Is Science more than skin deep?

[david_x]

Is there any application of science beyond the brief physical existence?

 

[Tinker Grey]

Is there any beyond?

 

[Davian]

Is there any beyond?

Succinct.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

You might like this quote:


In science there are no 'depths'; there is surface everywhere.
Rudolf Carnap

 

[david_x]

You might like this quote:


In science there are no 'depths'; there is surface everywhere.
Rudolf Carnap

Yeah, that's exactly the point I was making.

 

[david_x]

Is there any beyond?

Sure, philosophy, math, theology, etc.

 

[ToHoldNothing]

Part of this depends on what you mean by the term science. If we take it from etymology, it could conceivably extend to the disciplines you named, since the basis of the word is scientia, knowledge of things. Albeit my Latin and Greek are fuzzy and amateur at best. Scientia is the practical consideration, whereas episteme from Greek is apparently more theoretical truth.

A similar distinction of science versus philosophy might be phronesis and sophia in Greek. Phronesis was the practical application of the wisdom and knowledge you gained, while sophia was that general wisdom and knowledge acquired from intellectual and academic study. If you mean natural science, then perhaps it stops at a certain point, but then if you include social sciences, it extends beyond the mere physical and becomes more interested in the internal mind of sorts.

 

[variant]

Sure, philosophy, math, theology, etc.

Science is a philosophy; a very effective application of methodological empiricism.

 

[cubinity]

Is mathematics deeper than physics, or is physics deeper than mathematics?
Isn't that a debate that has raged on forever?

 

[Mr. Pedantic]

 

[david_x]

Science is a philosophy; a very effective application of methodological empiricism.

Well everything is basically a philosophy...

 

[ToHoldNothing]

Then the question would be whether science is a better philosophy than say, theology, for a common contrast

 

[Drunk On Love]

Nietzsche on Science,

"To make it possible for this discipline to begin with must there not be some prior conviction...? We see the sciences also rests on faith; there is no science without presuppositions."

How do people "know" that the presuppositions of the various sciences are correct? They don't. They simply obtain useful results by presupposing them. The idea that science is truth and religion is falsehood is silly. Both obtain useful results. Both obtain negative results. If a person was a true skeptic that is the most they could say.

The belief that modern science puts us in contact with the truth/s of really existing objects, the thing in itself, was possible for a short time but has since been pretty much demolished. If the modern sciences are the only truth finding method you have than it wont be long before nihilism sets in. Eventually people see that the emperor has no cloths.

 

[Tinker Grey]

What results does religion obtain that could not be obtained without religion?

 

[Mr. Pedantic]

Nietzsche on Science,

"To make it possible for this discipline to begin with must there not be some prior conviction...? We see the sciences also rests on faith; there is no science without presuppositions."

How do people "know" that the presuppositions of the various sciences are correct? They don't. They simply obtain useful results by presupposing them. The idea that science is truth and religion is falsehood is silly. Both obtain useful results. Both obtain negative results. If a person was a true skeptic that is the most they could say.

The belief that modern science puts us in contact with the truth/s of really existing objects, the thing in itself, was possible for a short time but has since been pretty much demolished. If the modern sciences are the only truth finding method you have than it wont be long before nihilism sets in. Eventually people see that the emperor has no cloths.

Not all assumptions are the same. This is patently obvious; both the number of assumptions you need to make, and the plausibility of the assumptions, are relevant.

 

[Drunk On Love]

Not all assumptions are the same

How do we know if a certain presupposition is true though? Apparent usefulness?

 

[Drunk On Love]

What results does religion obtain that could not be obtained without religion?

The realization of union with God. An experience that millions of people throughout history have obtained. They will vouchsafe that it is infinitely greater than any other experience and that it grants meaning to everything else. Those who have it call it the one thing needful. In it's light everything else pales in comparison That was enough to catch my interests. Much to gain and nothing to loose. If it's false nihilism is the only reasonable alternative. So if I was wrong in my belief in God and I lost out on the "truth" of nihilism big deal. Since then I have experienced many blessings as a result and have obtained a foretaste that leaves me wanting the whole enchilada.

 

[Mr. Pedantic]

You know, I joined this forum because I thought people could form intelligent, valid arguments. Boy, was I wrong.

How do we know if a certain presupposition is true though? Apparent usefulness?

Consistency

The realization of union with God. An experience that millions of people throughout history have obtained. They will vouchsafe that it is infinitely greater than any other experience and that it grants meaning to everything else. Those who have it call it the one thing needful. In it's light everything else pales in comparison That was enough to catch my interests. Much to gain and nothing to loose. If it's false nihilism is the only reasonable alternative. So if I was wrong in my belief in God and I lost out on the "truth" of nihilism big deal. Since then I have experienced many blessings as a result and have obtained a foretaste that leaves me wanting the whole enchilada.

This is an argument from final consequences. The benefits you gain from there being a god have nothing to do with whether that god exists or not. And as I said before, anecdotes are not sufficient evidence.

 

[variant]

Well everything is basically a philosophy...

That contradicts what you said before that philosophy is beyond science.

Science is applied philosophy that effects future philosophy.

To your main question though getting beyond the physical universe is only possible if there is something beyond it.

Beyond that your use of metaphor is weak, science goes streight to the bone marrow, and your religion is not "more deep" in any sense you can demonstrate.

 

[Drunk On Love]

I was explaining why I thought the religious quest was worth entering upon. I was somewhat skeptical at first but there was literally nothing to loose and much to gain. When I meet people who seem to have obtained true happiness , meaning in life, and selfless love for others and they tell me how they obtained it I will listen closely. It's only sensible to try their advice. If it doesn't measure up then reject it. If it does then you've found something wonderful.

I wasn't intending to prove God nor do I feel the need to. People need to find that out for themselves. God has nothing to do with rational debate and argument. Those can only give people a little incentive to make the leap. God is either known experientialy or He isn't. It would be like arguing with a person blind from birth over what the experience of seeing is like. Trying to talk him into getting surgery to fix his eyes for example. He has no idea what sight really entails you can just give some weak analogies from other fields of experience and then he needs to take the leap of faith. Nothing you can really do about that.

anecdotes are not sufficient evidence.

When millions of people have consistently claimed to have obtained certain positive results and they show the fruits of this being the case than it is worth looking into the method and beliefs that they had which made it possible. There is a strong consistency of sorts here. Appeal to authority certainly isn't a full proof method and shouldn't be the highest rule of appeal but it has its practical benefits and most folks do it in regards to science. Most people know little to nothing about science from personal experimentation. yet they are not overly credulous of well accepted theories. They often see useful technologies that are said to operate based on the laws these theories describe. Do they actual KNOW that they are true in any absolute sense? Probably not. If they wanted to perform the same experiments and had accesses to the same equipment they would probably come to the same conclusions though and they trust this to a degree. It's the same with the spiritual path.

There are also people who refuse to perform experimentation yet rail against scientific theories and this is also the case with some regarding religion and it's methods. The young earth creationists are a good example of this. The key is to listen to what people are saying , perform the suggested experiment, and either confirm or deny the theory based on the results. Some people reject it without even having properly performed the experiment though. It's like the bishop who was afraid to look into the telescope and just rejected the ability of telescopes to magnify images in the first place. Prove it without me doing the experiment myself! What if my eyes are just deceiving me when I look? I shouldn't need to have faith enough to look into the telescope if it's actually true!

Again I'm not saying that people should force themselves into believing. Probably not even possible. But they would do well to at least keep an open mind.

The benefits you gain from there being a god have nothing to do with whether that god exists or not

What about the a pirori assumptions of science in relation to consistent results?