What is science?

[lucaspa]

Well you want an example of how Science may never give us all the answers? (note: this is an example open to interpretation) Lets run off Jet Blacks Big Bang example. I don’t know if Scientists still believe in the big bang or not but lets say they do. This Big Bang created everything, atoms, universe, galaxies, matter EVERYTHING. This is the creation of our universe and all we know. This is the answer (so to say)



Now if the Big Bang created everything, what created it?

USAF, usually 2 or 3 new questions pop up out of every answer. You just provided an example of that. The issue is whether science is applicable to every aspect of human existence. Your question says: can science find all the answers within its domain? That may be possible.

However, much of human existence lies outside of science. Therefore science can't answer these questions.

An example: science will be able to answer the question: can we clone a human being? Probably with a "yes".

But science can't answer the question: should we clone a human being?

 

[lucaspa]

Why do you say that? I am not saying it is possible, but it is rather an agnostic thought in that I am an agnostic and say there may a god but where is the evidence.It may be an idea to find some scientists worth their salt and check out the idea.

This is one area where you run up against a limitation of science. Methodological materialism means that we can't directly test for a deity. The way scientists check out the idea of deity is to test ways that deity is said to work. That is, you say "God caused a Flood that made all the geology on the planet." So scientists check out out whether a Flood made all the geology on the planet. They find that, no, a flood didn't. But that doesn't tell you God doesn't exist.

You can also say: God answers prayers for the healing of other people. So you conduct experiments to see if intercessory prayer works. You find that, yes, IP does improve health in patients in the cardiac ICU. Does that tell you God exists? NO! As the authors of one of the studies put it:
"Neither this study nor that of Byrd provided any mechanistic explanation for the possible benefits of intercessory prayer. However, others have speculated as to what they might be10; they generally fall into 2 broad categories: natural or supernatural explanations. The former explanation would attribute the beneficial effects of intercessory prayer to "real" but currently unknown physical forces that are "generated" by the intercessors and "received" by the patients; the latter explanation would be, by definition, beyond the ken of science. However, this trial was designed to explore not a mechanism but a phenomenon. Clearly, proof of the latter must precede exploration of the former. By analogy, when James Lind, by clinical trial, determined that lemons and limes cured scurvy aboard the HMS Salisbury in 1753, he not only did not know about ascorbic acid, he did not even understand the concept of a "nutrient." There was a natural explanation for his findings that would be clarified centuries later, but his inability to articulate it did not invalidate his observations.
Although we cannot know why we obtained the results we did, we can comment on what our data do not show. For example, we have not proven that God answers prayer or that God even exists. It was intercessory prayer, not the existence of God, that was tested here."

So, putting scientists on the problem doesn't help, because science itself is incapable (at least for now) of answering the question.

 

[ej]

Of course it's not going to give us all the answers. Science is a limited form of knowing. It's not going to tell you what "beauty" is, whether your significant other loves you, whether broccoli tastes good, whether Matrix Reloaded is a good movie, etc.

LoL

It's about finding the answer to questions which DO have answers... broccoli and Matrix Reloaded have a subjective element, methinks

 

[MartinM]

whether Matrix Reloaded is a good movie

Like we need science to answer that.

As the servant of the Oracle, I already know exactly who you are and why you are here. I can take you to her - but first, we must fight. For no reason whatsoever

Hmm...I have to find the keymaster - sorry, keymaker - before it's too late. I only get one chance, and I'm short on time. Whoa! Hey, Smith! Get a couple hundred of yourselves over here so we can fight for fifteen minutes. For no reason whatsoever

Need I go on?

 

[ej]

LoL

It's about finding the answer to questions which DO have answers... broccoli and Matrix Reloaded have a subjective element, methinks

I correct myself...

There is a gene which determines whether or not we like cruciferous vegetables... to some people these taste like vegetables, to others they taste like rotting flesh

That's science...

 

[lucaspa]

LoL

It's about finding the answer to questions which DO have answers... broccoli and Matrix Reloaded have a subjective element, methinks

But the questions "does broccoli taste good?" and "Is Matrix Reloaded a good movie?" do have answers. It's just that the answers are not the same for everyone. That is, the personal experience from which the answers come is not the same for everyone.

Now, when I posted the essence of the scientific method, #2 was that science limits itself to a subset of experience: personal experience that is the same for everyone under approximately the same circumstances. Because science limits the type of evidence or personal experience it will accept, it also limits itself to the questions it can answer. Doesn't it?

 

[lucaspa]

I correct myself...

There is a gene which determines whether or not we like cruciferous vegetables... to some people these taste like vegetables, to others they taste like rotting flesh

That's science...

That explains why the experience is different, but it still doesn't answer the question "does broccoli taste good?" Each person has to answer that for himself.

BTW, I found the news article on the study, but Drewnowski has never made the link in a peer-reviewed paper when I checked PubMed.

 

[ej]

/me thinks lucaspa has too much time on his hands

 

[ej]

/me thinks that sensitivity to the bitter taste of 6-n-propylthiouracil (PROP) is an inherited trait.

 

[lucaspa]

* ej thinks that sensitivity to the bitter taste of 6-n-propylthiouracil (PROP) is an inherited trait.

I know you do. But not everyone who has that sensitivity thinks broccoli tastes bad, according to the data.

 

[ej]

So science gives us answers... but peoples opinions / experiences mean that some disagree with these answers?

Or science gives us answers... which may be inaccurate?

 

[pureone]

And some people don't have that sensitivity think that broccoli is "yucky"

 

[lucaspa]

So science gives us answers... but peoples opinions / experiences mean that some disagree with these answers?

Or science gives us answers... which may be inaccurate?

Science gives us answers within its domain. But, science is a limited form of knowing. So, most of human experience lies outside of science and science can't answer those questions.

 

[lucaspa]

And some people don't have that sensitivity think that broccoli is "yucky"

Exactly! So the answer to the queston "does broccoli tast good (or yucky)?" is not answered by science.

Now, if you ask the question: "are people with a sensitivity to PROP likely to eat broccoli?", then you can get an answer. No, they are not likely to.

 

[USAF]

Jet Black



*

we don't know.

However saying "therefore God" is begging the question.

*



no it doesn’t, but obviously the belief in God doesn’t; sound so absurd





every ask an Atheist that question?

------------------------------------------------------------------------



Chi_Cygni



Well, you ever notice how all of a sudden particles keep getting smaller and smaller? Do you ever thing we will ever find the end?

 

[USAF]

Lucaspa



*

However, much of human existence lies outside of science. Therefore science can't answer these questions.

*



there is a lot of question science can’t answer, as you stated “science is the study of the physical universe” as you know my definition is mans universe. But that is of a spiritual interpretation. If you look at science as broad (atheisticly) then will we ever know all the answers? See science is limited to our domain of thought (universe) is that all there is? Or is that what we wish to accept? That’s why I say science focuses on an atheistic approach to testing and experiments. Which is true





*

An example: science will be able to answer the question: can we clone a human being? Probably with a "yes".

*



science can answer that because we can do it through artificial Insemination *test tube) or stem cell development or what not. But the question remains, that is by mans doing and as such your playing God to a level, but you can never perfect healing. Or will these clones have souls? Or will they just be a product of mud and water?

 

[Jet Black]

no it doesn’t, but obviously the belief in God doesn’t; sound so absurd





every ask an Atheist that question?

the belief that there is a god is just as absurd as the belief that there isn't one. I use a small g there intentionally, as I am not referring to God, since God adds extra complications in that He is a specific god and has extra characteristics which I see even less justification for than for deity in general. there may well be a "creator" however the properties and nature of that creator are unknown to us.

 

[USAF]

Jet Black





Are they unknown?

 

[Jet Black]

are what unknown?

 

[USAF]

"...however the properties and nature of that creator are unknown to us".