Demons, the scientific method.

[Matariki]

There seems to be a misunderstanding here about the role of science. Science isn't in the proof industry. Science looks at collections of evidence and attempts to discover likely hypotheses (which can then be tested by further empiricism). As such, scientific truth is really a misnomer. But even with that clarification there's a few things that can be said about the five listed categories.

In a certain sense I agree with this. To really get anywhere in an objective paradigm (e.g. science) certain axiomatic assumptions must be made. However, this doesn't mean that speaking about these existential 'truths' in scientific terms need be vacuous. Take for example Nick Bostrom's simulation argument.

ww.simulation-argument.com/simulation.html

This is an example where we can actually say with exactitude what assumptions we need to make in order to demonstrate that we live in a simulated universe. With that exception noted, let me say that existential 'truths' might not necessarily be beyond the scope of science in the abstract, but I'm willing to grant that they are for the most part. Showing that I'm not simply a brain in a vat, besides having no reason to believe in it in the first place, is in some sense a meaningless question in that it is unanswerable.

I disagree with this category being beyond the scope of science. The science of morality has a rich history and is really just coming into its own.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_of_morality

Sam Harris, a famous atheist you might have heard of, recently outlined a basis for morality by placing it in the "well-being of conscious creatures". Now there's no guarantee he's right in that regard but the effort is clearly underway to provide some sort of quantitative backing to why certain actions or policies might be 'good' or 'evil' (useful terms even if they carry certain baggage). My guess is that we'll be able to start saying moral things from a scientific perspective once we start to learn more about human consciousness and neuroscience in the coming decades.

I think this is conflating two ideas, that of logic and reality. Maybe I'm just not understanding this point but why does science require logic to work? If the universe behaves randomly and chaotically, without order of any kind, that would be borne out by the evidence collected by science. The fact that and that we can make predictions about many things is both interesting and awe-inspiring (not to mention an entirely different debate).

This category is well within the scope of science. Remember that science doesn't deal with proofs but instead collections of evidence. "Barack Obama won the 2008 US pres. election". How can I support that claim? I can cite official US govt. records, I can show you old newspapers from both his presidency and the day following election day, I can show you news footage, etc... I marshal a whole host of evidence to show that it is rational to believe Barack Obama won the 2008 US pres. election. The onus is then on the deniers of BO's pres. election victory to show why my evidence is not good and to provide evidence showing he didn't win the 2008 US pres. election.

Say you were to take a brain scan of someone or measure with precision what neurons are being activated or what neural receptors are being used. If love is a material phenomenon, which I think it is (all the evidence from cognition and neuroscience in the last 30 years has implied that the mind is synonymous with brain; destroy the brain and you destroy everything about yourself), then it's open to scientific measurement. Now that being said, the study of consciousness is a relatively new field of research. It is very much in its infancy and there remains a large amount of work to be done. The brain currently remains a mysterious and complex system but more is being understood everyday. Give neuroscientists 100-150 years and who knows what we'll be able to say about human love.

Yes I am familiar with Sam Harris, mainly through his debates against Dr. William Lane Craig. But I thought I would post the below statement which sums up the basic differences between science and philosophy and sciences limitations;

Let us imagine that my Aunt Matilda baked a beautiful cake and we take it along to be analyzed by a group of the world's top scientists. I, as a master of ceremonies, ask them for an explanation of the cake and they go to work. The nutrition scientists will tell us about the number of calories in the cake and its nutritional effect; the biochemists will inform us about about the structure of the proteins, fats etc. in the cake; the chemists, about the elements involved and their bonding; the physicists will be able to analyze the cake in terms of fundamental particles; and the mathematicians will no doubt offer us a set of elegant equations to describe the behavior of those particles. Now that these experts, each in terms of his or her scientific discipline, have given us an exhaustive description of the cake, can we say that the cake is completely explained? We have certainly been given a description of how the cake was made and how its various constituent elements relate to each other, but suppose I now ask the assembled group of experts a final question: Why was the cake made? The grin on Aunt Matilda's face shows that she knows the answer, for she made the cake, and she made it for a purpose. But all the nutrition scientists, biochemists, physicists and mathematicians in the world will not be able to answer the question - and it is no insult to their disciplines to state their incapacity to answer it. Their disciplines, which can cope with questions about the nature and structure of that cake, that is, answering 'how' questions, cannot answer the 'why' questions connected with the purpose for which the cake was made. In fact, the only way we shall ever get an answer is if Aunt Matilda reveals it to us. But if she does not disclose the answer to us, the plain fact is that no amount of scientific analyses will enlighten us. - Professor John Lennox

 

[Tiberius]

Of course, if you apply that to the universe then you are assuming that the universe was created for a reason. If so, it certainly wasn't for Humans, because if it was made for us, then it's an awful big waste of space.

And if the atheists are right and the universe formed through completely naturalistic processes without any intervention required by a god or a designer, then the cake analogy doesn't apply. After all, the cake was not made by naturalistic processes. But if we take something that WAS formed by naturalistic processes, say the pattern of flotsam and jetsam at the high tide mark on the beach, would it make any sense to ask WHY the sea deposited the driftwood and seaweed in such a pattern? Of course not. There was no intelligent mind behind it, and thus no motivation. There was no WHY. And if the universe was also formed by naturalistic processes, then there is no WHY there either.

 

[Tiberius]

Is that a scientific statement or a philosophical statement?

it's a statement of my personal opinion, and I do not present it as an objective fact.

That said, however, I am yet to find an example of something that is based in philosophy and cannot be verified by science or rationality that people use in their everyday life.

 

[Matariki]

Of course, if you apply that to the universe then you are assuming that the universe was created for a reason. If so, it certainly wasn't for Humans, because if it was made for us, then it's an awful big waste of space.

And if the atheists are right and the universe formed through completely naturalistic processes without any intervention required by a god or a designer, then the cake analogy doesn't apply. After all, the cake was not made by naturalistic processes. But if we take something that WAS formed by naturalistic processes, say the pattern of flotsam and jetsam at the high tide mark on the beach, would it make any sense to ask WHY the sea deposited the driftwood and seaweed in such a pattern? Of course not. There was no intelligent mind behind it, and thus no motivation. There was no WHY. And if the universe was also formed by naturalistic processes, then there is no WHY there either.

The analogy I gave was analogy to explain the differences primarily between metaphysics and science. Not as proof for the existence of God.

 

[Belk]

I don't walk by sight, chief, so myopia has nothing on me.

When I say science is myopic, I mean that literally.

Well that certainly explains a lot. Guess we just need to find this science fellow and get him a nice pair of prescription lenses.

 

[AV1611VET]

Well that certainly explains a lot. Guess we just need to find this science fellow and get him a nice pair of prescription lenses.

He would still get it wrong.

 

[Cromulent]

He would still get it wrong.

Like he did when he made your computer, your car, the power station that lights up your house, and the medicine that has probably saved your life at least once?

 

[Farinata]

Like he did when he made your computer, your car, the power station that lights up your house, and the medicine that has probably saved your life at least once?

New rule: Those who choose to disavow science give up their right to use its discoveries. Let their holy texts sustain them.

 

[AV1611VET]

Like he did when he made your computer, your car, the power station that lights up your house, and the medicine that has probably saved your life at least once?

We live within the bounds of myopia.

Myopic scientists making our myopic world better.

 

[AV1611VET]

New rule: Those who choose to disavow science give up their right to use its discoveries. Let their holy texts sustain them.

New rule: Those who choose to disavow God give up their right to use His creation. Let their unholy texts sustain them.

 

[CabVet]

New rule: Those who choose to disavow God give up their right to use His creation. Let their unholy texts sustain them.

I might actually be ok with following that rule if you showed me evidence that it was his creation.

 

[Cromulent]

We live within the bounds of myopia.

Myopic scientists making our myopic world better.

Funny how God doesn't help you non-myopic folk either.

 

[AV1611VET]

Funny how God doesn't help you non-myopic folk either.

Really?

 

[Farinata]

New rule: Those who choose to disavow God give up their right to use His creation. Let their unholy texts sustain them.

A bit tongue in cheek but I hope my point is clear. On the one hand you have computers, cars, vaccines, etc... all scientific advancements that measurably improve the quality of people's lives. And you have, in big bold letters, "SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE" for your profile. You can understand why that seems a bit hypocritical.

 

[Cromulent]

Really?

Really. What's he done for you, or anyone else recently? Invented a device to make your life easier, helped you live longer?

 

[Tiberius]

New rule: Those who choose to disavow God give up their right to use His creation. Let their unholy texts sustain them.

Fine. Prove that he created anything.

 

[Greg1234]

Really. What's he done for you, or anyone else recently? Invented a device to make your life easier, helped you live longer?

Unlocked Wordhoard: Medieval Life Expectancy still no reason to be worshipped

 

[Cromulent]

Unlocked Wordhoard: Medieval Life Expectancy still no reason to be worshipped

People in the Middle Ages lived just as long as people do today -- it's the average that's different. Walk into any village of reasonable size, and you'd find some old gaffer or widow of 80+ years. What you wouldn't find is a Miami retirement community filled with such people.

I think you need to reread your own link. Science has increased the length of time the vast majority of people can be expected to live, excepting a small number who were lucky enough to avoid disease, overwork, accidents, religiously-motivated war, and famine.

 

[Greg1234]

I think you need to reread your own link. Science has increased the length of time the vast majority of people can be expected to live, excepting a small number who were lucky enough to avoid disease, overwork, accidents, religiously-motivated war, and famine.

They weren't lucky, death during early childhood brought the average down.

 

[Cromulent]

They weren't lucky, death during early childhood brought the average down.

I think not dying in early childhood is quite a lucky occurance.