How much can science really answer?

[jascowhiz0]

I ask this because science deals with the natures of things, not the existence of things. For example, you understand why Oxygen and Hydrogen make Water, but you can't answer why things exist through science.

People can claim science debunks religion, and for most religions it does since most religions believe truth is a "what." It doesn't debunk the three major transcending religions as far as I know(Jews, Christians, Muslims). But how much can science really tell you when it comes to questions like, why are we here, and so on, if those questions don't deal with natures of things.

[Kamehameha34]

The "why" is subjective.

[Gods_Mercenary]

Science so far says we are not here for a reason, we just are. Our lives are pretty pointless. These questions are philosophical anyway, not scientific, unless sciencediscovers a reason.

[Jagged]

The whole evolution theory thing, determined through supposed evidence (im NOT saying the evidence is DEFINITE, but evidence exists), pretty much debunks how religions say different forms of life came here- of which no evidence has been found. Science has provided new curiosities about the world that have previously been qwelled by religion.

[Boetie]

You want to know how much science can answer. Consider this:

Suppose you believe that the earth doesn't move or you believe the earth moves, it doesn't matter take your pick. We are going to conduct an experiment to decide which of the two beliefs are correct.

We have someone climb to the top of a bit tower and drop a cannon ball. The cannon ball lands at the base of the tower.

The non-movers points out that the experiment proves their theory because if the earth moves the ball would have landed somewhere else. The movers points out that the experiment proves their theory because everything moves.

There's your science.

[Osborn F Enready]

jascowhiz said: But how much can science really tell you when it comes to questions like, why are we here, and so on, if those questions don't deal with natures of things.

The issue is we refuse to deal with the fact there may be no answer, we simply are, and nature simply is.

Knowing the absolute and unpredicatble uncertainty of the world and life that surrounds you is a powerful dose of reality, many have trouble dealing with.

Because we seek comfort, we seek "seemingly" true answers that satisfy our personal individual needs of skepticism, and the truth of those answers once they leave the realm of the physical world, resides entirely in subjective theory, as opposed to objective fact.

Some people seek comfort in fluffy dreams made of subjective prefrence.

Some, such as myself, prefer the cold hard objective truth to the best extent possible, and let the idea of future discovery and the possibility of answers fuel their quest for facts to provide an answer, as well as the solace of "piece of mind" that is aquired when one does their best to understand something.

I think subjective reality is pretty scary, since if we all let our own subjective reality rule our actions in the physical world, it would be far scarier than the common bond we share, which is inherant rights defined by our natural abilities. Our common "goods" if you will.

That is my opinion.

[Zhavric]

Quote by: jascowhiz0 I ask this because science deals with the natures of things, not the existence of things.

lol

For example, you understand why Oxygen and Hydrogen make Water, but you can't answer why things exist through science.

There are millions of grammatically valid nonesenical sentences in the English language that begin with why and end with a question mark.

"Why does volconvo.com use peanut butter to calculate its frogs?"

"Why are there snow flakes in the blender at the top of the broccoli?"

We know why things are the way they are through science. We've discovered the rules that cause oxygen & hydrogen to bond so we know why there's water. Delving into the metaphysical is A) largely useless and B) STILL the province of science.

People can claim science debunks religion, and for most religions it does since most religions believe truth is a "what." It doesn't debunk the three major transcending religions as far as I know(Jews, Christians, Muslims).

Science absolutely debunks ALL three major religions. We know all the absurdities claimed by these religions are impossible and have no evidence supporting them. The question of whether the gods they claim are real is most definately a scientific question. They either do or do not exist making the issue a scientific one.

But how much can science really tell you when it comes to questions like, why are we here, and so on, if those questions don't deal with natures of things.

The questions you refer to are questions that are invented by religions to help sell themselves. Purpose is always in the eye of the beholder. The scenario you outlined above is little different then asking, "How can science tell us which ice cold cola is the tastiest?"

[ZNFYRH]

I always liked the response that science doesn't answer anything. It just gives really good guesses and suggestions based on observed data.

Science does not debunk the major religions. It doesn't have to. While Zhavric is wrong in his above post, he was spot-on correct in other threads. The simple fact that the tenets of the major religions were dictated by living men is enough to Occam Razor the conclusion that they are fictitious.

[Boetie]

Just wanted to toss this out.

Science hasn't been able to explain this yet:

Hydrogen by itself is good for fire, Oxygen by itself is good for fire, yet when you mix the two together in the right way you get water and water is not good for fire. So how does one explain the fact that two chemical elements acting on their own is good for fire yet when combined is not good for fire?

Note: be careful trying to explain this. See my post # 5 above. Also note the typo error in #5 bit should be big.

[ZNFYRH]

Quote by: Boetie Hydrogen by itself is good for fire, Oxygen by itself is good for fire, yet when you mix the two together in the right way you get water and water is not good for fire. So how does one explain the fact that two chemical elements acting on their own is good for fire yet when combined is not good for fire?

You don't need to wait for science. I can answer this.

Fire is nothing more than heat breaking down molecular bonds.

Heat + Wood = Smoke + Ash

In no particular order, I'm going to just toss out some explanations for you.

*** You forget that fire can be smothered. If you dump a sufficient quantity of wood on a fire it is extinguished.
*** "Burning" is nothing more than the conversion of a material from solid to gas. Remember, too, that a significant volume of material needs to reach that critical temperature before the molecular conversion occurs. Water does, in fact, burn. It burns at 232 degrees F. Wood has a much higher burning point... 600 degrees F. A simple test of this is to take a volume of wood and a volume of water. Place them both on a surface and apply the same amount of heat to each. See which one "burns" first.
*** Remember that a fire with a steady fuel source burns at the same temperature. Heating a volume of material is matter of temperature versus volume to come up with the time it would take for the material to reach the temperature of the fire.
*** By now you might be wondering why putting a volume of water on a fire doesn't instantly ignite the water if the fire is hotter than 232 degrees F. It all depends on the heat of the fire, but have you have splashed some water on a fire and heard the little hiss of the water boiling off? Or put water on a campfire to put it out?

Basically, the "not good for fire" part is the same as any other material. The reason water is better at being "not good for fire" is because water has smaller molecules. It can "soak" into other materials. Thus a fire has more volume to heat before burning.

Another experiment... take two pieces of wood, same type and volume. Soak one in water for 5 minutes. Then expose both to the same temperature and source of heat. You'll notice that some time between the time it would take a volume of water to boil and the point at which the dry wood burns, the wet wood will start smoking. What you're seeing is the water inside the wood boiling away.

Finally, consider the molecular bonds of water. Oxygen has 8 protons and 8 electrons. Hydrogen has 1 of each. Dihydrogen Monoxide is one of the most stable compounds you could ask for. The amount of heat it would take to break that bond is very high, as even boiling it doesn't really break the elemental bonds but actually breaks the energy that holds the molecules together.

[Boetie]

Quote by: ZNFYRH You don't need to wait for science. I can answer this.

What you gave is a very roundabout elaborate explanation. See my post # 5. The point of post #5 is that when science is faced with raw data or an observation science is still left with the problem of explanation or interpretation if you will.

The interpretation of raw data or observation can still lead to two conflicting theories.

Hydrogen and Oxygen by themselves is flammable. Together it's non-flammable. The problem science has with dealing with this phenonmenon is that they cannot explain this.

I do believe another one is the sun. From what I understand the sun because of it's size and the laws of astronomy should really be flat like a frisbee and not round. They haven't been able to explain this either.

[ZNFYRH]

Boetie,

Interpretation of raw data and observation can only lead to two conflicting theories if you don't have all the data or only partial observations.

Water is flammable. That's the first problem with what you are proposing.

Here's another way to put it...

Fire consumes oxygen. Take something big and burn it and you're left with something smaller, but with almost the same density. Put a piece of wood in a bucket and weigh the bucket. Set the wood on fire. Eventually, it does out, right? Because in between the molecules of wood is oxygen. Once you've taken away the oxygen, the fire goes out and you have a bucket of ash. Now weigh the bucket again. The weight is slightly lower by the weight of the amount of oxygen that was in that volume of wood, which isn't a big number.

Take a volume of wood, but make sure it's only (arbitrary number) 2 inches thick. Lay it down on a fire. The fire cannot sufficiently heat up the wood fast enough to consume the oxygen in it, so the fire goes out.

Same thing with water. Ever put water on a fire but it doesn't completely go out?

Science most definitely explains this.

Your second question about our sun has also been explained. All stars have. In the beginning, everything was hydrogen. Some hydrogens attracted and fused to helium. The side effect of this was heat and light and an element of greater mass. It drew in more hydrogen.

As the helium draws in hydrogen and fuses it, the process releases heat and light. The gravitational forces of the core of the star act on the released gases and heat and light and determine the size of the star. Thus, the spherical shape of a star.

[*****]

If one were to ask exactly how to apply scientific thought the answer should soon be familiar, as we were all taught the scientific model at school. Although the terminology differs at times the stages are roughly the same across the globe. They begin with a hypothesis followed by the design for an experiment. The next three steps of testing, observation and ongoing recording are repeated as often as necessary. Finally a conclusion is reached and an evaluation of the experiment conducted. The scientific model is widely held to be capable of assessing any issue.

Three aspects of the model stand out.

The first aspect is that subjectivity cannot be completely eliminated e.g. linguists argue that the words with which we set out a scientific project reveal inevitable preconceptions.

The second aspect is that any results are speculative. The probability of error is an accepted constant in the scientific model so other conditions exist to minimise these facts. They include ensuring a fair test, ensuring the sample population is representative and also considering a control sample.

Thirdly is the requirement for identifying a variable so it can be isolated from other variables, subjected to new conditions and observed.

From this we can see a variable must be identified, isolated, manipulated and observed for the scientific model to apply. Let’s examine these four steps in turn:

a) If variables cannot be identified the scientist would have nothing to test.
b) Without a variable isolated from other variables there is no way of knowing what the results of testing are a consequence of. One could be testing multiple variables. The trials would be useless.
c) If a variable can be identified and isolated but not manipulated then no
experiment can proceed.
d) If a variable can be identified, isolated and manipulated but no observation is possible then no conclusions can be drawn, nothing can be verified and the true scientist would not waste the time or effort.

So only if a variable can be identified, isolated, manipulated and observed could we then begin the remaining stages of the scientific model i.e. hypothesis, plan, test, subjugate, observe, record, retest and conclude. If no single variable can be identified, isolated, manipulated or observed then it is clear that the scientific model cannot apply.

This leads us to a dilemma. What if we can find instances where the scientific model cannot apply, where no single variable can be identified, isolated, manipulated or observed? This would conclusively disprove that the scientific model is capable of answering every query or even that science is the most evolved form of thinking. This would necessarily lead us to conclude that science is a branch of thinking applicable only in certain instances leaving us to locate another form of thought.

An example would be the following: What leads people in Athens, Greece to live longer on average than those in Mumbai, India? The query is too vague for the scientific model to apply especially if we find that relative life expectancy differs widely based on date of birth, household income and access to basic health care. A more defined query would be: Exactly what leads socially excluded, female teenagers from broken homes in the 10% most deprived wards in Athens, Greece to live longer on average than those in Mumbai, India?

Even though we have delineated the question further a number of variables still remain such as diet, sanitation, disease, relative cost of living and road deaths. We should also consider climate, pollution, state welfare and violent crime. Police brutality, government corruption, unemployment, the expertise of emergency services and literacy should not be ignored. What about the strength of civil society, religious observance, divorce rates, prevalence of drug abuse, quality of food hygiene and level of sex education?

Would it be possible to isolate just a single variable? Would it be possible to subject individuals to new conditions under a controlled environment to ascertain findings? For the scientific model to apply here, only one variable should be tested at a time so it would not be possible to provide a ‘scientific’ response. The only answer possible would be that there are many factors, some of more weight than others but this not a very ‘scientific’ conclusion.

We could also ask, for example, how to construct experiments based on the scientific model to address these statements:

i. Sport - Was Mike Tyson a better boxer than Muhammed Ali?
ii. Language – Which piece of literary work rates higher: Chaucer’s Wife of Bath, Shakespeare’s Hamlet or Dickens’ Hard Times?
iii. Politics – Was Margaret Thatcher a more successful Prime Minister than Tony Blair?
iv. Life – Why do we exist?
v. History – Was Muslim Spain the most tolerant place on Earth during the 13th Century?

To answer the final query a single variable that leads to tolerance would have to be identified and scientifically defined. We would then need to be capable of subjecting other societies during the period to laboratory conditions in order to isolate the variable leading to tolerance. A criterion for evaluation, comparison and measurement would be required and the experiment would have to conclude objectively.

The scientific model is clearly not built for all types of enquiry.

[nilan3000]

The scientific model as you say is not buit for all types of enquiries, agreed. But once you reach that point you can distinguish certain questions to be subjective and certain to be objective.

Science cannot answer your questions like whether Hamlet or Hard Times is better because it is a subjective one, because there is no one answer. You may like Hamlet and I may like Hard Times or vice versa (personally I love both).

Objective matters on the other hand (the existence of god for example) has only one answer (either god exists or god doesnt exist, unless he likes to blink in and out of reality, which is highly unlikely). For enquiries requiring an objective answer, I dont see any reason as to why a scientific model would be flawed.

Remember, if we have no evidence to research on a particular issue it is our shortcoming that we were unable to obtain enough proof, it is not science's fault. If science has failed to answer any objective question, it is because we have failed to assimilate enough data on it, the science behind it is still valid.

[pikatore]

Quote by: jascowhiz0 People can claim science debunks religion, and for most religions it does since most religions believe truth is a "what." It doesn't debunk the three major transcending religions as far as I know(Jews, Christians, Muslims). But how much can science really tell you when it comes to questions like, why are we here, and so on, if those questions don't deal with natures of things.

Scientific method involves a process that we should use as a role model in defining what is real and what isn't. So by using this process, you can quite easily debunk religion.

[jascowhiz0]

Quote by: pikatore Scientific method involves a process that we should use as a role model in defining what is real and what isn't. So by using this process, you can quite easily debunk religion.

Did you read past the first 5 words of my original post?

[pikatore]

Its a vague question. You don't need science to 'answer' anything if you want to use it to debunk religion.

[Zinkovich]

I'm going to just recycle one of my posts from the last time this issue came up for you guys:

Hello all, I am sort of new here, as you can see. I was just wondering what response I would get from an even more diverse forum to a post I made in response to someone who suggested there is a logicial wall between the "How" of theology and the "Why" of science. Here it is: Now then, for support of what I am about to say, concerning the definition of WHY: 1. The reason, cause, or purpose for which: I know why you left. Notice the use of the word cause. What is a cause? A cause is: 1. A basis for an action or response; a reason: The doctor's report gave no cause for alarm. Now, as for How: 1. In what manner or way; by what means: How does this machine work? In order to fully support a statement on why something happened, we must first collect enough knowledge on the issue to divide the why into a division of probabilities concerning the many possible causes. Take for examples, Near Death Experiences. Most people do not do research on their near death experiences before coming to the conclusion that the only probability is that their NDEs are supernatural. They assume that a why derives from it without researching the other possible hows. When one, for examples, stumbles upon the fact that airforce vets who have passed out in centrifuges experience NDEs without fail and that the brain shows activity during that period similar to lucid dreaming, the probability changes at least to some degree, and the likelihood of the cause being a supernatural at least decreases unless one can seperate their NDE from those experienced in the centrifuge. What I am saying is that one cannot say for a certainty that their experiences are exceptional or beyond the current information to others without quantifying this specific quality that puts it beyond everything else. This post is not meant to say the supernatural is nonexistant as much as it is meant to state that until one can distinguish their "supernatural" experiences from ones that have been proven to be as far as we can see naturalistic, to expect one to consider their statement that their experiences were "special" is on the whole ridiculous. Like it or not, most things in the universe happen with a certain congruity, and until those who claim they can claim supernatural why's from their experiences explain how those experiences are incongruous with similarily explained happenstances, they certainly cannot expect their position to be widely philosophically or scientifically accepted as, at least, the dominant probability. Most of all, under the definition I posted, How's and Why's intersect and are not merely parallell. You cannot attribute a cause to something until you understand how it happened, and because of that without first gaining knowledge on the research conercening the how you cannot attribute a why, especially if you have not looked for explanations for experiences congruous to yours. I have gotten nitpicking for using the word "supernatural", so here is my response in advance: The reason the distinction is made is because the supernatural is classified as supernatural for the purpose of connotation and perception. Because the supernatural is not proven, and it all takes place in a similar seperate relam, it needs a word to set it apart from the other theories concerning nature. The linguistic reason for referring to the supernatural as the supernatural, in other words, is that it is a non-repeatable, supposedly seperate realm beyond observation. If one were to call it a "facet of nature" or a "possible heirarchy in the existential order of things", it would be giving a legitamacy it does not have. It's more for the purpose of seperating it from other natural possibilities in the mind of the layman concerning metaphysical philosophy than anything else.

Indeed, there is an extension to this reasoning I see now- why's cannot even safely be posited until we isolate the cause. And as for subjectivity, well- even if it cannot be integrated into science, it may be able to be predicted by it in the future- just look at recent studies in psychology and you will realise some subsets of science do, in actuality, touch on the root causes behind human behavior and emotion.

[ZNFYRH]

I don't think the answers are important; it's the questions.

Just from looking at another thread on the forum, I know that Autolykos and I encountered more trouble because the question could have been different, and we came to that agreement.

I think those who like to vilify science do so by asking such vague and open questions that science can't really give reasonable answers. As in all things, the presence of weighted, vague, or entrapping questions is the real barrier to understanding.

[jascowhiz0]

Quote by: nilan3000 The scientific model as you say is not buit for all types of enquiries, agreed. But once you reach that point you can distinguish certain questions to be subjective and certain to be objective. Science cannot answer your questions like whether Hamlet or Hard Times is better because it is a subjective one, because there is no one answer. You may like Hamlet and I may like Hard Times or vice versa (personally I love both). Objective matters on the other hand (the existence of god for example) has only one answer (either god exists or god doesnt exist, unless he likes to blink in and out of reality, which is highly unlikely). For enquiries requiring an objective answer, I dont see any reason as to why a scientific model would be flawed. Remember, if we have no evidence to research on a particular issue it is our shortcoming that we were unable to obtain enough proof, it is not science's fault. If science has failed to answer any objective question, it is because we have failed to assimilate enough data on it, the science behind it is still valid.

Why do you say it is humanities fault for not obtaining enough data to answer an objective question. Is it possible that there is an objective question that can't be answered due to a limitation of science. Does a god exist is an objective question, but science can't possibly answer that. Science deals with how matter interacts, the god I think of(Christian God) isn't matter. This idea that god isn't the world we live in is what allowed science to flourish.