Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Skeptical · 09-01-2002, 07:40 AM

I have been away for a few days, so my apologies for not getting back to this sooner.

Vander, you posted a comment in the "a very simple question" thread that I thought was very interesting and crucial to all of these discussions that you have engaged in. I asked what evidence you would accept for evolutionary theories being true. I thought the key criteria you posted was regarding "non-scientific" methods of knowledge. Here is your original quote with my response:

Quote:

able to withstand critique from non-scientific disciplines, such as philosophy

Ahhh, I think we have come to the heart of it. This criteria is, in my opinion, an impossible hurdle to overcome. Let's apply it to, for example, chemistry. There were at one time, and may still be, people who believed in alchemy which by nearly any definition is non-scientific. Alchemy makes claims that clearly violate basic principles of chemistry. By your criteria, chemistry should not be believed _unless one uses scientific principles to determine is truth_.

That is, the only way that you can say that chemistry is superior to alchemy is by pointing to scientific experiments and methods. If one says up front that non-scientific methods and principles "count", you have already eliminated any and all methods by which one can make a determination as to whether a discipline is true or not! One could always say that really lead will turn into gold, its just that it can't happen under scientific conditions and I just "know its true". I can produce bars of gold that I say were once lead. How do we know it didn't happen? If I claim absolute knowledge that it did, what methods could be used to invalidate my belief?

To take another example, many people currently believe in astrology. Astrology makes lots of predictions that invalidate the fields of astronomy and physics. By your criteria, astronomy and physics are invalidated _unless we appeal to scientific methods_. There are no non-scientific methods that allow us to conclude that physics and astronomy are true and astrology false.

My point is that if you take as a starting point that science must answer to non-scientific disciplines , you are admitting in principle that the scientific discipline in question can never be shown to be true, which is why I asked the first question in this thread. If we assert that there are non-sensory ways of knowing, which I think is what has underlined a lot of your posts, then anything at all in the field of science can be invalidated. Physics, chemistry, astronomy, geology and even mathematics have no foundation if not based on what we know through our senses and a shared view of objective reality. If we allow non-scientific evidence into the equation, it will always trump scientific evidence because we have no method other than science for determining the truth or falsehood of such claims. If I claim 2+2=5 and that I "know" this through some non-sensory means, how can you invalidate it? You cannot, and this is exactly the hurdle created by the criteria you posit. It is a road to inevitable solipsism.

If you really think that science must be culpable to non-scientific disciplines, then I think you need to revise your original answer as there will never be enough evidence to override what you "know in your heart" through some non-sensory means. Or am I wrong?

Later, I asked:

Quote:

I'm very curious as to whether you agree or disagree with me that this is a hurdle that cannot even in principle be overcome by science.

I would very much like to see your reply to this singular question, since your answer will determine whether any scientific evidence will ever convince you. If you disagree that this hurdle cannot even in principle be overcome, I'd be interested in seeing your reasoning.

PS To the mods, I realize this may be OT for E/C forum, I just wasn't sure where to put it

[ September 01, 2002: Message edited by: Skeptical ]

Vanderzyden · 09-01-2002, 05:05 PM

Let's back up and clarify. Your questions were:

1. Is there any evidence under any circumstances that you can imagine that would convince you personally that evolutionary theories were true?

Quote:

Answer: Yes

2. Can you please describe in as much detail as you can what this evidence would look like?

My answer was the following:

Quote:

It would be great to have evidence that EXPLAINS:

-- incredible complexity arising from utter simplicity
-- a mechanism by which new species are generated
-- how mind comes from non-mind

But wait! Critics require more than just claims of evidence. Context and resiliency are also necessary. Any evidence must be:

-- uncontrived
-- compelling (accompanied by sound argument)
-- explained in the simplest terms possible (e.g., no handwaving technospeak)
-- logically consistent
-- unfalsified by other evidence
-- able to withstand critique from non-scientific disciplines, such as philosophy

Skeptical, you are focusing on the last criteria, which is one of several:

able to withstand critique from non-scientific disciplines, such as philosophy

Your example:

Quote:

There are no non-scientific methods that allow us to conclude that physics and astronomy are true and astrology false.

Now, astrology is the "divination of the supposed influences of the stars and planets on human affairs by their positions and aspects". An unscientific conclusion is that astrology is not a science, since it is intuitively obvious that remote stars do not influence "human affairs" by virtue of their position.

Science, as you appear to define it, has its limitations. Here is an example I just posted on another thread:

Do you believe in the existence of your own mind, or your friend's mind, though you can see neither? Hook up your friend to a brain-monitoring device, and you will still be unable to tell what what he is thinking, unless he tells you.

More importantly, tell me how science answers this question:

WHY IS THERE SOMETHING RATHER THAN NOTHING?

Empirical science will never, never, never be able to even remotely answer this question. It is impossible to "see" the answer from our limited vantage point. Even with a supposed Grand Unified Theory, there would be nothing in the theory to explain the existence of its principles.

Now I have a question for you:

How would you answer that ultimate question in "scientific" terms?

IMPORTANT: It would appear that I have a broader definition of science than you will admit. I consider the following to be sciences, all of which have primarily UNSEEN subjects :

-- theology (formerly the top science)
-- metaphysics, including ontology and cosmology
-- epistemology
-- value theory/morals/ethics
-- logic
-- mathematics

I think that these sciences clear your "hurdle".

Vanderzyden

[ September 01, 2002: Message edited by: Vanderzyden ]

[ September 01, 2002: Message edited by: Vanderzyden ]

[ September 01, 2002: Message edited by: Vanderzyden ]

scigirl · 09-01-2002, 05:40 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Vanderzyden:
Science, as you appear to define it, has its limitations.[...]More importantly, tell me how science answers this question:

WHY IS THERE SOMETHING RATHER THAN NOTHING?

Empirical science will never, never, never be able to even remotely answer this question. It is impossible to "see" the answer from our limited vantage point. Even with a supposed Grand Unified Theory, there would be nothing in the theory to explain the existence of its principles.

Ok vander, fair enough. You may be surprised to learn that I agree with you. Science cannot (at least right now, maybe never) answer some of the questions that have plagued humanity since our existence.

What I have a problem with, however, is that some people, after stating that science cannot answer these questions, go ahead and answer them using an ancient text written by middle-eastern sheepherders.

I agree - science cannot answer fully, "who are we and why are we here to ask these questions?" However, I disagree that any religion, especially Christianity, even comes close to answering the questions either.

scigirl

[ September 01, 2002: Message edited by: scigirl ]

wade-w · 09-01-2002, 06:01 PM

Quote:

IMPORTANT: It would appear that I have a broader definition of science than you will admit. I consider the following to be sciences, all of which have primarily UNSEEN subjects :

-- theology (formerly the top science)
-- metaphysics, including ontology and cosmology
-- epistemology
-- value theory/morals/ethics
-- logic
-- mathematics

I think that these sciences clear your "hurdle".

It seems to me that your position about seen vs unseen is mere hair splitting. Are you seriously claiming that anyone has seen an electron, or a quark?

Be that as it may, consider this:

From the Meriam-Webster online dictionary:

Quote:

1 : the state of knowing : knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding
2 a : a department of systematized knowledge as an object of study <the science of theology> b : something (as a sport or technique) that may be studied or learned like systematized knowledge <have it down to a science>
3 a : knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method b : such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena : NATURAL SCIENCE
4 : a system or method reconciling practical ends with scientific laws <culinary science>
5 capitalized : CHRISTIAN SCIENCE

It seems to me from your list that you are using definition 2, while I am condfident that everyone else here is using definition 3. Especially, note the requirement of the use of the scientific method in this particular definition.

None of the "sciences" you list fit the 3rd definition. Biological evolution on the other hand, does fit this definition.

I also find it interesting, albeit inconsistent, that you call philosophy "non-scientific" at the beginning of your post, and then claim that metaphysics, ethics, and epistemolgy are sciences at the end.

As for the question of "Why is there something rather than nothing", claiming that God did it doesn't really answer anything. One can then simply ask the same questions about god that we are currently asking about the universe. "Why is there a God?" and "Where did God come from?" spring to mind. All you are doing is rephrasing the question.

"Reason is the greatest enemy that faith has..."
-- Martin Luther

[Edited for typos]

[ September 01, 2002: Message edited by: wadew ]

[ September 01, 2002: Message edited by: wadew ]

wade-w · 09-01-2002, 06:19 PM

Seems like we were composing posts at the same time, scigirl.

Quote:

What I have a problem with, however, is that some people, after stating that science cannot answer these questions, go ahead and answer them using an ancient text written by middle-eastern sheepherders.

I agree - science cannot answer fully, "who are we and why are we here to ask these questions?" However, I disagree that any religion, especially Christianity, even comes close to answering the questions either.

scigirl

Excellent point. My problem is that many people seem to think that the application of a label somehow answers the question.

[ September 01, 2002: Message edited by: wadew ]

Lizard · 09-01-2002, 06:38 PM

Science can't answer philosophical questions like "Why is there something rather than nothing?" or "Why are we here?" or "What is the purpose of life?" That's not a weakness in science; it's simply not meant to answer those questions.

The scientific method is used by every human being every day. It is a way of asking questions about how the physical world or universe works, hypothesizing answers, then testing those answers via experimentation. It's the same method an auto mechanic uses in figuring our what's wrong with your car, or your plumber uses in figuring out what's wrong with your plumbing. It has little or nothing to do with philosophy, as practiced by working scientists, auto mechanics, or plumbers. There is a field of "philosophy of science," but most working scientists have no cause to study it or reason to push any particular philosophy. Indeed, most life scientists know very little about philosophy and couldn't care less.

Philosophy and theology address issues of ultimate cause; science only addresses proximate causes.

scigirl · 09-01-2002, 06:44 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Lizard:
Philosophy and theology address issues of ultimate cause; science only addresses proximate causes.

I suppose that's how it should work. However, I don't know of many churches that stick to figuring out ultimate causes. They want to use superstition or the supernatural to explain things that already have a scientific explanation. "God healed her cancer" or "He's an alcoholic because of the fall."

scigirl

wade-w · 09-01-2002, 06:47 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Lizard:
Science can't answer philosophical questions like "Why is there something rather than nothing?" or "Why are we here?" or "What is the purpose of life?" That's not a weakness in science; it's simply not meant to answer those questions.

The scientific method is used by every human being every day. It is a way of asking questions about how the physical world or universe works, hypothesizing answers, then testing those answers via experimentation. ... It has little or nothing to do with philosophy, as practiced by working scientists, auto mechanics, or plumbers. ...

Philosophy and theology address issues of ultimate cause; science only addresses proximate causes.

That was a large part of my point, Lizard. Though I must say that you put it better than I did.

[ September 01, 2002: Message edited by: wadew ]

Albion · 09-01-2002, 06:51 PM

Quote:

More importantly, tell me how science answers this question:

WHY IS THERE SOMETHING RATHER THAN NOTHING?

Empirical science will never, never, never be able to even remotely answer this question. It is impossible to "see" the answer from our limited vantage point. Even with a supposed Grand Unified Theory, there would be nothing in the theory to explain the existence of its principles.

Science doesn't answer questions like that. If you're going to extrapolate and say that it therefore doesn't answer any questions that may have the most tenuous link to those sorts of questions, I'd say you were extrapolating too far. Science doesn't say anything about why we're here and what the ultimate purpose is, but it has a lot to say on the subject of how the natural world works. You can't just dismiss an entire discipline because it doesn't answer questions in another discipline. I don't see you being keen to abandon philosophy because it can't tell you much about how to cure polio.

Happy Wonderer · 09-01-2002, 08:48 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Vanderzyden:

More importantly, tell me how science answers this question:

WHY IS THERE SOMETHING RATHER THAN NOTHING?

Empirical science will never, never, never be able to even remotely answer this question. It is impossible to "see" the answer from our limited vantage point. Even with a supposed Grand Unified Theory, there would be nothing in the theory to explain the existence of its principles.

The question, as stated, is a fallacy. There is no complement to "everything that exists." It feels like there should be, since we can imagine "no cats" and "no chocolate" (shudder...) but "no thing" is an impossible statement.

Consider the standard theist answers for "why does anything exist" for a second. The answers "Jesus Christ", "God", or "Shiva" are all logically circular for what I hope are obvious reasons.

(O.K. belaboring the obvious is my specialty:

Why is there anything?
God made it.
Why is there God?
God, by definition, has always existed.

So the reason that there is anything that exists is that everything was created by something that has always existed...)

There is no reasonable answer to that question. Logic exists whether or not any physical object exists. Even if time and space do not exist, there is thus provably one 'thing' that has always existed rather than no-thing. "Why is there anything? Because logic exists" is a non-sequitor; logic isn't a "cause."

There are questions that are outside of the realm of science -- IMHO even of science as broadly defined as you have defined it. "Is love good?" and "in what circumstances is it morally acceptable to kill?" are well-formed questions that have no one scientific or logical answer (no matter how hard we try.)

Anyway, methinks I smell a red herring (not nearly as tasty as a Cadbury(tm) bar.) How does this have anything to do with the original problem -- wanting to use philosophy to validate science? I'd say that the basic flaw with using any of the other "sciences" that you mention is that they are non-empirical. Math and Philosophy have nothing to say on whether two hydrogen atoms plus an oxygen create a form of matter that we call "water." If you understand the empirical observations well enough, you can check the logic and math underlying scientific conclusions, but you can't get there without having a good foundation in the basics.

HW

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

09-01-2002, 06:38 PM	#6
Lizard Regular Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: Kansas Posts: 169	Science can't answer philosophical questions like "Why is there something rather than nothing?" or "Why are we here?" or "What is the purpose of life?" That's not a weakness in science; it's simply not meant to answer those questions. The scientific method is used by every human being every day. It is a way of asking questions about how the physical world or universe works, hypothesizing answers, then testing those answers via experimentation. It's the same method an auto mechanic uses in figuring our what's wrong with your car, or your plumber uses in figuring out what's wrong with your plumbing. It has little or nothing to do with philosophy, as practiced by working scientists, auto mechanics, or plumbers. There is a field of "philosophy of science," but most working scientists have no cause to study it or reason to push any particular philosophy. Indeed, most life scientists know very little about philosophy and couldn't care less. Philosophy and theology address issues of ultimate cause; science only addresses proximate causes.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.