Science doesn't really explain anything. It's only a prediction tool. [Archive]

EliteNinja

07-22-2005, 07:10 PM

[ QUOTE ]
And although science can answer how things work, it does not answer why. This is beyond the natural realm that science works within.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well said Peter666.

Although I am an agnostic and study science, I do believe that science is only an ESTIMATION of HOW the world works. It does not say why the rules of physics are there and why physical constants are whatever value they are. Somebody/somthing set those rules in the first place (or nothing set them in place).

Science is only at TOOL which is used to predict the behaviour of energy and matter.

In my field of materials science, everything is a theory that 'kinda' works. Nothing is an exact science. There is no such thing.

Science doesn't really explain anything. It's only a prediction tool used to help people do things.

Dov

07-22-2005, 07:16 PM

[ QUOTE ]
And although science can answer how things work, it does not answer why. This is beyond the natural realm that science works within.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why do you think this is?

I think it's because Why is such a difficult question to answer because it is usually dependent on who is asking the question.

Maybe we shouldn't even be asking why at all.

What good has come of it?

It seems like how is a much more useful question, overall unless you are actually able to confirm your guess of the originator's intention at some point, you are just wasting time and energy by asking why.

Arnfinn Madsen

07-22-2005, 08:03 PM

Science is an attempt to get closer to understanding the magic of life and nature from which we still only grasp a tiny part. Science will always only be a copy and will never come up with the final answers. As you point out, some of its approximations are useful in life.

ihardlyknowher

07-22-2005, 08:09 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
And although science can answer how things work, it does not answer why. This is beyond the natural realm that science works within.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well said Peter666.

Although I am an agnostic and study science, I do believe that science is only an ESTIMATION of HOW the world works. It does not say why the rules of physics are there and why physical constants are whatever value they are. Somebody/somthing set those rules in the first place (or nothing set them in place).

Science is only at TOOL which is used to predict the behaviour of energy and matter.

In my field of materials science, everything is a theory that 'kinda' works. Nothing is an exact science. There is no such thing.

Science doesn't really explain anything. It's only a prediction tool used to help people do things.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would attempt to measure the accuracy of your statement, but cannot do so without altering it.

BZ_Zorro

07-22-2005, 08:12 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Although I am an agnostic and study science, I do believe that science is only an ESTIMATION of HOW the world works.

[/ QUOTE ]
You're confusing science itself with the results of science.

The world is full of claims or 'estimations' about the nature of reality. god, astrology, scientology, evolutionary theory etc are examples of these estimations.
Science is the simplest and yet most sophisticated method of determining which of these claims fit with objective reality. You do believe in objective reality don't you?

[ QUOTE ]
And although science can answer how things work, it does not answer why...Science doesn't really explain anything. It's only a prediction tool used to help people do things.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is nonsense. These are just a few of the million 'why' questions science has answered or provided insight:

1. Why do people need air and food?
2. Why does the sun rise each day?
3. Why are plants green?
4. Why do animals behave that way?
5. Why do we have seasons?
6. Why do people get sick?
7. Why does food go off?
8. Why is one thing blue but another red?

etc, etc...the list is nearly infinite.

The post should have read:

[ QUOTE ]
And although science can answer how things work, it does not answer why in a way that I can easily understand or feel comfortable with.

[/ QUOTE ]

FHP.

gumpzilla

07-22-2005, 08:17 PM

[ QUOTE ]

This is nonsense. These are just a few of the million 'why' questions science has answered or provided insight:

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the OP's point is that there is always a deeper level of why that we aren't equipped to answer. I think he even explicitly mentions "Why gravity?" Science can explain a lot of why's, but there are going to be things at the roots that you can't really explain any deeper than "Well, that just seems to be the way it is."

BZ_Zorro

07-22-2005, 08:42 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I think the OP's point is that there is always a deeper level of why that we aren't equipped to answer.

[/ QUOTE ]
I disagree that this was OP's point:

[ QUOTE ]

Science is only a TOOL which is used to predict the behaviour of energy and matter.
Science doesn't really explain anything. It's only a prediction tool used to help people do things.

[/ QUOTE ]
Seems to me that the deeper science delves into how things work, the more why questions it can answer...whatever field that's in. Can it answer every possible why question? No. But implied in OP's post (and posts like it) is the idea that science can never answer all the 'why' questions, and because of this, there's always room for faith, first cause arguments and answers that make us feel good. This I strongly disagree with.

gumpzilla

07-22-2005, 08:52 PM

[ QUOTE ]

I disagree that this was OP's point:

[ QUOTE ]

Science is only a TOOL which is used to predict the behaviour of energy and matter.
Science doesn't really explain anything. It's only a prediction tool used to help people do things.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

I prefer this quote from the original post:

[ QUOTE ]

Although I am an agnostic and study science, I do believe that science is only an ESTIMATION of HOW the world works. It does not say why the rules of physics are there and why physical constants are whatever value they are.

[/ QUOTE ]

BZ_Zorro

07-22-2005, 08:56 PM

[ QUOTE ]
In my field of materials science, everything is a theory that 'kinda' works. Nothing is an exact science. There is no such thing.

[/ QUOTE ]
Sorry for the second post, I missed something...

I think the reason materials science is an approximation is because you're dealing with the limit of observable phenomena. Quantum issues come in when you get to the atomic level and make this inexact. In addition, things such as chemical bonding involve modelling highly complex situations mathematically, which requires idealised approximations for modelling and also numerical solutions for computers. It doesn't mean we don't/can't understand the underlying architecture very well.

I didn't do much materials science in my physics/math degree but that seemed the case to me.

PairTheBoard

07-22-2005, 10:40 PM

Science gives us metaphores in the form of scientific models and theories, which give us a Sense of understanding. However, as these metaphores become embedded in our conceptual framework we tend to forget they are metaphores and come to think of them as the reality. The truth of this statement can be partially measured by how much it pisses off the scientifically enamored.

PairTheBoard

chezlaw

07-23-2005, 12:31 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Science is the simplest and yet most sophisticated method of determining which of these claims fit with objective reality. You do believe in objective reality don't you?

[/ QUOTE ]

Is there any good reason to believe in objective reality? You make it sound like a given - maybe an article of faith?

chez

Peter666

07-23-2005, 01:29 AM

"But implied in OP's post (and posts like it) is the idea that science can never answer all the 'why' questions, and because of this, there's always room for faith, first cause arguments and answers that make us feel good. This I strongly disagree with."

Your disagreement is irrelavent. When science explains How something works, it just raises more questions that need to be answered.

What is the smallest particle there is? When the scientists make a consensus, somebody always shows that there is something smaller making up the smallest particle. This goes on ad nauseam. What is small is made up of something smaller, and that is made of something smaller...etc

What is the foundation of this existence? Where does is all begin, or is it infinite? But if it it is infinite, how can something substantially exist?

These are questions that philosophy and religion attempt to answer. This is beyond the realm of natural sciences.

Peter666

07-23-2005, 01:32 AM

If you acknowledge that you exist, and it would be wrong to say you don't exist, then you believe in objective reality.

BZ_Zorro

07-23-2005, 03:54 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Your disagreement is irrelavent. When science explains How something works, it just raises more questions that need to be answered.

[/ QUOTE ]
Which is exactly why it is the best method for determining objective truth. Does that make sense?

[ QUOTE ]
What is the smallest particle there is? What is the foundation of this existence? Where does is all begin, or is it infinite?

[/ QUOTE ]These questions, by their very nature, will always be incomprehensible and unanswerable. Science, by constantly comparing its postulates with reality, and by seeking out contradictory information, leads us in the best direction toward gaining an understanding of the questions and the answers.

[ QUOTE ]
These are questions that philosophy and religion attempt to answer. This is beyond the realm of natural sciences.

[/ QUOTE ] Philosophers and religious authorities have made absolute fools out of themselves trying to provide answers to these (and many other) questions. (Flat earth, anyone? Earth the centre of the universe? Man not descended from apes? Blood sacrifices to make the sun rise? Adam and Eve? Stars hung in the sky to provide light at night?). Science is the only method which has developed reliable answers that, at least to some approximation, fit with reality. Naturalism (the idea that the universe is a purposeless entity void of any conscious or controlling force) is the most successful philosophy in the history of the world.

If you're looking for the meaning of life, science won't give it to you. But neither will religion if you really think about it. Religion just answers life's questions in a way that make you feel comforted, important(there is a purpose to everything) and not alone. If that's what you need, so be it. But don't claim the answers that come from this can measure up to reality. And don't claim religion and philosophy offer a special or superior epistemology, because 2000 years of history say you're wrong.

chezlaw

07-23-2005, 05:44 AM

[ QUOTE ]
If you acknowledge that you exist, and it would be wrong to say you don't exist, then you believe in objective reality.

[/ QUOTE ]

Something is objective if its existence is independent of the existence of mental subjects so I don't see how my existence or belief in my existence is going to be helpful in providing any reason to believe in objective reality.

chez

Peter666

07-23-2005, 02:45 PM

I disagree. The fact that you recognize your existence means there is existence whether other people acknowledge that or not.

One's subjective view of existence proves that there is objective existence, even though it is in the framework of one individual. That's all it takes.

chezlaw

07-23-2005, 09:33 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I disagree. The fact that you recognize your existence means there is existence whether other people acknowledge that or not.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think it matters what other people acknowledge. The question is whether ot not the existence I recognise is independent of me in any way.

Perhaps it doesn't matter very much and is just a special case, even if it is an objective fact that 'the world' exists there is no reason to believe there are objective facts about the nature of this world which is what we are normally refering to when we talk about objective reality (especially if we are talking about science).

Is there any reason for believing that there are objective facts about the nature of the world?

chez

Peter666

07-24-2005, 01:49 AM

I should have explained more clearly. The fact that you acknowledge your existence, is proof of objective reality, because you played absolutely no role in acknowledging it. You did not create the existence (which would make it subjective) you are forced to experience it by your very nature. As further proof, no matter how hard you try, you cannot make the acknowledgement of your existence go away.

So basically, the first thing people realize is that there is a yes and a no. There is no yo (As G.K. Chesterton said). It is this automatic realization of the self evident principle of contradiction that is the basis of all knowledge and the sciences that derive from it. We all agree 2+2=4, and it cannot be any other way. That is the objective reality we are forced to face. You may use different symbols or different words to describe that mathematical principle, but two units of something with another two units of something will always end up being 4 units.

For those who do not acknowledge the self evident princple of contradiction (hence objective reality) pour a scalding hot cup of coffee on their head and tell them the pain is merely in their subjective reality and they should stop believing in it.

EliteNinja

07-24-2005, 04:34 AM

I like tacos.

chezlaw

07-24-2005, 07:46 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I should have explained more clearly. The fact that you acknowledge your existence, is proof of objective reality, because you played absolutely no role in acknowledging it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I play a vital role in acknowledging it.

[ QUOTE ]
For those who do not acknowledge the self evident princple of contradiction (hence objective reality) pour a scalding hot cup of coffee on their head and tell them the pain is merely in their subjective reality and they should stop believing in it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Pain is so clearly dependent on the existence of the mind that is in pain, that it must be subjective. That's not a reason not to believe in it or that its not real. Do you disagree with the definition of subjective I am using or do you have some other reason for believing pain is objective?

chez

Triumph36

07-24-2005, 09:23 AM

Science does not provide answers about ultimate causation - it provides answers about mechanical causes. In that way it answers 'how' questions rather than 'why' questions. The reason we took up science was to answer the 'why' questions, and while the 'how' answers are satisfying, we've left ourselves no ability to answer the 'why' questions.

So I can see how the original poster can claim that science doesn't explain anything - it explains, mechanically, how things work, and is therefore a great predictive tool. Then again, no one should've expected it to explain anything in that way.

The once and future king

07-24-2005, 09:50 AM

[ QUOTE ]
you are forced to experience it by your very nature.

[/ QUOTE ]

Incorrect. Experiencing it is your nature not a consequence of your nature.

The once and future king

07-24-2005, 09:59 AM

[ QUOTE ]
pour a scalding hot cup of coffee on their head and tell them the pain is merely in their subjective reality and they should stop believing in it.

[/ QUOTE ]

What do you mean "merely" explain on what grounds you demote subjective beneath objective.

I can only truely know the subjective expereince of pain. I can understand the objective pricniples behind the burning as expressed in some objective format, but I can not know the reality of this objective expresion because I am an existing subject. Being is the seperation of thought and object.

On a tangent anyone very well versed in meditation could remove the sensation of the burning from their subjective awareness.

Peter666

07-24-2005, 01:03 PM

You do play a vital role in acknowledging it, simply because it could not be acknowledged if you were not there. But you acknowledge it not by free will. That is all I'm saying.

Yes, I agree with what you are describing as subjective pain. I will change my example and say, whether you feel the pain of the scalding coffee or not - the burns will always be there.

Peter666

07-24-2005, 01:10 PM

Direct consequence is meant to be the same as saying it is your nature.

To address your meditation point, I have changed my example above.

chezlaw

07-24-2005, 05:54 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Yes, I agree with what you are describing as subjective pain. I will change my example and say, whether you feel the pain of the scalding coffee or not - the burns will always be there.

[/ QUOTE ]

You believe that burns are an example of objective realilty. This brings me back to the original question - is there any good reason to believe this or is it an article of faith?

chez

Peter666

07-24-2005, 07:09 PM

If you try to deceive yourself by not acknowledging objective reality, you will be asking the same question for the rest of your life.

Asking a question proves there is an objective reality, as you could not ask if nothing is there.

The once and future king

07-24-2005, 07:42 PM

The point is whether there is an objective reality we can only experience it subjectively. Therefore as existing beings there is only manifest subjectivity.

Objectivity is ulitimately just an idea created by subjective beings to denote and understand what is external to the subject. We can not not know objectivity iteself only the idea.

chezlaw

07-24-2005, 07:55 PM

[ QUOTE ]

Asking a question proves there is an objective reality, as you could not ask if nothing is there.

[/ QUOTE ]

okay so there is something there but you haven't given any reason for believing there are objective facts about it. you gave the example of a burn but haven't as yet explained by what reason we should believe that the burn is an example of an objective fact.

I don't see how we can make any progress unless you (or someone else) can offer such a reason. I can't do it as I am not aware of any.

[ QUOTE ]
If you try to deceive yourself by not acknowledging objective reality, you will be asking the same question for the rest of your life.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not trying to deceive myself. I know I have no reason to believe there are objective facts about the world (doesn't mean there isn't one, just that I am unaware of it). What I am questioning is whether you or anyone else have any good reason to believe in objective facts about the world or whether its a groundless belief.

chez

Peter666

07-24-2005, 09:58 PM

"We can not not know objectivity iteself only the idea."

It is that very idea which is objective. And a double negative is a positive.

The once and future king

07-24-2005, 10:01 PM

How can any idea existing in a subjective consciousness be objective. It can be no more objective than my ideas about my favourite soccer team.

Now you are the one that is dreaming. Like I was when I added a not to many.

Peter666

07-24-2005, 10:05 PM

I think Science provides all the objective facts you can find out about the burn. If you take that for fact, than obviously the belief is not groundless. Although you may say that we have not tested every single person with that experiment, so it is not a positive conclusion.

Therefore, I will provide the notion of an abstract concept as proof of objective reality. There is nothing that we know of in nature that is an absolute perfect square, but we are able to comprehend it universally. How?

Peter666

07-24-2005, 10:10 PM

I answered this earlier when I said that you have not created or can eradicate the acknowledgment of your existence. This is an objective fact, even though it is within a single conciousness.

The once and future king

07-24-2005, 10:12 PM

But I am creating the acknowledgement of my existance.
This is what I said in my very first post.

[ QUOTE ]
Incorrect. Experiencing it is your nature not a consequence of your nature.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are trying to insert a first cause a somehow split off bit of subjectivity that somehow kicks of the whole process of experience.

Getting desperate?

chezlaw

07-24-2005, 10:24 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I think Science provides all the objective facts you can find out about the burn.

[/ QUOTE ]

Even if I agreed with that it doesn't follow that there are any objective facts, or are you saying that all inferences drawn from science are objective facts?

[ QUOTE ]
Therefore, I will provide the notion of an abstract concept as proof of objective reality. There is nothing that we know of in nature that is an absolute perfect square, but we are able to comprehend it universally. How?

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry much too hard for me, I'm still struggling with the physical world without worrying about where the numbers live.

chez