Is science the answer to everything
2,192 Views | 31 Replies
It can't answer questions based on moralty, subjective questions, nor spiritual questions
At 9/8/14 09:37 PM, Byber wrote: Is it the answer to everything in the world
Even if you try to find empirical answers to objective questions that can be sensibly asked, there is a limit to every scientific theory.
Beyond that limit the theory fails and you will either have to find a more power theory to explain your observations, and accept that current science is unable to answer those questions.
It can answer many questions, but I think it would be folly to not at least consider other routes.
Either way, our intelligence has gotten us into a bad situation. I don't think that things can be sustained as they are, but that's a whole other story.
At 9/8/14 09:39 PM, Xiicubed wrote: It can't answer questions based on moralty, subjective questions, nor spiritual questions
Well, technically it can. Psychology can and has done studies to figure out morality, and as far as spiritual questions go, if there's a way to test something it can be done. Science has already proven "spiritual" questions like the existence of spirits and near death experiences aren't real.
No. But I know something which does.
This post is generated by human intelligence (or lack thereof).
At 9/8/14 10:13 PM, vannila-guerilla wrote: Science has already proven "spiritual" questions like the existence of spirits and near death experiences aren't real.
No it hasn't. Once again you are just spouting what you want to hear and claiming "science". Science can't prove spirits exist or don't exist for the same reason science can't prove God exists or doesn't exist or the Flying Spaghetti Monster for that matter. Sure, you might can say there is a low probability for certain things, but it never proves these sorts of things don't exist and in fact can't prove or disprove such kinds of things.
So what science can do is answer a lot of questions or lead us in particular directions, but it in fact does not "have the answer to everything", at least as far as current human understanding of scientific principles goes.
There are provable things for which there exist proofs. There are provable things for which there do not exist proofs. There are suspected unprovable things for which there exists no proof that it's unprovable. And there are unprovable things which are provably unprovable.
At 9/8/14 10:42 PM, NeonSpider wrote: Stuff
Yes, it has. Let me be more specific: It's proven "ghosts" as we think of them have been nothing more than either mass hysteria, electromagnetic waves effecting brain patterns, or infrasound, and not actual hauntings.
It's also proven near death experiences are nothing more than the disrupted blood flow to the brain causing hallucinations.
It's proven more than you or most other people seem to realize.
At 9/8/14 10:45 PM, vannila-guerilla wrote:At 9/8/14 10:42 PM, NeonSpider wrote: StuffYes, it has. Let me be more specific: It's proven "ghosts" as we think of them have been nothing more than either mass hysteria, electromagnetic waves effecting brain patterns, or infrasound, and not actual hauntings.
Let me stop you right there. Disproving specific cases is not the same as disproving all cases. Venn Diagrams and all that.
It's the same thing with UFOs or anything really. Specific cases can be disproven. Even if every known case was disproven, that *still* would not be proof they 100% don't exist.
I'm not at all disagreeing that cases which have been looked at have been shown to have flaws, but that is not how proofs work.
At 9/8/14 11:02 PM, Xenomit wrote: Whether people want to admit it or not, it is. If we just kinda forgot about morals for a while, we'd make decades of scientific progress and make the world a much greater place.
No. There are questions for which science provably does not have an answer. For example "Does God exist?". We can give probabilities one way or the other but there is no absolute scientific answer to such a question. It is outside the realm of what we currently consider to be science.
Now there may be no answers and perhaps nothing has better answers than science, but that is not to say science has all the answers, because it doesn't and in fact can't.
At 9/8/14 11:08 PM, NeonSpider wrote:
No. There are questions for which science provably does not have an answer. For example "Does God exist?". We can give probabilities one way or the other but there is no absolute scientific answer to such a question.
What is the probability that God exists? Show your working. (50 marks)
@Sensationalism is correct.
@Xenomit
Same with @vannila-guerilla above, you can certainly prove or disprove specific cases but that's not the same thing as proving/disproving all cases, which is required for a valid mathematical/scientific proof. It's very different from a legal proof where you just need overwhelming evidence. For a science/math proof it needs to be airtight.
Certainly as time goes on science will be able to answer more and more questions. We may never be able to answer everything though and I think that's okay. People expect too many answers when it's actually okay to say "we don't know" or "we don't have enough information at this time".
You don't prove things in science. In scientific reasoning, you start with a hypothesis or a model and you demonstrate the hypothesis or model is an accurate enough description of a system under some assumptions or conditions. The model can be improved or rejected if new evidence is available.
This is different from a mathematical proof, where you deduce a conclusion from a set if axioms or previously proved theorems, regardless of whether the conclusion has relevance to our physical world. The conclusion derived from a mathematical proof is always true.
Not the answer, but the explanation
Are you not Entertained ?!?
At 9/9/14 12:45 AM, Xenomit wrote: Why it happens is irrelevant, how it happens is the only thing that really matters.
But why is it irrelevant ? If a curious mind wants to know the causation; then the reasoning behind such occurrences does become relevant.
Why anything ?
Whats the point ?
The ends to the means must be in some way necessary since supposedly EVERYTHING happens with reason
Are you not Entertained ?!?
At 9/8/14 11:44 PM, i-am-ghey wrote: You don't prove things in science. In scientific reasoning, you start with a hypothesis or a model and you demonstrate the hypothesis or model is an accurate enough description of a system under some assumptions or conditions. The model can be improved or rejected if new evidence is available.
This is different from a mathematical proof, where you deduce a conclusion from a set if axioms or previously proved theorems, regardless of whether the conclusion has relevance to our physical world. The conclusion derived from a mathematical proof is always true.
You can prove things in science but to do so you'd use the equivalent of a mathematical proof. Otherwise agree with what you wrote.
Although yes typically science is more concerned with useful models than absolute proofs, since, in practice, it can be impossible to absolutely prove many things.
At 9/8/14 11:02 PM, Xenomit wrote: Whether people want to admit it or not, it is. If we just kinda forgot about morals for a while, we'd make decades of scientific progress and make the world a much greater place.
You're a madman.
Happily ETS'd.
At 9/9/14 02:33 AM, NeonSpider wrote: You can prove things in science but to do so you'd use the equivalent of a mathematical proof.
Once you have a set of postulates, you can predict how a given physical system evolves through mathematics. But ultimately, the predictions derived from mathematical arguments have to be consistent with observations.
So, I won't say you can prove results in science because the conclusions you get from mathematics arguments depend on the fundamental postulates which are subjected to tests and refutation. But rather, mathematics ( "proof" or logical deduction) is only a language for science and not science itself.
Yes math isn't science but science uses math. There are some things you can prove and you do so using mathematical concepts.
Not sure why you're pulling all this out at me. I wasn't the one claiming science had "proved" unprovable things.
I guess someone found my calling people in this thread ignorant for their answers offensive and deleted my reply, so I will give more insight on why I believe so.
To understand a notion/concept you have to search for terms. That's what even all scientific fields do: construct terms and create relations between them.
a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws
systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.
any of the branches of natural or physical science.
Science is about acquiring knowledge. Knowledge valid beyond any doubt. Science's tools are logic, observation and formal presentation. Some fucktard in this thread, I don't care to look back to see who it was, felt the need to shove God in this, but I will leave this for a later reference.
Logic and observation are two concepts that can be practiced on and about the physical world only. Until now they have worked quite efficiently, but that doesn't mean they are necessarily all-applicable. Many science fields are founded on hypothetical logical models which most of the times cannot be contradicted by the tool of observation, so we end up calling those models valid and start making further progressions based on them.
And here comes the moral questions. Can those be answered by science? Is science here to decide what's moral and what's not, what's wrong and what's right? Philosophy is the study of values, but is philosophy a science? And furthermore, is science prove or disprove this claim? Logic and argumentation can, but these are not science. My point here is science can in no way answer questions on fundamental notions like morality, because these notions are based on no principles or axioms, their nature is uncertain, therefore they are not a subject for scientific study nor can we give answers beyond any doubt.
Now spiritual questions. Although my last paragraph kind of applies on this issue too, I choose to bring another point. What is our only tool to disprove spiritual concepts? Logic, most obviously. What are spiritual concepts though? What are they based on and what is their reason to exist? Spiritual concepts can be concluded just with the words of experimentation and faith. They exist, because logic can't explain everything or because logical is not the only attribute of humans. It's Russel's teapot. We cannot neither disprove nor prove how valid those concepts due to their nature. All we can do is take side on the matters. I will definitely agree with @vanilla-guerilla (bolding your name man so you don't have to read the whole thing, just the part I mention you). We have disproved spiritual concepts such as ghosts and near death experiences, "as we think of them". Exactly. Can anyone disprove that there isn't some sort of consciousness carrying energy of the dead roaming around in a dimension we cannot conceive? No. Because science attributes to physical world matters only.
TL;DR: Nope. The only answer to everything is... fourty fucking two point double zero. Period.
Bitte meine beliebte Nazi mods, keine bannerino, weil ich auch ein Nazi Scwein bin! Danke schön
At 9/9/14 06:10 AM, Reiska3 wrote: Yes
Good.
Like restarting your computer, science works 99.9% of the time
Judge my music taste! || Add me on Steam || Letterboxd
The description doesn't fit, if not a synonym of menace
Not everything, but quite a lot of things.
In the very distant future, maybe.
At 9/9/14 05:47 AM, SubparTony wrote: Some fucktard in this thread, I don't care to look back to see who it was, felt the need to shove God in this, but I will leave this for a later reference.
Wanna make something of it? It was relevant, especially considering the fact certain people were making baseless claims as to what all science could "prove" as it's the perfect counter-example. If you're going to side with such people's fallacious arguments, it's obvious you have more interest in "being right" (hint: if you take that stance you wouldn't be) than what science is actually capable of ascertaining.
And, no, don't jump to the fallacy that just because I said something can't be proven not to exist means it must exist. Not saying you were going in that direction, but I'm putting that there just in case.
And then you have some people arguing semantics in this thread as well. Essentially "That's not science because it's mathematics". Yeah, well science uses math, so they're not exactly entirely separate fields and a mathematical proof is scientifically valid.
At 9/9/14 09:03 AM, NeonSpider wrote: Yeah, well science uses math, so they're not exactly entirely separate fields and a mathematical proof is scientifically valid.
No. If you look at the definition of science, mathematical proof alone is not scientific because they are based on axioms that may not have anything to do with our world.
At 9/9/14 05:47 AM, SubparTony wrote: Can anyone disprove that there isn't some sort of consciousness carrying energy of the dead roaming around in a dimension we cannot conceive? No.
There is no need to 'disprove' that. Invisible pink unicorns do not exist.
Because science attributes to physical world matters only.
The only world there is.
"خيبر خيبر يايهود جيش محمد سوف يعود"
The scientific method is not the answer to all of life's important questions, It's a means to finding them in the most objective, critical way possible. It will not help you understand why you're living but it can help your understand how.
At 9/9/14 05:29 PM, Xenomit wrote:At 9/9/14 04:08 AM, Light wrote: It can't answer questions such as whether or not God exists(I know you think science can, but it never can. Seriously, you can't prove a negative if God doesn't exist
The difference between scientists and theists is theists start with a conclusion and then try to find evidence to support it. A scientist first gathers evidence and then tried to form a conclusion based on that. Science never has nor will it ever claim to prove or disprove a deity/deities because they're too busy smashing subatomic particles together in order to understand the mechanics of what happened in the planck time (10 exponent -43 seconds) that occured between the Big Bang (which is moving farther and farther away from simply being a theory as more evidence is gathered to support the conclusion that it did indeed happen) actually happening and the Universe rapidly cooling and settling.
