Science, Epistemology and Debating Creationists.

[greenelf12]

I aggree with Socrates I know, I know nothing too. :o)

[Anekantavad]

@greenelf12 I have studied history all my life, and it has led me to consider who in history I would probably actually like to meet. Socrates and St Francis of Asisi (or at least the people that have come down to us in the history books) pretty much top the bill. "History" produces precious few Nice Guys (or Gals), but I think Socrates would probably have charmed me no end :-)

[wimsweden]

Isn't this where Occam's razor could come in? I hope I'm using it right, but via these basic scientific assumptions we've developed e.g the science of engineering which allows us to build flying machines. So, the assumptions lead to results and are thereby validated. What does the assumption of a god or other supernatural stuff add to that? You may argue for psychol. or soc. benefits, but those aren't inherent to any one religion, they appear in multiple social organisations, incl. secular ones.

[Anekantavad]

@wimsweden I agree with you, but building an electric lamp may tell us what electricity can be harnessed to do, but it can't tell us anything at all about what electricity actually is. Occam's Razor can help us manipulate that which is around us, but it can't educate us as to the ultimate reality around us.

I'm certainly lot arguing for god or the supernatural. I am rather applying skepticism to science, and the results have so far been very interesting to me :-)

[wimsweden]

@Anekantavad

Sure, "die Welt an sich" is different from "die Welt für mich", but the fact that we can control and manipulate the world "out there" to such an incredible extent via science would seem to tell us that that model of reality is a closer understanding of it than that of any religion (the gap bewteen the "an sich" and "für mich" is not as wide so to say). I think the skepticism you apply to science, is what is called the philosophy of science.

[Anekantavad]

@wimsweden I agree. I put this in the context of "debating creationists" because it often seems to me that people are rather quick to sneer at the "silliness" of the religious, when their own faith in science is IMO just as questionable. Questions that science can't answer, it's adherents simply say "That's not my department" or the equivalent.

[theepsilon2010]

Also, this argues why science isn't the answer to everything. This naive belief in science stems from the first part, that we attain knowledge through the five senses. Thus, the method that studies our experiences (5 senses) is surely the best and the only reliable one. However, we ignore our intellect, which can reason, which in fact justifies and logically concludes why the scientific method works in the first place. In fact, you will find the scientific method cannot even prove itself.

[Anekantavad]

@theepsilon2010 I agree. I am not of course saying we throw science down the sink, but somplete reliance upon it (IOW simple observation) will only get us so far and relies on certain "shortcuts" that in the end become the central flaws (or perhaps "unknowns") that have the effect of undermining the whole's integrity.

[theepsilon2010]

I'm using a bit of Aristotle's reasoning here, but, we know that things exist by our intellect, which exists in our mind. Thus, that which constitutes reality is that which we identify via our 5 senses. However, our intellect is able to reason and judge and make conclusions of what it experiences, and thus it is able to philosophize & reason about what it experiences rather than just seeing what it experiences. These two components justify why reality exists and why we judge & understand it

[theepsilon2010]

I liked the beginning of your video but I have to say that the direction you took from your initial premise that "perhaps science cannot answer everything" may have taken to a more solipsistic direction than you may have thought (the comment by @owchywawa is something along those lines).

Criticisms of positivism, the idea that science can answer all things, will ward off your initial premise. However, this agnosticism about ALL that we experience is nonsensical. I will explain in 2nd comment

[Anekantavad]

@theepsilon2010 I won't say that we can't be sure of anything we experience, but I tend to think we can't be 100% sure of it since our experiences are themselves passed through the filters of our imperfect senses. This means that our perceptions are distorted, but not 100% inaccurate.

[macwild1234]

This is true. I never really understood time as a "thing". Time just seems to be when one molecule moves from point A to point B...it just takes up the medium of time (and space). I never really understood how time gets "warped", but I really do not know anything about physics ( even less than Socrates would have me know: :p )

[Anekantavad]

@macwild1234 Physics was my worst subject in high school. I had a horribly boring teacher, but I also don't really have a head for it. To me, however, this is less a matter to be studied empirically than something to be logically deduced. The ancients didn't have electron microscopes, but they figured out atoms just by using their reason.

[MattressGallery]

@Anekantavad

The ancients made thousands of hilariously wrong arguments about physics, including the idea that heavier objects fall faster than lighter ones of the same size/shape. It is only through dumb luck that they happened to be right about the atom, and they were still wrong in the end. The atom is NOT the smallest possible particle of matter.

It appears to me that you know nothing about science, and even less about philosophy, and are thus utterly unqualified to speak on this subject.

[Anekantavad]

@MattressGallery Very odd that you've wasted so much ink on someone so utterly unqualified :-)

[owchywawa]

It seems the question you are asking is. why should we trust that the material world exists? It exist in relation to our senses, but beyond that we cannot know. So, how can we know the material world exists any more than we know God exists? Perhaps this is where the theist claims he has faith that God exists while the materialists has faith that the material exists and you're the agnostic in the middle. Am I on the right track?

[Anekantavad]

@owchywawa You are indeed on the right track. I answer the entire thing with "I don't know". The whole thing is an enigma to me, but I am not terribly worried about it. Hawking and Einstein are, as I said, were on that very page long before I ever got there, so I don't feel so disoriented by being here :-)

[nanoduckling]

Keep in mind there is a distinction between science as a method, science as an epistemology and scientism . Science as a method makes no assumptions in the same way that cake recipes make no assumptions. It also makes no promises, you project promises on to it due to past successes. Science as an epistemology does make assumptions but most people would accept those assumptions as reasonable. Scientism is just asinine.

[Anekantavad]

@nanoduckling It seems to me that you are saying that science is a process that seeks solutions to dilemmas, which will almost certainly lead to new problems. Is that correct?

As far as accepting assumptions as reasonable, this seems to imply that knowledge is a question of a show of hands. If Truth is that which seems reasonable to most people, I am afraid we're back to Socrates and the cup of hemlock.

[Kuba022]

Main difference between science and all the "isms" is that science isn't afraid of the words: "we don't know" and "we were wrong".

Of course there are gaps in knowledge, but we try to figure them out. We don't fill the gaps with bullshit answers (like "god did it"). Furthermore science is self correcting, so our understanding is getting better and better.

Scientific description of reality isn't perfect, but nonetheless it is the best, most accurate description we have.

[Anekantavad]

@Kuba022 But saying "science is better than fantasy" doesn't say anything other than as a comparison between science and fantasy. It says nothing at all about what both systems are attempting to do; ie explain reality.

And as far as science's accuracy, how do we know that it is accurate at all? How do we check without resorting to unknowns like time, space, mass, etc? We're going around in circles, I am afraid.

[Kuba022]

@Anekantavad But we have definitions of space, time, mass, as well as other physical quantities. For example, we know what space is, in the sense that we know what it does, what are it's properties, how it behaves, how to measure it, etc. Maybe it's a language barrier, but I don't get what's your point here. What are you trying to argue? That science is like faith? Can you clarify that a little bit?

[Anekantavad]

@Kuba022 When I say that we don't know what space is, I mean that we don't know what it is apart from its relation to everything else. Problem is, Everything Else is "known" in the same way. It's a circular argument that theists seem to put this way:

Q: Where did Everything come from?

A: God created everything.

Q: Fair enough. So what is god?

A: God is the creator of the universe.

We can't describe time, space, mass etc except in relation to each other. Assumptions again. Faith.

[Kuba022]

@Anekantavad We live within our reality, and we gather knowledge about it using tools which are part of it... but I don't see it as a problem.

Apart of "everything else" the terms "space" or "time" are meaningless. Luckily we don't have to worry about "what would time be without space". It's irrelevant because reality consists of both.

[Kuba022]

Science is about gathering knowledge, and organizing it into testable laws and theories. Yes, there are limits to what we can know at the moment, but in what way does that make science any less valid?

We don't have to know what time is in an abstract, philosophical sense. We can measure it, we can describe it, we can figure out how it behaves in relation to everything else. It's a solid base to build on.

[Anekantavad]

@Kuba022 You may not see it as a problem, and for the record, neither do I. But this isn't the same thing as knowing anything, is it? We're still not sure of anything, and that's why I dragged Socrates and his admitted lack of knowledge into this. Hawking started "A Brief History of Time" with pretty much the same admission; ie that we can only guess at things, and that tomorrow our present "science" may seem like so much mumbo-jumbo, with the process infinitely repeating itself.

[Kuba022]

@Anekantavad If you don't see it as a problem, then were did this came from: "I think that [science and faith] are just two ways of attempting to [...] make sense of existence. But both have their problems".

I'm trying to figure out what is the problem that you see with science. Maybe I can address it.

[Anekantavad]

@Kuba022 The problem I have with science is that it eventually contradicts itself, or at least fails to go past a certain point. Infinite regress inevitably kicks in, making nonsense of any solid base upon which to base our asumptions or "knowledge" of anything. I said that I don't see this as a problem, but only in a practical sense. I at least try to be like Socrates in that I try to be conscious of the amount I don't know. This does not lead me to confused paralysis. Quite the opposite.

[brownbigb]

@Anekantavad you're trying to be like socrates? are you gonna cease to exist?

[Anekantavad]

@brownbigb Heh heh ... maybe. Some people probably wish I'd treat myself to a double hemlock on the rocks, but I'm not quite that thirsty yet :-)

[brownbigb]

@Anekantavad :) i was refering to the fact that he probably was imaginary.

[Anekantavad]

@brownbigb Gotcha! Well, Mr Spock is imaginary, but he had a profound influence on my mind at a very formative stage as well :-)

[Kuba022]

@Anekantavad Knowledge has limitations, and epistemology helps us understand what these limitations are, but I don't think it says what you think it says. I don't see science as contradicting itself, and I think Socrates didn't either. To me this particular problem seems to be artificial, however I get your point. I see how science could be interpreted as contradictory, but I disagree with that interpretation. I think we are on the same page here.

[Anekantavad]

@Kuba022 Probably. And as I just said to theepsilon2010, I am definitely not saying that we can safely throw science in the scrap heap. Like food, we need it to simply exist in the material universe and stay alive, but like food, it isn't life itself.

[MoonlitKnight81]

Faved.....very thought provoking.

[Anekantavad]

@MoonlitKnight81 Thanks!

[kaminarigaston]

It is explained and it is going over your head. Science is operational knowledge. That's the only knowledge that you can objectify and you can, by testing, get some degree of certainty.

[Anekantavad]

@kaminarigaston I am afraid that that isn't anything new to me, but it still doesn't solve the epistemological dilemma. You seem to be stating that observation coupled with trial and error results in knowledge. Unfortunately there are innumerable things that cannot be known in this way, even though they are things we talk about and use all the time. Like time, space, mass etc. What are these things?

[kaminarigaston]

@Anekantavad

"You seem to be stating that observation coupled with trial and error results in knowledge"

I'm stating that observation coupled with trial and error results in the only kind of knowledge that we have reason to rely on.

"Unfortunately there are innumerable things that cannot be known in this way,"

There is no other way to KNOW things, so that's a shame. But still, there is no other way to KNOW things.

[Anekantavad]

@kaminarigaston You say that there is no other way to know things, yet you do not disagree that we don't know what time, space etc are. Once again, you are not saying anything I disagree with, and it actually underlines my point on the limits of knowledge.

PS: Why do you say that there is no other way to know anything when we don't know anything (absolutely) anyway?

[kaminarigaston]

@Anekantavad

Science is a complicated process but you could fairly summarize it by saying that the scientific method means "checking". You are saying that because science can't check if certain things are true, then it has limitations. I agree with you so far. But I think that you are implying that, since science can't do it there is other way. And I can't say that I agree with that, what would be a method different from checking, NOT checking? That would have all the pitfalls and no advantages

[Anekantavad]

@kaminarigaston I don't see how we can check an answer unless we have an answer. What is time? What is mass? What is space? etc. Science has no answers to these questions, since they are merely constructs of the mind that enable us to measure things that would make no sense otherwise. This does not prove that these constructs exist, and without them, science is meaningless. Science needs building blocks, and questioning these building blocks themselves creates problems science cannot solve.

[kaminarigaston]

@Anekantavad

"how we can check an answer unless we have an answer"

Yes, that's truth to a certain point. The thing is nature doesn't always answer what we scientists expect, and constructs are constantly replaced with other constructs that just WORK BETTER.

"Science needs building blocks, and questioning these building blocks themselves creates problems science cannot solve"

I'm sure you meant problems that NOTHING can solve.

[Anekantavad]

@kaminarigaston Constructs that work better. Hmmm. Not so sure what that is supposed to mean, as what in this context is "work"? It looks to me as though we're back describing what things do or what attributes they have as opposed to saying or proving what they are. We may switch tools as much as we like, but that is all we are doing.

As far as problems that nothing can solve, I said what I said. When science cannot solve a problem that it itself creates, what does that say about science?

[kaminarigaston]

@Anekantavad

"we're back describing what things do or what attributes they have as opposed to saying or proving what they are. "

And what is the meaning of being then? If something is not the way it exists, then what is it? Things can exist or not exist. If they exist, they must exist in some manner of form. "Being" to me is the conceptualization of the way something exist, and it would be summarized by its attributes and what they do. I still don't understand what you mean by "being".

[Anekantavad]

@kaminarigaston What does existence itself mean? Bingo. You see the problem here, don't you? And you see why the Oracle thought Socrates so very wise. He alone (or at least goes the story) knew that "reality" eventually ran off all known maps.

[kaminarigaston]

@Anekantavad

What does existence itself mean? That we are having this conversation. You still didn't tell me what you mean by "ultimately being" and how an epistemology can have access to more or different knowledge by not-checking. All the problems that you say that science can't cope, they are not privy to science. But science has an advantage (cont.)

[kaminarigaston]

@Anekantavad

Person A says there's a rabbit in the box, person B says there's not. They both have confidence in their ideas and are willing to change their minds. They say "we'll open the box and see if there's a rabbit". They open the box and there's a rabbit, so person B says "I was wrong, you were right". And that's it. They had to previously agree upon the concepts of "box" and "rabbit", but at least they have now the knowledge that what they call a rabbit was inside what they call a box.

[Anekantavad]

@kaminarigaston That is a huge qualification. The way I look at "boxness" or "sight" in this case is illustrated in "I Am the Doorway", a Stephen King short story in which an astronaut has the eyes of an alien implanted on his hands, and he can somehow "see" through these eyes as well as his own. When he holds his hands up to his face and "looks" through the alien's eyes, he sees his own face, visually identical to what his "own" eyes see, but with the prejudices of the aliens: ie a monster.

[kaminarigaston]

@Anekantavad

Yes, I KNOW. But with science concepts are updatable. You can come up with a new concept for "box" and if it proves more consistent with our hability to test it then you can replace it. Wich is done all the time.

But, again, I still don't see how any other method can avoid all of those pitfalls and limitations. Any other method would have the same problems but none of the advantages.

[Anekantavad]

@kaminarigaston I don't think I am being clear here. What I am saying is that "boxness" in and of itself is only a human construct. There is ultimately nothing to test, as the existence or non-existence of the box is dependent upon having some idea what you mean by "box". If I show a goldfish a box, it would (I assume) receive the same sensory input as me, but would it see a "box"?

[kaminarigaston]

@Anekantavad

Yes, the "boxness" is only a human construct, but that doesn't mean you can test it Concepts are models of reality, and they can live up to our expectations or not. Anyone who is not psichotic has a more or less working model of reality. Limited. Human scale. But working. You do it too. No concept is perfect. But some are better than others. To believe that the Earth is a sphere is better than believing it's a disk. It just WORKS better. It works, like your computer.

[Anekantavad]

@kaminarigaston I do not disagree. But again, we are going around in circles, in that something only "works" inasmuch as it does what we expect it to do. The presupposition is already there before the thing itself comes into existence - even as just an idea. IOW, without the idea (or Form) the thing in iself doesn't exist or "do" anything. If there is no expectation (desire) there is nothing.

[kaminarigaston]

@Anekantavad

"something only "works" inasmuch as it does what we expect it to do. The presupposition is already there before the thing itself comes into existence"

That's not usually the case. The observations of the constant speed of light regardless of the frame of reference, the sun shining and the anomalies in Mercury's orbit came before Einstein came up with the explanation. And I could go on forever. A stone falling on your head won't wait for your ideas to make you aknowledge it.

[Anekantavad]

@kaminarigaston I disagree. Speed of light only makes sense if we know what speed and light are. Both concepts are pregnant with meaning, and if we don't already grasp that meaning (or bias) it is pointless to talk about the speed of light. In fact, until we can say that speed and light actuallty exist (whatever that may mean) how can we even say that anything at all is happening?

[kaminarigaston]

@Anekantavad

Yes, but the concepts of "speed" and "light" themselves were changed themselves by concepts that work better. How can we even say that anything is happening? If we can actually SAY things, then something IS happening!

But still, I don't see how the problems that you talk about (biases, conceptual nature, nature of existence, etc) is a problem of SCIENCE, instead of a problem of any epistemology that you can come up with.

[Anekantavad]

@kaminarigaston I won't go so far as to say that they are problems of science and science alone, nor am I saying that I expect to wake up one day to find that the laws of physics have ceased to apply. What I am saying is that science will only get us so far in explaining or studying reality, but that invariably, inevitably, the road reaches a dead end, even though it is clear that there are many unanswere questions.

[PythonisticOmar]

Very interesting argument. Thank you for sharing. :-)

[Anekantavad]

@PythonisticOmar Pleasure!

[trelon5]

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." -- Albert Einstein

[Anekantavad]

@trelon5 I agree. It's almost like ying without yang. We need them both, or perhaps they are two apparently different ways of approaching the same "great unknowable".