What are the questions science can't answer?

[sinnerdexter]

Amazing!! I’d be very pleased if you could give me a specific journal or book reference that shows how “ethology” (whatever that might be) or psychology or neurology can show that the Symphony Fantastique is better than the Tocatta and Fugue in D minor or rap.

obviously neither is objectively better than the other in any fundamental sense. However, any book on behaviorism or developmental psychology can help you understand the factors that go into shaping an individual’s personally subjective preferences. Psychology can explain why YOU like Fantastique, vs why I like Nightwish.

I don’t really understand what you’re saying here. What is a “magic q ball” do you know who Eugene Wigner is and what he did in Science and Mathematics?

Sketchily put, science is based on methods that formulate hypothesis and questions based on observations, and through, ideally, objectively performed and rigorously repeated tests form conclusions based on consistent results. That is why it works. No mystery. A Magic Q Ball is a toy you shake that randomly answers your questions with “yes,” or “no,” or “maybe” and such. It should be obvious to anyone willing to think about it why the empirical method is a better way to obtain understanding of our universe than asking a ball with a di inside of it. All I know about Wigner is he was a physicist. Maybe you can explain to me what some of his ideas were, and specifically, what he indicates we can never learn and why?

I’m not sure how not knowing about the reproduction of any species relates to my comment. Do you know anything about quantum mechanics and its mysteries–quantum non-locality for example? I’d suggest you read the following book: “Quantum Enigma” by Rosenblum and Kuttner; you might learn something. Also, do a web search on “Consciousness” “Chalmer”; you might learn something about the mystery of consciousness.

What I know about non-locality is how it relates to quantum entanglement. Particles linked to one-another and influence one another instantaneously no matter how far away. The point is, aspects of it contribute to a continuing mystery. Same with the shark deal. What specifically about a particular mystery renders it beyond understanding forever?

 

[sinnerdexter]

The topic is not whether science works but what are its limitations - one of which is its inability to explain itself (which is hardly surprising!)

You said it can’t explain itself, maybe I just misunderstand what you mean, but it is self-explanatory for the fact that is just a practice.

On second thought, maybe you were talking about the fact that pure mathematics can’t prove itself consistent. Or as Andre Weil said, “God exists since mathematics is consistent, and the Devil exists since we cannot prove it.”

 

[Anselm33]

obviously neither is objectively better than the other in any fundamental sense. However, any book on behaviorism or developmental psychology can help you understand the factors that go into shaping an individual’s personally subjective preferences. Psychology can explain why YOU like Fantastique, vs why I like Nightwish.

I don’t believe behaviorism or developmental psychology can explain “qualia”, categories of what’s it’s like or what one’s values are. Functional MRI may show areas of the brain that are active when you hear or see something you like, but that isn’t an explanation. Let me give an example (not mine, but from a philosopher of consciousness whose name I forget): suppose Sally has been raised in a room without color, just shades of gray; she has instruments that can tell her what wavelength various colors might have, their intensities and so forth, but she has never experienced the color red, so she really doesn’t know what it is. What you experience when you see red or hear the Symphony Fantastique may be be totally different from my experienc, but we’ll never know what that difference is, nor will any psychologist. And, to be nasty, I lump psychology in with the social sciences (an oxymoron if ever there was one)–or, as W.H. Auden said, "thou shalt not sit with statisticians nor commit a social science

Sketchily put, science is based on methods that formulate hypothesis and questions based on observations, and through, ideally, objectively performed and rigorously repeated tests form conclusions based on consistent results. That is why it works. No mystery

I think quantum non-locality is a different kind of mystery from that of how white sharks breed. Presumably with enough government funds and ingenuity one could explore the latter–i.e. there should be nothing intrinsically mysterious about breeding for any terrestial species. On the other hand quantum non-locality (and other aspects of quantum mechanics) seem to contradict what we know intuitively about the world. Richard Feynmann gave a lecture at Caltech (to freshman and others) about quantum mechanics and prefaced it with the remark (as near as I remember) that anyone who says he understands quantum mechanics doesn’t. Physicists (including myself) have used QM operationally–you get numbers out that represent what can be measured, but what a state vector is or what happens when you make a measurement is still a mystery.

 

[GaryTaylor]

True we have come a LONG way in science. Its served religion well.

Yet there is a Zen story that needs telling here:

A Zen master had become famous for the special tea he brewed, and another master, having heard about this wonderful tea, sauntered into his room one day carrying a cup of his own tea. “I’ve heard people rave about how delicious your tea is,” he announced. “I’d like to try it for myself.”

“Very well,” said the Zen master, “You are welcome to it. But first you must empty your cup of tea before I can fill it with mine.”

There are a few men of science, it seems, who don’t get the point of the story. They stand in the doorway of religion, their cups sloshing over with whatever it is they’re drinking, and then presume to judge the beverage that’s being brewed deep inside the room.

It isn’t as if they come prepared to render a disinterested opinion. No, they reached their conclusions long before they approached the door. They examined the dregs they found in the Zen Master’s garbage and, regarding themselves qualified to apply inductive methods, they determined that their reconstituted beverage was by nature distasteful. Of course, what was good about it was coursing through the veins of the Zen Master. But when you’ve already decided that what is garbage always was, there is no need to investigate further?

Science doesn’t explain miracles, the creation of man, or the pupose of his existance, how God intervines in our affairs, destroys wicked cities, smites enemy armies, etc…Creation cannot be measured in a Laboratory.

Of course we can in all fairness attribute science with a show in every religious war ever fought.

We all know how thoroughly power can corrupt and that power in the hands of religious fanatics doesn’t function any differently from power in political or scientific hands. But to suggest that religion is ever the enemy of man and that science is always man’s friend is just plain dumb.

Scientists Julius and Ethel Rosenberg betrayed their country in order to provide military benefits to an atheistic enemy nation but we never hear their names being mentioned, do we?

God Bless. GT

 

[sinnerdexter]

Science cannot explain why reason exists, or why humans are the only “animals” which have a highly developed reason. No other animal even comes close, even though (so we are told) that the great apes and homo sapiens share about 98% of the genetic code (as I recall).

Plenty of animals, avian and mammalian have highly developed reasoning abilities. Ravens, parrots, elephants, the great apes, dolphins. In additon to many other clever techniques and examples of tool-use, Ravens are able to figure out that dropping pebbles in water will raise the water level to lift something they want that happens to be in the water within their reach. Keas (parrots) in New Zealand do better at opening locks if they’re allowed to examine them beforehand and reaosn out how to do so. Alex the African Grey Parrot could differentiate different forms of matter, plastic, wood, metal, etc, could deliberately avoid correct answers when he was bored of testing, and even made up a new name for an unidentified fruit based on the characteristics of fruits he WAS familiar with (he named apples Banerries because they looked like cherries and tasted sortve like banana.) Prairies Dogs seem to have an actual language (it just needs to be determined whether or not that they learn it).

As for reason itself, evolutionary theory, ethology, game-theory, etc etc, go a long way to explain the gradual development of more obvious forms of intelligence. Why does it exist? Why does the bombardier beetle’s defense mechanism exist? Because it’s useful and evolution CAN create it and everything lined up well enough for it to eventually though by no means inevitably happen.

IMO, even the fact that we can and do think about ourselves and our place in the universe is a kind of proof that we are unique in the world. Why isn’t there another ____-sapiens running around? (Big-foot hunters, please go to another thread…)There seems to be evidence that there were several other species at one time.

We’ve created a very particular niche for ourselves in the world. I would suggest that evolving into what we’ve become was a risky gambit that more often than not ends in failure and extinction. We just hit the jackpot where so many of our non-sapiens human kin either were too specialized, were out-competed by us, or just weren’t as lucky. Get rid of us, and give it a few million years, I say it’s perfectly possible that any of the species I’ve mentioned, or others, could follow in our footsteps and replace us as Loxodonta sapiens or Corvus sapiens or what have you. Or maybe not.

Science is science – it is necessary to “believe” that science can tell us verifiable truths about the physical universe, but it takes a sense of wonder about it, the spirit of curiosity/discovery which makes us humans strive to figure out all that there is to possibly know about us.

I still don’t understand what you’re suggesting be used in place of objective analysis. Just randomly make up **** that appeals to subjective desires? That can’t verify ****. While those who use science are driven by curiosity and often a sense of wonder. We just try not to let it blind us to the truth. Which opens up whole new wonders. It seems to me that if anything, you have closed yourself to the possibility of understanding, in fear of what personal, feeble hopes of yours the truth might dash.

 

[sinnerdexter]

And, to be nasty, I lump psychology in with the social sciences (an oxymoron if ever there was one)

I’d dearly love to know what you mean by that one.

 

[sinnerdexter]

I don’t believe behaviorism or developmental psychology can explain “qualia”, categories of what’s it’s like or what one’s values are.

Individual perceptions of qualia, by the very nature of the concept, are indeed beyond the realm of verification. But for all intents and purposes, experience indicates that it’s safe to assume that under normal circumstances we can communicate or comprehend one another well enough. While we can’t prove that you see red the same way I do, such sciences can and often do go a long way in explaining why we react to different to it differently.

Functional MRI may show areas of the brain that are active when you hear or see something you like, but that isn’t an explanation. Let me give an example (not mine, but from a philosopher of consciousness whose name I forget): suppose Sally has been raised in a room without color, just shades of gray; she has instruments that can tell her what wavelength various colors might have, their intensities and so forth, but she has never experienced the color red, so she really doesn’t know what it is.

You’re example comes closer to my point than it does your own. She has no exposure to or knowledge of red. So she has no opinion about it whatsoever, because she has no experience from which to draw associations with it. As a human being, she has more complexity than, say, a bird, which may react to such a flagrant, and often cautionary color as red with fear, so it’s harder to determine how she would react to seeing red the first time, but I contend that a psychologist who had studied such things, and was familiar with Sally’s general characteristics and past, would be able to predict how she might react to seeing the color red with reasonable accuracy.

What you experience when you see red or hear the Symphony Fantastique may be be totally different from my experienc, but we’ll never know what that difference is, nor will any psychologist. And, to be nasty, I lump psychology in with the social sciences (an oxymoron if ever there was one)–or, as W.H. Auden said, "thou shalt not sit with statisticians nor commit a social science

As I pointed out above, even if qualia theory is valid, which, philosophically I grant you it may be, for all intents and purposes experience tells us that we might as well ignore whatever impact it might have. Our past experiences, long-term exposure, and/or social and cultural norms can go a long way to shaping our preferences, the tastes we might acquire over time in relation to beat or rhythm or what have you. Can you really claim that we have no capacity to understand why small town farming folk tend to prefer country western music while low income inner-city folks are more likely to prefer rap? This study for instance seems to make some valuable observations about why we like what we do

The mystery isn’t in the measurements or their relation to equations but in their interpretation. That’s why physicists and philosophers are still debating about what quantum entanglement means in terms of “reality”, “non-locality”, etc.

Reading a couple of your other posts elsewhere regarding your peculiar phrasing has led me to believe that perhaps I have to ask you what “means” means before I can accurately examine what you’re saying.

Wigner was important for formulating some of the very early and fundamental applications of quantum mechanics, particularly involving the use of symmetry, and in trying to interpret the “measurement problem” in quantum mechanics, i.e. the collapse of the state function on measurement. One of his speculative notions was that consciousness–the act of observing–was involved. Do a Google search on “Wigner’s friend” to get a fuller explanation.

Yes, and there are other suggested interpretations that remove consciousness from the equation. Clarification; what distinct elements are you suggesting we can not understand?

I think quantum non-locality is a different kind of mystery from that of how white sharks breed. Presumably with enough government funds and ingenuity one could explore the latter–i.e. there should be nothing intrinsically mysterious about breeding for any terrestial species.On the other hand quantum non-locality (and other aspects of quantum mechanics) seem to contradict what we know intuitively about the world. Richard Feynmann gave a lecture at Caltech (to freshman and others) about quantum mechanics and prefaced it with the remark (as near as I remember) that anyone who says he understands quantum mechanics doesn’t. Physicists (including myself) have used QM operationally–you get numbers out that represent what can be measured, but what a state vector is or what happens when you make a measurement is still a mystery.

I agree on all points, leading me to ask, when you say “can’t”, do you mean, “can not as of now answer,” or “can never answer” ?

 

[Moonstruck888]

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”.

I could tell you that my girlfriend is the most beautiful woman in the World. You could tell me that your girlfriend is the most beautiful woman in the world. Both of us could be telling the truth with total sincerity.

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.

As long as science keeps increasing the scope of human knowledge and technology, I don’t really care if it discovers “truth” whatever that might mean.

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.

Under that definition of philosophy, I can see how it could be useful, but many of the philosophers on this forum seem so wrapped up in their own delusions of omniscience that they can’t see beyond their own truth tables.

 

[JohnDamian]

I could tell you that my girlfriend is the most beautiful woman in the World. You could tell me that your girlfriend is the most beautiful woman in the world. Both of us could be telling the truth with total sincerity.

Not quite accurate. Both of us could be saying what we believe to be true.

It is either the case that the Girl is or isn’t the most beautiful in the world overall (in which case there would be only one); that the Girl is the most beautiful for that individual in the world (in which case there would be only one; it could also be true that the Girls could look identical - and thus there is no most beautiful single Girl; it could also be the case that either party is exclaiming that they percieved the Girl to be the most beautiful out of all their perceptions; or it could also be the case that either party is exclaiming that they percieved the Girl to be the most beautiful out of all their imagination… and so forth.

It however; cannot be the case that both are stating what is true; merely what they believe to be true.

As long as science keeps increasing the scope of human knowledge and technology, I don’t really care if it discovers “truth” whatever that might mean.

Obviously; the whole of the universe cannot be reduced by science; Science cannot practically prove (or perfect) it’s own method; that is the realm of the philosophy of Science.

Under that definition of philosophy, I can see how it could be useful, but many of the philosophers on this forum seem so wrapped up in their own delusions of omniscience that they can’t see beyond their own truth tables.

Many of the philosophers here are interested in metaphysics; which is less of a practical philosophy than say; ethics or epistimology. Nonetheless; metaphysics is the extension of knowlege about objects beyond physical reality - what makes something individual; what doesn’t etc and so forth.

 

[Moonstruck888]

Not quite accurate. Both of us could be saying what we believe to be true.

It is either the case that the Girl is or isn’t the most beautiful in the world overall (in which case there would be only one); that the Girl is the most beautiful for that individual in the world (in which case there would be only one; it could also be true that the Girls could look identical - and thus there is no most beautiful single Girl; it could also be the case that either party is exclaiming that they percieved the Girl to be the most beautiful out of all their perceptions; or it could also be the case that either party is exclaiming that they percieved the Girl to be the most beautiful out of all their imagination… and so forth.

It however; cannot be the case that both are stating what is true; merely what they believe to be true.

That’s kind of what I’m getting at. Knowledge is not wisdom. Belief is not knowledge. Honesty is not truth and there is no single most beautiful woman in the world.

God falls into the same catagory. People believe in God. They don’t actually know for a verifiable fact that God exists.

 

[JohnDamian]

That’s kind of what I’m getting at. Knowledge is not wisdom. Belief is not knowledge. Honesty is not truth and there is no single most beautiful woman in the world.

God falls into the same catagory. People believe in God. They don’t actually know for a verifiable fact that God exists.

God is not something that could be considered subjective; at least in a general sense.

We can know for example; that human beings have height; and that there is going to be a tallest human being on the planet; even if we do not know who that person is; we can even have reasonable belief that the person who is recorded as the tallest is the tallest; but this fact is not known with certainty; but the fact that someone is the tallest is a certainty.

Now; the knowlege of God operates like that; we know that certainly there must be an extremely powerful first cause; which is capable of creation out of nothing; which is also conscious.

Certain logical facts can be deduced from necessity in the world; whilst we cannot say certainly that Catholocism is logically certain; we can however say that a general concept of God is. – We can know that God exists without knowing everything about God; but certain predicates (power, will) are essential.

If we found a house with the door open; when the door was previously known to be closed; we would know for certain that something opened that door; and whatever it was (a person, an animal, the wind) had to have the power or strength at that time to cause the door to open. We can know certain facts about a cause without knowing what the specific cause was.

 

[Moonstruck888]

Now; the knowlege of God operates like that; we know that certainly there must be an extremely powerful first cause; which is capable of creation out of nothing; which is also conscious.

I can see absolutely no reason to believe that whatsoever, and we most certainly cannot make a claim to knowledge regarding this. Like I said, logic is a product of the human mind, and the human mind is prone to delusion and hallucination.

Once we actually detect this consciousness and learn to communicate with it and quantify the extent of it’s powers, then we can start making claims to knowledge.

 

[Moonstruck888]

If we found a house with the door open; when the door was previously known to be closed; we would know for certain that something opened that door; and whatever it was (a person, an animal, the wind) had to have the power or strength at that time to cause the door to open. We can know certain facts about a cause without knowing what the specific cause was.

We’ve not found a house, we’ve not found a door. What we’ve found is a currently inexplicable mystery that has obliterated all evidence of what came before it.

Literally, all we can say is that something happened that was unimginably exothermic.

 

[JohnDamian]

I can see absolutely no reason to believe that whatsoever, and we most certainly cannot make a claim to knowledge regarding this. Like I said, logic is a product of the human mind, and the human mind is prone to delusion and hallucination.

Well we know that there was a first cause; and that that cause was a necessary being - these are respectivally true thus;

What is prior is nearer the first principle; therefore where there is no first principle nothing is essentially prior.
&
The totality of the the things that are caused is dependent; but not upon something which is part of this totality; otherwise a thing would be dependant of itself.
(Opus Oxoniense, I, Dist. II, Q. i et ii, n, xiv).

Now we can see clearly that there is a first necessary cause for the universe; as you rightly point out it is more challenging to demonstrate that this cause has intelligence; however it follows from the fact that the cause acts contingently; that is to say uncausedly; that it follows a volition of sorts. What is certain is we cannot presume this volition is univocally spoken of; but it is not incorrect to state that it occurs analagorically; ie - that it acts from will; and not from some other cause; which would recess and etc. into absurdity.

Once we actually detect this consciousness and learn to communicate with it and quantify the extent of it’s powers, then we can start making claims to knowledge.

You are right to point out that many people attribute too much to God; what is certain is that if this cause created the unvierse; it must at least have the power to do so; however this power alone does not constitute omnipotence; thus we cannot certainly say that this cause is omnipotent. The same applies to knowlege.

All we can know is that if this cause caused the universe; the cause must have the power to perform this causation.

We can know that this cause caused by some cause within itself; and not through some other cause (law of noncontradiction); thus we can know that it caused through itself; and as it were necessary - it caused by some object within itself that permits or denies a cause; for we have no reason to say it caused necessarily; and so we can see that it caused by an act of volition; and thus has a will of sorts.

We’ve not found a house, we’ve not found a door. What we’ve found is a currently inexplicable mystery that has obliterated all evidence of what came before it.

The contingent nature of the universe is enough evidence that a necessary cause must exist.

 

[Moonstruck888]

Well we know that there was a first cause; and that that cause was a necessary being - these are respectivally true thus;

What is prior is nearer the first principle; therefore where there is no first principle nothing is essentially prior.
&
The totality of the the things that are caused is dependent; but not upon something which is part of this totality; otherwise a thing would be dependant of itself.
(Opus Oxoniense, I, Dist. II, Q. i et ii, n, xiv).

Now we can see clearly that there is a first necessary cause for the universe; as you rightly point out it is more challenging to demonstrate that this cause has intelligence; however it follows from the fact that the cause acts contingently; that is to say uncausedly; that it follows a volition of sorts. What is certain is we cannot presume this volition is univocally spoken of; but it is not incorrect to state that it occurs analagorically; ie - that it acts from will; and not from some other cause; which would recess and etc. into absurdity.

And what if it is absurd? What if we one day do develope the technology to probe outside space and time and find that the Universe does just regress and regress and regress?

What if the energy of the Universe has been around forever and every so often big bangs periodically happen?

We just don’t know the answers, and in all probability we never will. We’re very small and limited creatures us human beings. The load centre of our conceit is well outside the wheelbase of our capabilities.

All we can know is that if this cause caused the universe; the cause must have the power to perform this causation.

We can know that this cause caused by some cause within itself; and not through some other cause (law of noncontradiction); thus we can know that it caused through itself; and as it were necessary - it caused by some object within itself that permits or denies a cause; for we have no reason to say it caused necessarily; and so we can see that it caused by an act of volition; and thus has a will of sorts.

The contingent nature of the universe is enough evidence that a necessary cause must exist.

Almost all of which can be explained by mere thermodynamics. The only part that cannot is exactly what it was that inflated.

 

[JohnDamian]

We just don’t know the answers, and in all probability we never will. We’re very small and limited creatures us human beings. The load centre of our conceit is well outside the wheelbase of our capabilities.

Well Science cannot know the answers; at least at present. But using logic we can determine certain things; however logic is limited (as is Science).

Almost all of which can be explained by mere thermodynamics. The only part that cannot is exactly what it was that inflated.

Hence the need for metaphysics; a science which studies things beyond the physical. I suppose one could say that we have no need for it; but I for one feel it is an essential part of humanity to want to discover the truth; or at least discover about our universe. It is clear we cannot do all of that within the realm of science.

 

[Moonstruck888]

Well Science cannot know the answers; at least at present. But using logic we can determine certain things; however logic is limited (as is Science).

Hence the need for metaphysics; a science which studies things beyond the physical. I suppose one could say that we have no need for it; but I for one feel it is an essential part of humanity to want to discover the truth; or at least discover about our universe. It is clear we cannot do all of that within the realm of science.

Personally, in my opinion the problem is that there’s just no truth to discover. Maybe given enough time and the constituents of the Universe, we’re just a pointless statistical probability.

 

[Anselm33]

And what if it is absurd? What if we one day do develope the technology to probe outside space and time and find that the Universe does just regress and regress and regress?

I don’t understand what you mean by that. Do you know what the First, Second and Third Laws of Thermodynamics are? Please show specifically how you apply thermodynamics to your argument that the Universe was not set up, fine-tuned, to support carbon-based life.

 

[JohnDamian]

Personally, in my opinion the problem is that there’s just no truth to discover. Maybe given enough time and the constituents of the Universe, we’re just a pointless statistical probability.

If you are correct; what do we have to lose by studying philosophy?

Philosophy has clearly had a profound impact on the world; from political systems through to ethics and so forth. Even metaphysical books such as Opus Oxoniense discuss important matters such as judicial restitution; property rights; illegality of slavery; supply and demand systems, and so forth; which was particularily advanced for a book written in 1301. Philosophy underpins everything; from economics; politics; science to mathematics (why can’t we divide by 0 etc.)

I for one cannot think of a more diverse and interesting subject; so even if we are merely a pointless statistical probability; at least as a philosophical pointless statistical probability we can have at least as fruitful and productive life as a scientist; if not more so.

What I must ask you though; if there is no truth to discover; what is science but a tool for producing glorified tools and products?

 

[Anselm33]

I’ll preface my comments by a general remark: I’m a snob as far as science goes; science is formulating a theory, predicting results expected for that theory, doing the experiment to confirm the theory, so science is basically quantitative, physics and those disciplines which involve physics (including most of chemistry). For doing an experiment I’m willing to substitute making a measurement (as in astronomy, or geophysics, or molecular biology/genetics, physiology or neuro-physiology), so a bunch of other disciplines that people call science, I would call quasi-science: biology(other than the exceptions noted above), geology (other than geophysics). I wouldn’t call psychology a science, because it lacks predictive theory, although it does do descriptions, and psychoanalysis is about on a par with witchcraft. And sociology, anthropology, political science are not even quasi-sciences. Which is not to say that interesting stuff occasionally comes forth from people who call themselves psychologists or psychiatrists. Oliver Sachs says a lot of valuable things, but they’re anecdotal and not science.
[Q

UOTE=sinnerdexter;6961873]Individual perceptions of qualia, by the very nature of the concept, are indeed beyond the realm of verification. But for all intents and purposes, experience indicates that it’s safe to assume that under normal circumstances we can communicate or comprehend one another well enough. While we can’t prove that you see red the same way I do, such sciences can and often do go a long way in explaining why we react to different to it differently.
That doesn’t answer my point–qualia are individual and will never be translatable. We can guess, but never know “what’s it like to be a bat”.

,

but I contend that a psychologist who had studied such things, and was familiar with Sally’s general characteristics and past, would be able to predict how she might react to seeing the color red with reasonable accuracy.

predicting how she would react is not the same as knowing what Sally experiences.

Our past experiences, long-term exposure, and/or social and cultural norms can go a long way to shaping our preferences, the tastes we might acquire over time in relation to beat or rhythm or what have you. Can you really claim that we have no capacity to understand why small town farming folk tend to prefer country western music while low income inner-city folks are more likely to prefer rap? This study for instance seems to make some valuable observations about why we like what we do

This looks like interesting stuff, but I wouldn’t call it science. Pythagoras made a more interesting point over 2000 years ago, commenting on the frequency relations between notes that were pleasant and unpleasant… And the article in question still gives no clues as to why one piece of music is preferred over another, Berlioz over Bach or conversely. And although this article was a pop piece, it gave no statistics/errors, etc. And I’m not sure I agree with the conclusion. A friend (graduate student colleague) Chinese was a fan of Chinese Opera before he came to grad school, and then became totally enamored of Western Opera…So much for being used to the pentatonic scale. Generalizations about groups are one thing (the mean score on the SAT is higher for Asian-Americans than for Caucasians, but you can’t pick an individual Asian-American and say he/she will have a higher SAT score than some other Caucasian). Physics works the other direction. It has laws of motion for individual particles/molecules and from those and considerations of statistical mechanics predicts the bulk properties. And you can predict individual particle behavior, when they’re sufficiently isolated. When psychology reaches the stage of psycho-history and predicts, quantitatively, from basic theory, as in Asimov’s Foundation series, I’ll overcome my bias and regard psychology as a science.

Reading a couple of your other posts elsewhere regarding your peculiar phrasing has led me to believe that perhaps I have to ask you what “means” means before I can accurately examine what you’re saying.

I’m tempted to reply with Humpty Dumpty’s comment: “when I use a word it means whatever I choose it to mean”… the significance of “mean” should be clear in context and from general usage. I don’t know how I can amplify on that.

Yes, and there are other suggested interpretations that remove consciousness from the equation. Clarification; what distinct elements are you suggesting we can not understand?

I don’t understand this comment. When you say “remove consciousness from the equation” could you please say more explicitly what your argument is?

I agree on all points, leading me to ask, when you say “can’t”, do you mean, “can not as of now answer,” or “can never answer” ?

Right now I’m not altogether sure; In some respects, as Fr. Stanley Jaki and John Barrow have pointed out, science is intrinsically self-limiting. In other respects, like resolving the contradictions or gaps between relativity and quantum mechanics, a new theory may come up. And questions of practicality, like building particle accelerators powerful enough to prove or deny string theory, might in principle be overcome.
/QUOTE]
I plan to put a long blog on the Magis site about limitations of science, and hopefully I can amplify there what has to be condensed in these postings.