Is science at odds with philosophy?

Opdrey said:

By your fruit we know you.

Click to expand...

I doubt it.

AV1611VET said:

You think what you want to think; just don't expect me to agree.

Click to expand...

My apologies. I didn't realize you were incapable of expressing yourself correctly.

As I said, I'm pro-science to a point, and anti-science the rest of the way.

Click to expand...

Didn't read ANYTHING I wrote? That's sad.

Academia has a zero-tolerance for those who disagree with them on principle, and I disagree with them on principle.

Click to expand...

What, exactly, do you know of academia?

And the fact that geologists "ultimately gave up a young earth concept long ago" has nothing to do with finding oil.

Click to expand...

Actually it does. It is clear you have no clue about geology, much less oil exploration.

AV1611VET said:

I doubt it.

Click to expand...

You can always HOPE, "Chief".

Opdrey said:

It is clear you have no clue about geology, much less oil exploration.

Click to expand...

And you have no clue about how this pertains to finding oil in God's time:

Proverbs 25:2 It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out a matter.

AV1611VET said:

And you have no clue about how this pertains to finding oil in God's time:

Proverbs 25:2 It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out a matter.

Click to expand...

It has nothing to do with oil.
Proverbs 25:2 addresses the great question in thermodynamics for coffee drinkers who add cream.
If the phone rings as you are about to add the cream; should you add the cream before you answer the phone or wait after the call to ensure the coffee is at its highest temperature?

AV1611VET said:

1. You're new around here, and you don't know me well enough to say this.

2. I have more friends than you have posts.

Click to expand...

reading this as an observer not participant, I have to agree with @AV1611VET here: you are new @Opdrey , keep it civil!

At a philosophical level “ god of the gaps” is indeed a falasy.
Science codifies patterns in what things normally do. The model of science is just that, a model. It isn’t the universe. That is not an explanation but an observation. It can only model what it repeatably observes.

Very useful it is of course too!

But The metaphysics of great philosophers explain limits to what can be known. So In the sense that science “ explains” nothing, it only documents , and the concepts of science do not map directly into the the things of the universe,
the gap of “why” it usually does what it does , is still ALL of it. It is not shrinking.

Let me give you a specific example of why it matters.

Science accepts the problem of detecting of what does not interact. The problem it has with dark matter is just such. Except even in that case it interacts a little , partly modelled by curving space time, in the shape of periphery of galaxies. ( if of course you accept dark matter is in any sense real, representing something in the real universe , and that it is not just a modelling error)

Following on from lack of interaction:

One of the major points on which science and religion disagree is the question of confinement of consciousness to brain. Many Books such as “ after “ by greyson or “ twin telepathy” provide compelling evidence of inexplicable consciousness of places far from the body.

Now if we conjecture a soul or spirit, that when decoupled from the body can no longer interact, but that can observe. It solves both documented experiences and als the fact it is not detected whilst observing. Indeed, you could be observed as we speak by thousands. Scary!

But your science is an observation model. It contains no “ soul” because they are undetectable, so @Opdrey, accept the philosophical limits of science as well as the undoubted contribution it has made. It can only speak of what it observes, Not all that is there or why.

Mountainmike said:

reading this as an observer not participant, I have to agree with @AV1611VET here: you are new @Opdrey , keep it civil!

Click to expand...

Thanks mom.

I would recommend the same to you, but I understand that it is not incumbent upon you to do so.

But The metaphysics of great philosophers explain limits to what can be known. So In the sense that science “ explains” nothing, it only documents , and the concepts of science do not map directly into the the things of the universe,

Click to expand...

Only "partially correct". Science does attempt to explain but it is always explicitly stating the limits of the certainty of that explanation. Nothing in science is proven 100%

But your science is an observation model. It contains no “ soul” because they are undetectable

Click to expand...

If it is undetectable how does the religious person know it exists? Because they were told so by another person. That's pretty much it.

, so @Opdrey, accept the philosophical limits of science as well as the undoubted contribution it has made. It can only speak of what it observes, Not what is there or why.

Click to expand...

And you and AV should also accept the limitations of religious fiath. It can only speak of what another human being has said is there.

And, again, religion NEVER admits its errors. Holy man predicts the end of the world? It doesn't end, so he moves the prediction. It is ever thus.

Opdrey said:

And, again, religion NEVER admits its errors. Holy man predicts the end of the world? It doesn't end, so he moves the prediction. It is ever thus.

Click to expand...

We think alike in some respects, don't we?

AV1611VET said:

Numbers mean nothing today.

Just move the decimal point to the right as many times as necessary to make it fit.

Click to expand...

Opdrey said:

Thanks mom.

I would recommend the same to you, but I understand that it is not incumbent upon you to do so.

Click to expand...

Neither I nor @AV1611VET have ever dismissed or disparaged your abilities to my knowledge!

Opdrey said:

Only "partially correct". Science does attempt to explain but it is always explicitly stating the limits of the certainty of that explanation. Nothing in science is proven 100%

Click to expand...

Check philosophy, it still doesn’t “ explain” , it just identifies patterns , and notes whether new observations fit the patterns , or logical extrapolations of them. The “ explanation” is it just conforms! The model is sometimes updated to fit better. It still isn’t the universe.

Let me give you another analogy. You may never have traded markets futures or spread bets.

In the case of the raw market you are trading automatic valuations of shares. In the case of the CFD you are often trading a man deciding prices in real time, or a program deciding in real time. If he is too far one side or other, the buyers or sellers pile in , so the CFD trade at prices barely distinguishable from the underlying market. You cannot distinguish whether your pattern is a pattern of a market , whether a being is setting the pattern in real time, or the phenomenon itself is decided in real time. In the case of CFD all apply, it switches when the trader has lunch! Every now and then something different happens, the dealer screws up! The CFD price deviates . It does something different. A miracle if you like.

Opdrey said:

If it is undetectable how does the religious person know it exists? Because they were told so by another person. That's pretty much it.

Click to expand...

Some things are indeed faith. But yours too is a faith. In that case that the patterns always behave.

I gave an example of the book “ after” , that there is compelling evidence of out of body consciousness, evidenced by things the observer cannot have known otherwise.

Opdrey said:

And you and AV should also accept the limitations of religious fiath. It can only speak of what another human being has said is there.

And, again, religion NEVER admits its errors. Holy man predicts the end of the world? It doesn't end, so he moves the prediction. It is ever thus.

Click to expand...

Not quite. I have pointed at evidence of all sorts of things that are inexplicable by science, in religious context. There is more than just a book.

It should be pointed out that for the most part Catholicism has been at the front of discovering science. We were ”Big Bang “ advocates when fred hoyle believed in an eternal infinite universe!

But Yes there were errors.

Mountainmike said:

Science codifies patterns in what things normally do. The model of science is just that, a model. It isn’t the universe. That is not an explanation but an observation. It can only model what it repeatably observes.

Click to expand...

Then the universe is also a model .. because that's what we've observed before giving it the name : 'universe' (along with all of its associated explanations).

Mountainmike said:

Science accepts the problem of detecting of what does not interact. The problem it has with dark matter is just such. Except even in that case it interacts a little , partly modelled by curving space time, in the shape of periphery of galaxies. ( if of course you accept dark matter is in any sense real, representing something in the real universe , and that it is not just a modelling error)

Click to expand...

Dark matter and universe are demonstrably both models .. Dark matter just also happens to be an attribute of the standard LCDM model of the universe. Within the context of the standard model, dark matter is just as real as 'the universe'.

Mountainmike said:

One of the major points on which science and religion disagree is the question of confinement of consciousness to brain. Many Books such as “ after “ by greyson or “ twin telepathy” provide compelling evidence of inexplicable consciousness of places far from the body.

Click to expand...

Is a human brain involved in such observations? If so, how can such observations possibly be independent from the body (or brain), which obviously plays a central role in those very observations? Get real!
So much for empty claims of 'compelling evidence'!

Mountainmike said:

Now if we conjecture a soul or spirit, that when decoupled from the body can no longer interact, but that can observe. It solves both documented experiences and als the fact it is not detected whilst observing.

Click to expand...

Where is the objective evidence which decouples 'soul/spirit from the body'? I noticed you started out there with a pure conjecture .. and that's exactly where you ended up.

Mountainmike said:

But your science is an observation model. It contains no “ soul” because they are undetectable, so @Opdrey, accept the philosophical limits of science as well as the undoubted contribution it has made. It can only speak of what it observes, Not all that is there or why.

Click to expand...

One can't discount something we already know to be directly involved in the process of observing/detecting or imagining the existence of something like 'soul' .. Doing so, makes no logical sense. This has nothing to do with science.

AV1611VET said:

We think alike in some respects, don't we?

Click to expand...

I hope not. I at least know how science operates.

Mountainmike said:

Check philosophy, it still doesn’t “ explain” , it just identifies patterns

Click to expand...

Incorrect.

Some things are indeed faith. But yours too is a faith. In that case that the patterns always behave.

Click to expand...

I really wish you knew more about science. Here's why it's not faith: when I go into the lab and run an experiment I realize that if the answer doesn't come out as I expected that there is always the chance for

1. Errors
2. Unexplained variables

That's built into science. It isn't "faith". I HOPE that my experiment yields the results I expect but if it doesn't that's actually how science advances. Or it's how science corrects itself.

I gave an example of the book “ after” , that there is compelling evidence of out of body consciousness, evidenced by things the observer cannot have known otherwise.

Click to expand...

You seem relatively credulous. You believe in miracles and Out-of-body NDE's. And that's all fine and good. To my knowledge no actual studies have confirmed these various anecdotes. And, frankly, we've all heard a ton of people claim this and that. I'll wait til more data comes in.

That's what the discipline of science looks like.

Not quite. I have pointed at evidence of all sorts of things that are inexplicable by science, in religious context. There is more than just a book.

Click to expand...

Inexplicable by science does not mean explicable by religion. Remember, religion makes ex cathedra claims without support. That is, indeed, how the Bible itself defines "faith". Hebrews 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

It should be pointed out that for the most part Catholicism has been at the front of discovering science.

Click to expand...

Yes...and...no. I am reminded of all the great astonomers who were either killed by the Church or jailed by the Church for heresy. But I agree that the modern Catholic church has done little to stand in the way of actual science.

We were ”Big Bang “ advocates when fred hoyle believed in an eternal infinite universe!

Click to expand...

And here we are back at scientific discipline. Were you "big bang advocates" before any real DATA came in? Because SCIENTISTS believed in the Big Bang when more data came in supporting it.

A broken clock is right two times a day.

But Yes there were errors.[/QUOTE]

Opdrey said:

You believe in miracles and Out-of-body NDE's. And that's all fine and good. To my knowledge no actual studies have confirmed these various anecdotes. And, frankly, we've all heard a ton of people claim this and that.

Click to expand...

But you seem to have forgotten how much @Mountainmike has spent on books. So simply figuring on the cost basis, his information must be correct.

Makes sense to me...

Opdrey said:

I really wish you knew more about science.

Click to expand...

That really is the last insult I will allow. Next strike you are out.
You have a mechanistic view of science, that does not consider metaphysics.

You are dealing with observations and a model of them.
Not the underlying reality you cannot know.

Science can only “ correct “ itself on the presumption that some pattern fits. It is Presumed a unique pattern.

Even hawking ultimately realised the obvious truth, that a model is just a model. There is no guarantee a unique model can work. He called his epiphany “ model dependent reality “ ( in one of his last books - yes I read all hawking stuff too!) in which multiple conflicting models are needed , and the trick is to know which to use when.

He seemed unaware, that the theory of everything died the same day. It demonstrated models are empirical not fundamental. It is not surprising if you consider observations are just a projection from a higher dimensional reality. Consider The modelling of a 2d picture , that is a projection of a 3D reality.
The phenomena and the noumena

The study of reality is important “ what is real” is brought into focus in quantum reality, I don’t know how much you have studied such as the implications of single quantum double slit interference? You should. Your concept of what is “ real” will inevitably be shaken.

Also - A single outlier cannot be modelled. It is often written off as an error. It could be that it just did something different. Particularly if the “it” is a who. Live subjects are never as predictable as you would hope, even if they normally do the same with precision!!

Opdrey said:

… you seem credulous …

Click to expand...

Another insult.

No , I read very widely. I read many books before having an opinion.

Have you? It is sad this forum seems to have such a contempt for knowledge.

It prefers those who make conclusions from assumptions and little study. Indeed one vociferous opinionated poster here admitted to never having read a single book!
Ancient proverb: Give a wise man instruction, he becomes yet wiser.

I suggest you study the phenomena. I gave a couple of sources. There are many more. You will find it hard to find any explanation that fits the knowledge observers had, other than consciousness elsewhere. Not all out of body experiences are near death experiences.

The evidence Is anecdotal , not surprisingly because consciousness is experiential, the documentation of which must be anecdotal. It is no less important for that. Obe does not appear to be voluntary, therefore it is not amenable to a lab. But then beings are not as controllable as things.

What sparked greysons interest in “ after” was a patient whose cortex had shut down , so she was therefore not conscious of surroundings.

Having messed up his tie eating, he then went to speak to a concerned visitor of the patient in another part of the building to explain the dire situation.

The patient later awoke / recovered and described the meeting they had elsewhere. Not just the conversation , and who had visited but also the mess on his tie ( which of course he had changed before he saw her again, she cannot have known ) . This sparked his interest and by the time he had researched many similar reported incidents he was convinced. I notice he - who studied it is convinced. You who has not , I sssume from comments seems convinced it is bunk.

The “ greyson” scale is now the de facto assessment tool for such incidents.

I suggest you study it before comment. Many people have knowledge in many contexts they cannot have gained from experience. So how?
the universe is far stranger than science can model.

partinobodycular said:

But you seem to have forgotten how much @Mountainmike has spent on books. So simply figuring on the cost basis, his information must be correct.

Makes sense to me...

Click to expand...

Let's not limit that to just @Mountainmike, eh?
After all, (as he's stated before), @AV1611VET has also spent a lot on comic books, too!

Mountainmike said:

You are dealing with a model.
Not the underlying thing you cannot know.

Click to expand...

Where is your objective evidence for the existence of something 'you cannot know' then, Mr 'Scientist'?

Mountainmike said:

That really is the last insult I will allow. Next strike you are out.

Click to expand...

My apologies. When you called my points "lazy" in another post I didn't complain.

You have a mechanistic view of science, that does not consider metaphysics.

Click to expand...

That's because science doesn't use supernatural stuff.

Even hawking ultimately realised the obvious truth, a model is just a model.

Click to expand...

E=mc^2 is a model. There's two cities in Japan that show how effective models are.

The study of reality is important “ what is real” is brought into focus in quantum reality, I don’t know how much you have studied such as the implications of single quantum double slit interference.

Click to expand...

I've spent 30 years as a chemist. Take a guess how much quantum stuff I've studied.

No , I read very widely. I read many books before having an opinion.
Have you?

Click to expand...

Yes. But, again, I'm not just a "post graduate"...I actually have an MS and a PhD.

I suggest you study the phenomena.

Click to expand...

I have read stuff on NDE's. None of it is sufficiently compelling. There is clearly a difference in credulity between us.

The evidence Is anecdotal

Click to expand...

Yup. And in my discipline (science) anecdotal data is seldom convincing.

I suggest you study it before comment.

Click to expand...

Just because I am not as credulous as you does not mean I have not read things on this topic.

We differ in the point at which we reject the null hypothesis. You reject it at a much, much higher p-value.

SelfSim said:

@AV1611VET has also spent a lot on comic books, too!

Click to expand...

QV please: I have found both the MISSING LINK and ABIOGENESIS!

Opdrey said:

That's because science doesn't use supernatural stuff.
.

Click to expand...

Which doesn’t deal with the issue of metaphysics. The philosophical determination of what it is possible to know. What is the connection between observation and underlying reality? And it is certainly relevant in discussing quantum reality.

Practical quantum physics is done on the basis of “shut up and calculate” . Few stop to think about the questions it begs of what is real.

Sean Carroll calls it the greatest embarrassment in physics that 100 years on from Einstein that his peers cannot agree on any common interpretation. It is not easily dismissed. The fact you may use QM every day doesn’t tell me whether you have consridered the issues that are highlighted by double slit. “Where is it “ before it is observed? Or even “ is it” before it is observed

So which of the camps are you in?

If you have studied OBE, then perhaps you might try to explain some of the real paradoxes contained about consciousness? How did people know what they know, but cannot have experienced?
Dismissing anecdotal experience is also dismissing the problem of consciousness for which science has little explanation.

Mountainmike said:

Check philosophy, it still doesn’t “ explain” , it just identifies patterns , and notes whether new observations fit the patterns , or logical extrapolations of them.

Click to expand...

I'm curious to know how you define 'explain', if not 'to describe in terms of a pattern'... Care to explain?