it’s true?

It works, we can use it. Chasing some vague, nebulous and frankly non existent concept of truth is a waste of time and effort. There are no answers, only choices…

How if the concept of truth vague or nebulous? True statements are statements that correspond to the actual state of the world.

The alternative is to say that “truth” is whatever the scientist finds it useful to believe. This seems quite a bit more nebulous, considering that “usefulness” is in the eye of the beholder!

It’s this inability to deny the evidence of observation that is the difference between philosophy and science, to wit: the reason why science works and philosophy doesn’t.

Modern Science is only five centuries or so old. Philosophy is thousands of years old. science has built Hydorgen Bombs, Saturn V rockets, Microprocessors… All that is evidence that science works. The Achillies of science has overtaken the Tortoise of philosophy long ago…

Science works and philosophy doesn’t because science is designed to work, and philosophy isn’t.

Criticizing philosophy for “not working” is kind of like criticizing a singer for not fixing your toilet; it’s just not relevant. “Working” is just not a goal that philosophy has.

 

[Moonstruck888]

How if the concept of truth vague or nebulous? True statements are statements that correspond to the actual state of the world.

The alternative is to say that “truth” is whatever the scientist finds it useful to believe. This seems quite a bit more nebulous, considering that “usefulness” is in the eye of the beholder!

I agree that there are subjective and objective truths. I agree subjective truths are as important, if not more important in some ways, but these kind of truths are totally relative.

Science works and philosophy doesn’t because science is designed to work, and philosophy isn’t.

Criticizing philosophy for “not working” is kind of like criticizing a singer for not fixing your toilet; it’s just not relevant. “Working” is just not a goal that philosophy has.

I see… What is the goal exactly, apart from giving everyone a splitting headache?

 

[sinnerdexter]

Prompted by posts in a somewhat unsatisfying thread (“should science be secular?”), I’d like to pose the following: what questions can’t science answer? My own response (speaking as an old physicist) are the following:

you were referring to my thread.

1. values–what is good, what is beautiful. Science will never be able to tell us that the Brandenburg Concerto #3 is better than the Symphony Fantastique, or to go to the ridiculuous, dirty rap songs;

ethology and various forms of psychology and neurology can pretty much explain such things.

1. science can not answer why questions, particularly why science works, or in the words of Eugene Wigner, explain “the unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics in the natural sciences”;

we kind’ve have a few ideas on why we use the empirical method to figure stuff out rather than say… shake a Magic Q Ball.

1. there are other mysteries within the scientific project–to mention just one, quantum non-locality, which the French physicist/philosopher, Bernard D’Espagnat, is a manifestation of the veiled face of reality;

mysteries aren’t the same as not being able to to answer something. There’s quite a bit that we don’t know about Great White Shark reproduction, doesn’t mean we can never find out.

1. science cannot prove nor disprove the existence of God, or the mysteries of the Christian faith-the Immaculate Conception, the Resurrection, the Trinity, the Real Presence.

For god specifically, different science-types will offer different viewpoints on that, and it strongly depends on how “God” is defined, but as for the things listed after (except the trinity bit, which is part of some variations of the God part), science plus history can strongly suggest what might have or probably didn’t happen / what’s a myth. With good confidence.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

I agree that there are subjective and objective truths. I agree subjective truths are as important, if not more important in some ways, but these kind of truths are totally relative.

I never said that there are subjective truths, nor do I believe that there are. (Actually, I think the concept of “subjective truth” is incoherent). There are things that different people perceive as true, but it does not follow that these things are “true for them”.

What I said was:

How is the concept of truth vague or nebulous? True statements are statements that correspond to the actual state of the world.

The alternative is to say that “truth” is whatever the scientist finds it useful to believe. This seems quite a bit more nebulous, considering that “usefulness” is in the eye of the beholder!

If science wants to discover truth, it must pass through philosophy. If science would prefer to create things it considers “useful”, it may go its own way.

I see… What is the goal exactly, apart from giving everyone a splitting headache?

The goal of philosophy is to understand the limitations of human understanding, the nature of our understanding, and the general nature of the universe (insofar as we can). None of these goals are directly useful, certainly not in establishing new technologies.

 

[Anselm33]

you were referring to my thread.

ethology and various forms of psychology and neurology can pretty much explain such things.

 

[JohnDamian]

The goal of philosophy is to understand the limitations of human understanding, the nature of our understanding, and the general nature of the universe (insofar as we can). None of these goals are directly useful, certainly not in establishing new technologies.

This is absolutely true; I shall compound this by illustrating the different divisions of Philosophy and how none of them “make” anything:

Metaphysics is the study of things that are beyond the physical .
Ontology is the study of Being.
Epistimology is studying knowlege.
Ethics is the study of Morality.
Logic is the study of arguments.
Aesthetics is the study of beauty.
Politics is the study of governance and individuals within societies.
Philosophies of Mind deal with the relation of mind and body.
Philosophies of Religion aks questions about religion.
Philosophies of Language aks questions about the origin and use of language.

None of these “Make” anything; but it would be foolish to say all (or even some) of them are bad.

Modern scientific method is a practical consequence of Empiricism from the Philosophy Epistimology; Realism from the Philosophy of Metaphysics and Induction from the Philosophy of Logic.

Philosophy isn’t to do with making something; it is to do with understanding the nature of reality - the products of philosophy can be seen in Politics (Democracy), Science (Scientific Method), Mind (Psychology), Language (Linguistics), Ethics (Human Rights; Just War) and many other things…

To say something has to actually produce something material to be effective is silly. Mathematics does not “produce” anything; but it is still useful. Likewise; philosophy producing logic and epistimological systems for understanding the world allows and opens up possibilities for the practical application of theory. There could be no practical applications if there were no theories to apply.

 

[Anselm33]

To say something has to actually produce something material to be effective is silly. Mathematics does not “produce” anything; but it is still useful. Likewise; philosophy producing logic and epistimological systems for understanding the world allows and opens up possibilities for the practical application of theory. There could be no practical applications if there were no theories to apply.