How Does Immutable Natural Law Align with Monotheistic Beliefs?

[Glenn]

"Anytime you see a turtle up on top of a fence post, you know he had some help" -Alex Haley


What would be the scientific approach to figuring out how the turtle got on top of the fence post?

Thanks,
Glenn

 

[Locrian]

You are asking to explain how the turtle got on top of the fence; the scientific method generates theories from hypothesis. Whether you can use the scientific method to explain how the turtle go there depends on whether your definition of "explains" is satisfied by a scientific theory. If not, then it doesn't apply (though I think you will encounter philosophical problems with that if you explore it fully).

If it does, then using the scientific method would simply mean developing a hypothesis of how he got there and doing observations of many turtles to see if it holds water.

 

[LURCH]

This looks like a good place to apply forensic science. Your theory might be that a person put the turtle on the fencepost. So an hypothesis based on that theory could be, "If a person put that turtle on that fencepost, then there will be human footprints in the soil around the fencepost". You can now proceed to experiment, which would consist of looking at the soil around the fencepost. During this experiment, you could possibly observe the footprints predicted by your theory. You now have one experimental observation in favor of the preferred theory.

From this, you could use the same methodology to follow the footprints (hypothesising that the person at the end of the trail of footprints is the person who made the same prints you saw at the fencepost), and find that they do indeed lead to a person. You could also ask that person if they put the turtle on the fencepost. You could smell their hands, reasoning that if they just put a turtle on a fencepost, their hands will smell like turtle.

Etc.

 

[wuliheron]

Don't forget to check the turtle for fingerprints and dna...

 

[Locrian]

And, in the spirits of our latest forensic tv shows, never turn on the lights!

 

[Royce]

Obviously even quantum leaps are relative for turtles. He/she/it tunneled up there as any other offer would be pure speculation.

 

[dekoi]

The scientific method is greatly flawed. One could prove a sceptic -- who believes the scientific method can prove anything -- wrong in a matter of a couple of words.

 

[Nereid]

The scientific method is greatly flawed. One could prove a sceptic -- who believes the scientific method can prove anything -- wrong in a matter of a couple of words.

In what sense is it 'greatly flawed'? The second sentence in your post suggests you are applying a quite inappropriate standard (e.g. 'the scientific method is flawed because it doesn't hum my favourite tune while I'm brushing my teeth')

 

[dekoi]

I would not say it is a matter of a subjective opinion. But modern society (especially secular humanists) rely too much on the scientific method. Some do not realize there is ways to substitute it (such as e.g. common sense, experience, intuition, insight, reasoning, or a trustable authority).

--

Person1: The scientific method is universal; it can prove anything."
Person2: Can you prove 'that' with the scientific method?"
Person1: Guess not.

therefore, scientific method proves to be fallible. Yes, the argument might seem slightly naive, yet its simple nature is excactly what makes it so interesting.

 

[HallsofIvy]

I would not say it is a matter of a subjective opinion. But modern society (especially secular humanists) rely too much on the scientific method. Some do not realize there is ways to substitute it (such as e.g. common sense, experience, intuition, insight, reasoning, or a trustable authority).

--

Person1: The scientific method is universal; it can prove anything."
Person2: Can you prove 'that' with the scientific method?"
Person1: Guess not.

therefore, scientific method proves to be fallible. Yes, the argument might seem slightly naive, yet its simple nature is excactly what makes it so interesting.

Looks equivalent to this argument: "I do not understand what the scientific method is, therefore it is invalid!"

I have never heard any scientist claim that "the scientific method is universal" (I'm not even sure what that means!). One of the first things I learned about the scientific method, and I am sure every scientist understands this, is that the scientific method cannot prove anything. What the scientific method does is disprove possible theories.

 

[Nereid]

I would not say it is a matter of a subjective opinion. But modern society (especially secular humanists) rely too much on the scientific method.

Doesn't that rather depend upon what they (or anyone else for that matter) expect? Irrespective of what some people might (or might not) hope to achieve using the scientific method, to damn *the method* for the misplaced hopes of some people is like saying 'the Sun is flawed because I am not yet as rich as Bill Gates'? Or perhaps I misunderstand you.

Some do not realize there is ways to substitute it (such as e.g. common sense, experience, intuition, insight, reasoning, or a trustable authority).

Hmm, let's see now ... these mushrooms look so nice, I'll bet they're delicious! What? By application of the scientific method you have determined that they contain a deadly poison and are fatal to humans, even if only one is eaten? Hogwash, my common sense, intuition, insight and so on tell me that something as nice-looking as these mushrooms can't possibly contain poison! So, I'll substitute those for your so-called 'scientific method' thank you.

--

Person1: The scientific method is universal; it can prove anything."

This is a joke, right? Where did you get the idea that the scientific method 'can prove anything'?

Person2: Can you prove 'that' with the scientific method?"
Person1: Guess not.

therefore, scientific method proves to be fallible. Yes, the argument might seem slightly naive, yet its simple nature is excactly what makes it so interesting.

Err, with respect, this fails even by 'reasoning' (one of your stated alternatives); showing something to be 'fallible' by defining it to be something quite different from what it is is surely a nonsense? I mean, isn't it similar to saying:
Person1: black is the smell of rotting flesh
Person2: Can't be, because I don't smell rotting flesh when I go outside on a moonless night
Person1: Guess not.

therefore, black proves to be not a smell.

 

[Locrian]

The scientific method is greatly flawed. One could prove a sceptic -- who believes the scientific method can prove anything -- wrong in a matter of a couple of words.

I do not think the scientific method is capable of proving what you suggest, and yet do not believe it is flawed at all. Using the definition of the scientific method, show how I am in any way wrong.

As has been pointed out, I think you have misdefined the scientific method, or at the least do not understand it's use.

 

[Artorius]

But modern society (especially secular humanists) rely too much on the scientific method.

This is most likely due to the fact that the methods of science work. Look around. It works. Secular humanists make a better choice when they select science over, o, let's say, ...religion... to explain the natural universe.

Some do not realize there is ways to substitute it (such as e.g. common sense, experience, intuition, insight, reasoning, or a trustable authority).

All the substitutions that are given here are ultimately found in the methods of science. There is no one scientific method, by the way. The "scientific method" taught in school is something of a misconception.

Science is really a set of methods, the application of which works towards the goal of explaining the natural universe using natural explanations. Common sense is part of it, but common sense alone does not yield accurate conclusions (e.g. Aristotle, the feather, and the hammer). Experience, intuition, and insight are greatly important. Intuition and insight are products of a good imagination, which Einstein declared to be more important than knowledge. However, some knowledge is necessary in order to begin any scientific progress, so trustable authority (e.g. the scientists who come before us) is important. Deductive and inductive reasoning acts as the glue that holds all the methods of science together and makes the results of science intelligible.

 

[wuliheron]

The over reliance on science is a compromise between the results people demand and the practical realities of how they can be achieved.

For example, although Skinnerian Behaviorism was a new science at the time, the US congress funded it heavily in the fifties. The reason was simple, it was the only existing psychology that could put hard numbers on it's research. When you start talking about hundreds of congressmen having to evaluate the value of research, they understandably demand hard numbers. Give all those lawyers anything other than hard numbers and hard facts, and the debate will never end.

Poor results or no results whatsoever, the public demands and pays for whatever it wants. A hundred years ago, that included public funding of eugenics research and phrenology, but the scientific community has since grown more beauracratically sauvy along with the rest of world. Turning your question on it's head, why doesn't society rely more on alternatives? Because the alternatives have frequently reinforced the uglier side of humanity. At least science strives for objectivity.

 

[dekoi]

I fully understand the scientific method. The unimportant questions are answered by science. Science can not answer the most important questions because its method does not allow it. Science is pure physical. Philosophy answers the questions which scence fails to answers in a valid, clear, definite way. What philosophy does not answer, theology answers. Each of these: science, philosophy, and theology, has its own way of answering questions. Its own 'method' if you will. You would not, for example, ask a physician to fix your car, because it is not his nature. You would ask a mechanic instead. Similarly, you would not ask a mechanical to perscribe you medicine. It is in no way, related to his method of work. Science is not sufficient enough for living a good life, and creating a good society. While humanity progresses, it realizes the questions which philosophy can answer, and those which science can. And when that is realized, the question will be sufficiently answered by a specific method. Science investigates. Philosophy does not. Philosophy goes beyond the senses. Science is trapped inside the senses and human experience. Science can only investigate the phenomenal world. Everything beyond, is in fact, beyond its comprehension.

Science is a means of producing. Philosophy does not produce anything at all. But knowledge is not only science. There is another use of knowledge. That use is philosphy. This philosophical knowledge directs us. Directs us towards the good; towards our meaning.

 

[arildno]

I fully understand the scientific method. The unimportant questions are answered by science. Science can not answer the most important questions because its method does not allow it. Science is pure physical. Philosophy answers the questions which scence fails to answers in a valid, clear, definite way. What philosophy does not answer, theology answers. Each of these: science, philosophy, and theology, has its own way of answering questions. Its own 'method' if you will. You would not, for example, ask a physician to fix your car, because it is not his nature. You would ask a mechanic instead. Similarly, you would not ask a mechanical to perscribe you medicine. It is in no way, related to his method of work. Science is not sufficient enough for living a good life, and creating a good society. While humanity progresses, it realizes the questions which philosophy can answer, and those which science can. And when that is realized, the question will be sufficiently answered by a specific method. Science investigates. Philosophy does not. Philosophy goes beyond the senses. Science is trapped inside the senses and human experience. Science can only investigate the phenomenal world. Everything beyond, is in fact, beyond its comprehension.

Science is a means of producing. Philosophy does not produce anything at all. But knowledge is not only science. There is another use of knowledge. That use is philosphy. This philosophical knowledge directs us. Directs us towards the good; towards our meaning.

Try to be more objective and accurate in your next analysis..

 

[Nereid]

I fully understand the scientific method. The unimportant questions are answered by science. Science can not answer the most important questions because its method does not allow it. Science is pure physical. Philosophy answers the questions which scence fails to answers in a valid, clear, definite way. What philosophy does not answer, theology answers. Each of these: science, philosophy, and theology, has its own way of answering questions. Its own 'method' if you will. You would not, for example, ask a physician to fix your car, because it is not his nature. You would ask a mechanic instead. Similarly, you would not ask a mechanical to perscribe you medicine. It is in no way, related to his method of work. Science is not sufficient enough for living a good life, and creating a good society. While humanity progresses, it realizes the questions which philosophy can answer, and those which science can. And when that is realized, the question will be sufficiently answered by a specific method. Science investigates. Philosophy does not. Philosophy goes beyond the senses. Science is trapped inside the senses and human experience. Science can only investigate the phenomenal world. Everything beyond, is in fact, beyond its comprehension.

Science is a means of producing. Philosophy does not produce anything at all. But knowledge is not only science. There is another use of knowledge. That use is philosphy. This philosophical knowledge directs us. Directs us towards the good; towards our meaning.

Using physics as a proxy for science and the scientific method, we have been having a really interesting discussion here in PF that is quite pertinent to your question dekoi - posters addressed these ideas and many more ... would you care to join that discussion?

 

[dekoi]

Thank you for aknowledging me about that thread. Had not seen it for some strange reason.

Arilndo, i do not see how my argument is at all subjective. Please be a little more precise. M.J. Adler wrote an interesting essay called 'Questions Science Cannot Answer". Have you read this?

 

[arildno]

1. You haven't given any evidence that philosophy&theology provides those "insights" they claim to possess/provide.
Hence, your analogy is shallow and inaccurate; it should rather be:
Just like you won't hire a quack to fix your car, neither would you trust him in giving you sound medical advice.
2."The unimportant questions are answered by science. "
This type of highly subjective, disgustingly arrogant comments is not appreciated.

 

[selfAdjoint]

2."The unimportant questions are answered by science. "
This type of highly subjective, disgustingly arrogant comments is not appreciated.

I don't see that statement as subjective or arrogant. Scientists freely state that there are questions science doesn't answer. For example why is there anything at all?

Some questions are not currently answered but may be in the future (or maybe not!). Evolutionists are firm in saying their science does not expain the origin of life, and there are competing theories of that, with no resolution in sight. Likewise there is no TEO in sight, to unify and explain the forces. The interpretation of quantum mechanics is also controversial, and research on the measurement problem just seems to go around in circles, adding more detail but going nowhere.

 

[arildno]

Eeh, is general relativity UNimportant?
Is the development of efficacious medicines unimportant?
Is curiosity about the world we live in unimportant?
Is rigourous thinking unimportant?

Possibly you and the poster think so, but that's your highly subjective view.

The dismissive tone in the phrase is a sign of arrogance.

 

[dekoi]

I'm sorry arildno if i sounded arrogant in my statement. But I do not see how my statement is anything remotely resembling a subjective statement. Perhaps your bias for science is causing you to say so. Do not mistake my reply; i highly respect science -- although i still believe it answers questions which are very unimportant compared to ones which philosophy attempts to answer. Not stating that the questions themselves are unimportant; only in comparison with philosophical questions do they become so.

 

[arildno]

With that modification, much better

However, I have yet to see any philosophy which has lived up to the grandiose task it has set itself.
To overestimate one's own abilities and overshoot is not a noble undertaking.

 

[dekoi]

Great writer Tolstoy answered a philosophical question in his book, "A Confession", which overviews his struggle to find the meaning of life. Personally, i see a tremendously important question such as that much more important that the cause of earthquakes, or the study of inertia.

 

[arildno]

Why do you think "unanswerable questions" are best answered by philosophy?
I've met hosts of ordinary folks who haven't read a single line of philosophy whose attitudes/answers to these questions seem far superior than those answers given in obscure, academic language.

That is, philosophy is a discipline which, IMO, fails miserably in what it proclaims:
To procure some superior knowledge on certain deep issues which cannot be gotten without studying philosophy
(Please note that in any other craft/science, the one educated in the discipline (for example a car mechanic or a doctor) do posses superior knowledge of his field than the non-specialist)

 

[dekoi]

Philosophy does not fail to answer its assigned questions; it just requires a much longer time that science does. Science is a practical methodology, philosophy is much more abstract reason and thinking. "Unanswerable questions" are not "best" answered by philosophy. There are unanswerable questions at this point and time, which will in time be answered by science and not philosophy. Contrary, there are other unanswerable questions which philosophy will answer before science. Science and philosophy are two completely distinct subjects of study -- each answering its own catgegorized questions.

 

[Nereid]

Philosophy does not fail to answer its assigned questions; it just requires a much longer time that science does.

How much longer?

Science is a practical methodology, philosophy is much more abstract reason and thinking. "Unanswerable questions" are not "best" answered by philosophy. There are unanswerable questions at this point and time, which will in time be answered by science and not philosophy. Contrary, there are other unanswerable questions which philosophy will answer before science. Science and philosophy are two completely distinct subjects of study -- each answering its own catgegorized questions.

Has philosophy changed in its domain of applicability, over the last (say) 5,000 years? Is it not true that both science and philosophy, as we understand them and use the terms today, are quite recent social constructs?

(I've a whole line of new questions, depending on how these two are answered!)

 

[Artorius]

Science and philosophy are two completely distinct subjects of study -- each answering its own catgegorized questions.

It may be more accurate to consider science as a subset of philosophy or a type of philosophy (it used to be called natural philosophy 'til the 1800's). Philosophy is more general and can ask any question, whereas science is limited to questions related to the natural universe. Questions related to the natural universe have the potential of empirical verification or falsification, which is a cornerstone leading to progress in science. Philosophical questions do not have this limitation, although there are verification/falsification techniques there too, mainly related to the use of good reasoning or logic.

 

[dekoi]

Artorius
I partially agree Artorius. I sometimes think philosophy is just a general term, in which science branches. Although after some reading, i have reasoned my way out of this argument. Philosophy and science are based on different types of (not sure of the right word) experimentation. Philosophy on deep reason, and science purely on experiment and observation of the senses. Sure, in the 1800's (as you say so) they might have considered this differently, yet time has changed, and terms have as well.

--

Nereid

How much longer?

It all depends on the question. Some philosophers spend their entire life searching for an answer. Others do not. It all depends on how carefully, patiently, and deep you search for an answer.

Has philosophy changed in its domain of applicability, over the last (say) 5,000 years? Is it not true that both science and philosophy, as we understand them and use the terms today, are quite recent social constructs?

Perhaps philosophy and science were perceived differently 5000 years ago, yet that does not mean they have at all changed their domain of applicability. You have to understand philosophy, as well as science, were discovered by humanity. They were not created by humanity. (And although many will say this is purely subjective, i tend to disagree). Therefore, although our perception of them has changed, their nature has remained the same.

 

[Nereid]

Nereid

It all depends on the question. Some philosophers spend their entire life searching for an answer. Others do not. It all depends on how carefully, patiently, and deep you search for an answer.

Well, a good understanding of how the Sun generates so much heat and light required patience considerably beyond one lifetime ... depending on how you understand the term 'science' (and I see from later in your post that you seem to have a very long term view), well over 5,000 years!

Perhaps philosophy and science were perceived differently 5000 years ago, yet that does not mean they have at all changed their domain of applicability.

You're joking, right? The origin and evolution of the universe? The nature of eclipses, stars and comets? The origins of the mammal Homo sap.? The causes of disease, weather, earthquakes? If I am not mistaken, most of these have come into the domain of science only in the last 500 years or so (and the origin of the universe, only the last 100 or so)

You have to understand philosophy, as well as science, were discovered by humanity. They were not created by humanity. (And although many will say this is purely subjective, i tend to disagree).

So how do you demonstrate that these have an existence, independent of the brains of one mammal among millions?

Therefore, although our perception of them has changed, their nature has remained the same.

And, in a few words, can you describe that invariant nature?

 

[dekoi]

You are continuing to return to the notion that science was at some point and time, philosophy. Science is in no way related to philosophy.

If you do not mind, let me suggest my reply to the thread "Can Everything be Reduced to Pure Physics" in Metaphysics and Epistemology. It outlines the general differences between science and philosophy.

--
Science is believed to be a means to give reason for once unexplainable phenomenon. It promises validity and preciseness. Some even state that science is an omnipotent method, which lives in the foreground of knowledge. It is beyond philosophy, as philosophy only lives in its unnoticed shadow, theorizing what science promises to eventually prove. The arisen conflict is not the dispute of science as a means of knowledge, but its claim to be an omnipotent source of this knowledge. Perhaps, it is the origin of scientific knowledge, but certainly not knowledge altogether. Since scientific knowledge only proves the most naïve and minor questions – which might at that certain moment, seem like enormously important ones --- while philosophy is a completely distinct method; a method which explains what science cannot.

The importance of philosophy should not be ignored. It is of course, greatly ignored in our civilization. Though, the most previous statement is ignored as well. It is difficult to communicate such messages to such narrow minded humans – who have devoted their entire life to one methodology of knowledge. These “automata” have been programmed by everything ranging from their education system to their media’s commandments. Once children who believe in epistemology as a synonym for scientific explanation, now are completely independent adults, who adapt to this perverse notion of complete scientific knowledge.

The universe is complex beyond our comprehension. The most intelligent of our civilization have been stuck in dazed state, where everything seems to be designed for something else in this infinite universe-puzzle, yet simultaneously, nothing seems to be related to anything else. The world appears strangely interconnected and disconnected at the same instant; scientific knowledge creates this perception. These people have failed to realize what is already in our nature. They have not understood, and therefore appreciated, human’s quest and hunger for knowledge; and not only scientific, but universal knowledge. Intellect which could explain the reason for Mars’s atmosphere, just as well as it could give meaning to our lives. Scientific, as well philosophical and theological knowledge is what we have been gifted with in our own human nature.

We can not use the same principle to explain the universe. Just as we could not live a life solely on one certain, specific principle. We need a combination of methods. One can not explain life using only the scientific method; nor only theology, or only philosophy. It is a combination of these which demonstrates the complex nature of the universe. Physics (or more generally, 'science',) is a simple tool, used to describe simple situations. It is productive – in fact, the most productive of anything known to humans. Yet philosophy allows us to produce knowledge beyond the scientific. We become aware of not only our external, physical surrounding and of specific occurrences and objects, but of our general meaning. The unimportant questions are answered by science. Science can not answer the most important questions because its method does not allow it. Science is pure physicality. Philosophy answers the questions which science fails to answers in a valid, clear, definite way. What philosophy does not answer, theology does. Each of these: science, philosophy, and theology, has its own way of answering questions. Its own 'method' if you will. You would not, for example, ask a physician to fix your car, because it is not his field of knowledge. You would ask a mechanic instead. Similarly, you would not ask a mechanic to prescribe you medicine. It is in no way, related to his method of work. Science is not sufficient enough for living a good life, and creating a good society. While humanity progresses, it realizes the questions which philosophy can answer, and those which science can. When that is realized, the question will be sufficiently answered by a specific method. Science investigates. Philosophy does not. Science is trapped inside the senses and human experience. Philosophy goes beyond the senses, and travels into the realms of reason and profound thought. Science can only investigate the phenomenal world. Everything beyond, is in fact, beyond its comprehension.

We should not look at philosophy as a shadow of physics or science. Philosophy is not the means of answering questions which science, in time, will answer anyway. We must come to realize they are two completely distinct methods of human intelligence. We do not philosophize and then use science to explain our philosophy. Science only attempts to answer what philosophy states. Similarly, philosophy sometimes attempts to answer what science can. "There is no dialogue between them".

Science is a means of producing. Philosophy does not produce anything at all. But knowledge is not only science. There is another use of knowledge. That use is philosophy. This philosophical knowledge directs us – directs us towards the good; towards our meaning. “The utility of science is production, and the utility of philosophy is direction.” Consequently, religion gives us the grace and faith to follow the directions with.
---

Well, a good understanding of how the Sun generates so much heat and light required patience considerably beyond one lifetime ... depending on how you understand the term 'science' (and I see from later in your post that you seem to have a very long term view), well over 5,000 years!

As i said earlier, scientific questions and philosophical ones do not relate in general terms.
If that theory took beyond a lifetime to produce, that only suggests that a philosophical theory of similar magnitute would take even longer.

You're joking, right? The origin and evolution of the universe? The nature of eclipses, stars and comets? The origins of the mammal Homo sap.? The causes of disease, weather, earthquakes? If I am not mistaken, most of these have come into the domain of science only in the last 500 years or so (and the origin of the universe, only the last 100 or so)

Therefore, although our perception of them has changed, their nature has remained the same.

And, in a few words, can you describe that invariant nature?

Natural Law.
:: Every object has a purpose. Everything/Anything is somehow fitting for something else. A woman and a male for example. Everything about the two seems to be interconnected. They seem to be complete when united. This is an example of the natural law. E.g. It is our purpose to unite with the opposite gender. Philosophy has a purpose. As well as science. We discover this purpose over time. This "purpose" has never changed. Only our understanding of it has.

 

[selfAdjoint]

It's not very useful to use philosophical categories to criticize the discoveries of 19th century science - which is most of the every day physics and chemistry we know as nonspecialists. That is all so established and cut and dried and proved six ways from Sunday that it's a fool's errand to attack it or try to replace it from first principles. Besides, all the best philosophers of the past attacked it vigorously, with no effect.

To critique things like quantum field theory or string theory from a philosophical perspective is more doable, and though it requires a considerable investment in education there are some useful voices doing that. Just as there are mathematical physicists there could usefully be philosophical physicists, but I warn you, just like the former, the latter would be dry as dust and technical to a fault. Mathematical physicists pride themelves that their work is more rigorous than that of the ordinary physicists. I suppose the pride of the philosophical physicists would be that their categories are more sharply defined and clearly stated.

 

[Artorius]

Science is believed to be a means to give reason for once unexplainable phenomenon. It promises validity and preciseness.

The conclusions of science are neither completely valid nor precise, but are tentative. The progression of science may travel towards greater validity or precision, but this is not a guarantee. Science can promise that it will change over time, which is expected.

Since scientific knowledge only proves the most naïve and minor questions

It is difficult to communicate such messages to such narrow minded humans – who have devoted their entire life to one methodology of knowledge.

The most intelligent of our civilization have been stuck in dazed state, where everything seems to be designed for something else in this infinite universe-puzzle

Perhaps this is not the sort of rhetoric to present to an audience consisting mostly of scientists, ex-scientists, science educators, or people who like science?

The universe is complex beyond our comprehension.

The universe is comprehensible* and the principles that govern the universe are known to a high degree of accuracy. Hence our ability to manipulate matter and energy on an unprecedented scale.

(*I like the Einstein quote: "The most incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it is entirely comprehensible.")

Philosophy does not produce anything at all.

I don't think philosophy produces nothing, hence, what would be the point? Philosophy produces interesting debates , different perspectives and insights, changes in behaviors and attitudes, and changes in public policy.

 

[Locrian]

I fully understand the scientific method.

After reviewing your posts in this thread, it is clear you do not fully understand the scientific method. If you did, you would not have made statements that suggest those using the scientific method believe it can prove anything or that the scientific method is universal in its ability to prove anything. This misconception of yours is deeply troubling because not only is it based upon a serious error (pointed out by several on the first page), but it suggests everyone else makes the same error.

Other severe errors are made in the last post. At no time would I ever suggest science is believed to give reason for once unexplainable phenomenon. You give no reason for making this statement. You state that science is an omnipotent method, without ever giving a reason why it is believed to be such. I certainly would never say it was, and know of no one else who does. You state that the universe is beyond our comprehension, but provide no evidence of such.

In the end, you have consistently made the same error throughout both threads; you have a grand misconception of the scientific method and the knowledge it produces, and assume everyone else does as well.

We do not.

 

[arildno]

" Science can not answer the most important questions because its method does not allow it. Science is pure physicality. Philosophy answers the questions which science fails to answers in a valid, clear, definite way. What philosophy does not answer, theology does. Each of these: science, philosophy, and theology, has its own way of answering questions. Its own 'method' if you will. You would not, for example, ask a physician to fix your car, because it is not his field of knowledge. You would ask a mechanic instead. Similarly, you would not ask a mechanic to prescribe you medicine. It is in no way, related to his method of work. Science is not sufficient enough for living a good life, and creating a good society. "

Yet again you perpetuate this silly and inaccurate analogy, dekoi. Stop it!

"Philosophy does not. Science is trapped inside the senses and human experience. Philosophy goes beyond the senses, and travels into the realms of reason and profound thought. Science can only investigate the phenomenal world. Everything beyond, is in fact, beyond its comprehension.
"
This arrogant nonsense is beneath comment.

 

[wuliheron]

Science is not purely physicality, science deals with the demonstrable. If it can't be repeated and demonstrated, it ain't science. This is true for christian scientists as well as the most skeptical scientist. For a christian scientist, what is written in the Bible can be demonstrated repeatedly while for a skeptical scientist quantum mechanics can be demonstrated repeatedly, whether it ultimately has any "physical" cause or not.

 

[dekoi]

And would the "demonstrable" not be physical? If it is repeated and demonstrated, is it not physical?

arildno, your post simply stated that i made an arrogant reply, with no arguments whatsoever. Would it not be much more practical to PM me and tell me that? Is the point of replies to share knowledge with others, or to give titles to specific members?

 

[Nereid]

And would the "demonstrable" not be physical? If it is repeated and demonstrated, is it not physical?

It's an interesting question dekoi!

How does one go about doing research on the subjective experiences of other humans? By asking them to make some kind of report of their experiences while at the same time watching the dials and gauges of the incredibly sophisticated equipment that monitors their brains as they report! (I'm sure you'll agree that humans' subjective experiences are entirely within their brains).

But, to turn your question around, how can convey anything whatsoever about your subjective experiences (e.g. talking with a non-physical entity) except by a physical medium? Indeed, how do I know you even exist, except via my computer screen and the internet? (not to mention any of your ideas!)

Not to belabour the point too much, if you claim there is something 'non-physical', or 'non-demonstratable', the only way you have to tell anyone else about it is through physical means, and then at least some aspects of your 'non-physical' experiences have been captured in physical form, and are amenable to study by the scientific method.

 

[dekoi]

Good point Nereid.

Although you would agree that the essence of metaphysical or philosophical knowledge is still missing -- if you discuss is with someone else via physical means. However, i do understand your point, and it is worth noting.

 

[arildno]

1.Again, you choose not to address the fact that your analogy is simply innaccurate.
2. As for arrogant nonsense, look at your wording concerning science and philosophy respectively.

 

[russ_watters]

Perhaps philosophy and science were perceived differently 5000 years ago, yet that does not mean they have at all changed their domain of applicability. You have to understand philosophy, as well as science, were discovered by humanity. They were not created by humanity. (And although many will say this is purely subjective, i tend to disagree). Therefore, although our perception of them has changed, their nature has remained the same.

I share Nereid's objection and let me expand with my take on it:

IMO, you fundamentally misunderstand what "science" and "philosophy" are. It seems from what you have said that you might define science as 'the set of laws that governs how our physical universe operates.' But that's wrong. Science is the search for the set of laws that governs how our physical universe operates. Similarly, philosophy is also a method of searching for answers, not a set of answers in itself.

The difference may seem subtle, but its extrordinarily important. It means, among other things, that science didn't even exist in a coherent form before about 500 years ago (or, at least, nowhere near its modern form). Aristotle called his work "natural philosophy" and I consider that accurate: it was philosophy, not science. And where Aristotle's work has been largely discarded as not scientific (not just wrong - Newton was wrong, but we still use his work because it was scientific), a large part of what used to be philosophy has now been completely taken over by science. The reason for this, of course, is that philosophy developed first and for a while, it was the only way to approach a search for knowledge.

This gradual takeover happened quite simply because philosophy gives wrong answers to questions about what is going on in the physical world. And for the parts of philosophy that science hasn't helped solidify, the answers are all subjective.

On this board and others, I have seen a one-way confict between science and philosophy, with philosophers attacking science in an effort to keep it from intruding on the domain of philosophy. But this is futile. As Nereid noted (and I'll expand), virtually anything that can be written down or recorded in any way can be studied scientifically. This doesn't leave a whole lot of room for philosophy.

But I did say its largely a one-way conflict: though a few scientists have delved into those questions that remain unanswerable (why are we here?), most scientists (for now) are content to just let them go and leave them to philosophers.

 

[selfAdjoint]

Three guys who did science in Greek antiquity:

Aristarchus (measured distance of sun and moon)
Eratosthenes (measured size of earth)
Hipparchus (discovered precession of equinoxes)
Archimedes (developed laws of floating bodies)

 

[Locrian]

I have been fearfully mislead concerning the definition of three!



Just playing!

 

[russ_watters]

Three[4] guys who did science in Greek antiquity:

Aristarchus (measured distance of sun and moon)
Eratosthenes (measured size of earth)
Hipparchus (discovered precession of equinoxes)
Archimedes (developed laws of floating bodies)

Fair enough. Would it be fair though, to say that while a few people did practice what can be considered "science" prior to the Renaissance, it didn't really exist as a coherent/preferred methodology for investigating physical phenomena until then?

 

[wuliheron]

And would the "demonstrable" not be physical? If it is repeated and demonstrated, is it not physical?

arildno, your post simply stated that i made an arrogant reply, with no arguments whatsoever. Would it not be much more practical to PM me and tell me that? Is the point of replies to share knowledge with others, or to give titles to specific members?

The demonstrable by definition influences the physical, but need not be physical in and of itself. Again, if quantum mechanics is utterly random and without physical cause, this can be demonstrated but only by observing the physical itself. If light is "pure" energy (whatever that means!) it can only be demonstrated to be pure energy because of its interactions with what we call the physical.

 

[Nereid]

Fair enough. Would it be fair though, to say that while a few people did practice what can be considered "science" prior to the Renaissance, it didn't really exist as a coherent/preferred methodology for investigating physical phenomena until then?

It's possibly more accurate to say that elements of what we call science today can be observed in almost all groups throughout history (and pre-history), whenever enough time and effort is put into the study (by modern anthropologists, ethnobotanists, historians, etc). The discovery and use of plants for medicinal purposes may be an example. The historical and intellectual roots of today's 'science' do include a lot from the Renaissance. What methods were used, how well codified they were, in what domains they were employed, how systematic an approach was used, ... these are all fascinating dimensions to explore in HPS.

 

[selfAdjoint]

Fair enough. Would it be fair though, to say that while a few people did practice what can be considered "science" prior to the Renaissance, it didn't really exist as a coherent/preferred methodology for investigating physical phenomena until then?

I don't think it existed as a coherent methodology until the nineteenth century. Before that experiment was catch-as-catch-can, and really not different in kind from what Archimedes did. Theory was a branch of mathematics.

BTW I used the htrae-retnuoc mrof snamuh drawckab definition of three in my earlier post. ;)

 

[russ_watters]

Sounds reasonable. Different societies leaned in different directions - some more towards religion, some more towards philosophy/science, some with mixtures. This may just be the anthropic principle (it didn't because it didn't), but I wonder why science never coagulated into its current form before modern times? It seems the Greeks were close. I wonder why it didn't happen for them - perhaps its Aristotle's fault...?

I only took one "history of science" course in college and it was really interesting. I'd like to know more...

 

[arildno]

Sounds reasonable. Different societies leaned in different directions - some more towards religion, some more towards philosophy/science, some with mixtures. This may just be the anthropic principle (it didn't because it didn't), but I wonder why science never coagulated into its current form before modern times? It seems the Greeks were close. I wonder why it didn't happen for them - perhaps its Aristotle's fault...?

I only took one "history of science" course in college and it was really interesting. I'd like to know more...

My own pet theory as to why the Greeks and the Romans did not develop science beyond craftmanship (in which they excelled on many areas), is as follows:
1. In order to dispassionately observe the natural world over long periods of time and devising theories about it, it has been, for most times, been necessary to
a) be financially independent.
Sartre once said "philosophy is luxury", it is no less true of scientific research.
b) Be mentally inclined to do so; in particular, not vesting most of your intellectual powers into enhancing your social prestige, for example.

2. Now, the culture in which aristocrats grew up in Greece and Rome was extremely focused on getting the young noblemen into social forums and vying for positions(and to spend their life in service of the fatherland, if you will).
Rich individuals who didn't bother with politics where generally frowned upon, and called 'idiots' in Greek.
Hence, at the outset, it should be expected to be only an extremely tiny group of "gentlemen" who might develop what we call science.
(The seeds of science was certainly present, but more like knowledge within a specific craft, like the smith's knowledge of metals.)

3. So what's different later on?
What happened in Christian medieval culture is rather unique:
The development of monasteries meant that a host of intelligent men lived outside the "normal world", and a "life in meditation" was no longer uniformly looked down upon, but to some extent, admired.
The idea that a "life in meditation" could be a worthy life was thereby born, and hence, in a later, less superstitious age, a larger percentage of "men with means" might regard a life spent in meditation of the natural world as worthwhile than what was true in Greece and Rome
(where the "nobility of meditation" would, in general, have been laughed off as an idea stemming from dreamers and idiots )

 

[Chronos]

The philosophy of art has always about expressing concepts in geometrical terms. Science has followed that path.