What are the questions science can't answer?

[sinnerdexter]

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.

Really? So saying, “Oh, I don’t consider that a science so everything they study I can disregard. Oh, other scientists respect those “quasi-sciences” and consider them science, well what do experts know?” makes it a valid argument. You don’t consider them sciences because they have an element you’re uncomfortable with? How can you say biology/geology/psychology doesn’t make accurate predictions?

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

So are you asking to predict what she would experience? We can’t tell if she’d experience red? Of course she would, that’s like saying, “well this person has never been burnt before so we can’t accurately predict if that fire will hurt her.”

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.

It’s a fine retort.

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.

But all too many times these things turn into semantic wars

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 was talking more about the duality theory of consciousness.

 

[sinnerdexter]

I was really intrigued by this one.

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; **

Music isn’t just an expression, it’s not just an art form; there are qualities and quantities to what music is that adhere to laws of physics, it goes deeper. There are limits to what can be perceived by any specific human, …that are purely dependent on whether or not their brain has experienced the ability to discern the difference.

See: Daniel J. Levitin’s extensive research at McGill university to see what we’ve discovered via the science of neurology.

That said, …the axiom, “There’s no accounting for taste” is not exactly true.

Ask a musician who’s trained from childhood.

Music is an “art” and a “science”, …the art consists of the phenotype, …the performance, …the synthesis. It is also based on a science, a body of knowledge, theory and method, …it’s analogous “genealogy”.

Sure, perception is subjective (isn’t it always?), …but your view ignores the “other side” of perception.

 

[Anselm33]

I was really intrigued by this one.

Music isn’t just an expression, it’s not just an art form; there are qualities and quantities to what music is that adhere to laws of physics, it goes deeper. There are limits to what can be perceived by any specific human, …that are purely dependent on whether or not their brain has experienced the ability to discern the difference

 

[Anselm33]

Really? So saying, “Oh, I don’t consider that a science so everything they study I can disregard. Oh, other scientists respect those “quasi-sciences” and consider them science, well what do experts know?” makes it a valid argument. You don’t consider them sciences because they have an element you’re uncomfortable with? How can you say biology/geology/psychology doesn’t make accurate predictions?

 

[MindOverMatter2]

. Honesty is not truth and there is no single most beautiful woman in the world.

Then how could you honestly know that there is no single most beautiful women 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.

Not really. Gods existence can be proven as a necessary principle for the existence of potential beings or natures. But you don’t know for a verifiable fact that I exist.

 

[Moonstruck888]

Not really. Gods existence can be proven as a necessary principle for the existence of potential beings or natures. But you don’t know for a verifiable fact that I exist.

I know for a fact that you exist. The irritaion I’m currently feeling at getting the Matrix argument thrown at me must have had a cause, to wit: you.

 

[Moonstruck888]

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

Nothing, if it’s something that interests you.

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?

I’d hardly call extended lifespans, freedom from many forms of disease, instantaneous global communication networks and vast enhancements of human senses “glorified tools and products”.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

I know for a fact that you exist. The irritaion I’m currently feeling at getting the Matrix argument thrown at me must have had a cause, to wit: you.

Assertions aside, what do you mean by a “fact”. Is this merely a probabilistic notion? Or is it matter of absolute epistemological certainty?

 

[Moonstruck888]

Assertions aside, what do you mean by a “fact”. Is this merely a probabilistic notion? Or is it matter of absolute epistemological certainty?

It is an absolute certainty that some kind of conscious entity that calls itself “MindOVerMatter2” is directing a type written “Matrix Argument” at me over an internet connection.

Do you disagree?

 

[MindOverMatter2]

It is an absolute certainty that some kind of conscious entity that calls itself “MindOVerMatter2” is directing a type written “Matrix Argument” at me over an internet connection.

Do you disagree?

It certainly may appear that way to you. But it could be random events that appear concious? Or it could be an illusion. Or somebody or something is putting information in your mind that doesn’t actually correspond to objectively real events.

Don’t you think that these are possibilities?

 

[Moonstruck888]

It certainly may appear that way to you. But it could be random events that appear concious? Or it could be an illusion.

It cannot be random events. That is impossible. If it had been a random event, it would not have posted a reply to me, as it just has.

As for it being an illusion, someone would have to be behind that, and that someone is you, whoever you are.

Or somebody or something is putting information in your mind that doesn’t actually correspond to objectively real events.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

It cannot be random events. That is impossible. If it had been a random event, it would not have posted a reply to me, as it just has.

Why is that impossible? Some Atheists would say that it is extremely unlikely; but you provided no reason for thinking that it is impossible. Are you saying that we can know for certain that some things are objectively, metaphysically, impossible?

As for it being an illusion, someone would have to be behind that, and that someone is you, whoever you are.

But that doesn’t mean that you are not the victim of an illusion; and why would somebody have to be behind it? Why can’t it just be a brute fact. In any case this certainly does not give reason for thinking that the universe exists. Its just reason for thinking that something exists. At most it provides some evidence that there are consciousnesses outside of you mind communicating with you.

 

[Moonstruck888]

Why is that impossible? Some Atheists would say that it is extremely unlikely; but you provided no reason for thinking that it is impossible. Are you saying that we can know for certain that some things are objectively, metaphysically, impossible?

I’m saying that metaphysics is not worthy of consideration. The odds against the event you are describing are so high that it is not worth even thinking about as a possibility.

But that doesn’t mean that you are not the victim of an illusion; and why would somebody have to be behind it? Why can’t it just be a brute fact. In any case this certainly does not give reason for thinking that the universe exists. Its just reason for thinking that something exists. At most it provides some evidence that there are consciousnesses outside of you mind communicating with you.

These considerations are not something that I would give any thought to. They’re just ludicrous. I am quite happy to accept on the evidence of my own senses that other people exist. In fact, I don’t see how anyone could interact with other people without accepting this.

 

[colmcille1]

Hi all True believers,
The morning sun is beautiful here. It lifts the soul. Can science explain why that happens?
Of course not. But you and I can explain exactly why science cannot explain it!
(Btw, some atheists actually think that there are people on this site who are “trying their level best” to put information into their heads! Is there such a scientifically recognised phenomenon as PAC: paranoid atheistic complex?)
God Bless,
Colmcille1.

 

[JohnDamian]

I’m saying that metaphysics is not worthy of consideration. The odds against the event you are describing are so high that it is not worth even thinking about as a possibility.

Science presupposes metaphysics (external world exists). If metaphysics is not a practical philosophy then what follows from it; science - cannot be practical.

Only if the metaphysical grounding is true can we have any form of modern science.

Furthermore; how can you quantify “odds against” something you cannot measure? Do you not see the limitations of science at all!?

 

[Moonstruck888]

Science presupposes metaphysics (external world exists). If metaphysics is not a practical philosophy then what follows from it; science - cannot be practical.

Only if the metaphysical grounding is true can we have any form of modern science.

Furthermore; how can you quantify “odds against” something you cannot measure? Do you not see the limitations of science at all!?

Science can answer questions about that which is physical. Metaphysics does not interest me. That is why I don’t care about these limitations you set on science.

 

[JohnDamian]

Science can answer questions about that which is physical. Metaphysics does not interest me. That is why I don’t care about these limitations you set on science.

Science can answer questions about the physical; and only the physical. Thus; Science cannot answer questions about Science - it relies upon Metaphysics.

It is clearly not a limitation we set on Science. It is a limitation you set by arbitrarily defining science as the study of the physical.

 

[Moonstruck888]

Science can answer questions about the physical; and only the physical. Thus; Science cannot answer questions about Science - it relies upon Metaphysics.

It is clearly not a limitation we set on Science. It is a limitation you set by arbitrarily defining science as the study of the physical.

A man cannot serve two masters. You can’t be a scientist and a philosopher.

 

[Ignatias20]

“Science” by it’s very nature is restricted to measurement made of the Physical world.

IpSo Facto, Science cannot ever answer questions pertaining to Metaphysical questions. End of the question !

 

[JohnDamian]

A man cannot serve two masters. You can’t be a scientist and a philosopher.

In no particular order;

Alhazen, died1039, Philosopher (Treatise on Place, Epistimology), Theologian, Scientist, Engineer. Most famous for coming up with this theory: Observation - Statement of problem - Formulation of hypothesis - Testing of hypothesis using experimentation - Analysis of experimental results - Interpretation of data and formulation of conclusion- Publication of findings.

Rhazes, d925, Chemist (Discovered compounds Kerosene and Alcahol), Physician (Differentiated Smallpox and Measles, work on Diseases), Philosopher (Ethics of Medicine, Metaphysics)

Avicenna d1048, Philosopher (Works on Aristotelian Ontology), Chemistry (Discovered Steam Distillation), Poet, Doctor (Father of modern Clinical Trial Methods)

**Alberonius ** d1048, Philosopher (Critique on Aristotelianism), Geology (discovered continental drift), Mathematics (Calcluted rate at which earths rotation accelerates), Scientist (Invented Hydrodynamics)

Cicero d46bc, Philosopher (Latinised Greek Philosophy), Lawyer, Member of Consul, Orator.

Leon Battista Alberti d1472, Philosopher (Aesthetics), Poet, Architect, Painter, Linguist.

Leonardo da Vinci d1519, Philosopher (Humanism), Painter, Inventor, Botanist.

Wolfgang von Goethe d1832, Philosopher (Natural Philosophy), Writer (Faust), Poet, Theologian.

Robert Hooke d1703, Philosopher (Natural Philosophy), Scientist (Microscopy, Gravity), Architect.

Galileo Galilei d1642, Scientist (Astronomy, Kinematics), Philosophy (Philosophy of Philoponus)

René Descartes d1650, Philosopher (Cartesianism, Foundationalism), Mathematican (Tangent line problem), Scientist (Analytic geometry).

Isaac Newton d1726, Bible Scholar, Philosopher (Rationalism), Scientist (Theory of Gravity, Optics)

I take it you believe NONE of these made any contributions to either Science of Philosophy, as they could not serve two masters?

NB: I included famous examples of those who serve other masters; such as the arts (Goethe) as an example to how one can be skilled in philosophy AND numerous other areas.