Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Please Read OP)

Zombrex

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Why can't a thing apply in the universe and also outside of it?

For example, if we are talking about classical Christianity then the contention is that things like moral absolutes apply in both realms.

That wasnt quite the argument.

It doesn't make sense to assume judgments based on experience in this universe apply outside this universe.

For example you could say that experience tells us that parents love and protect their children so it is sensible to say that God would also love his creation. But that works on experience which we have no reason to apply beyond our experience. In fact you can find examples in nature if you look hard enough where this doesn't even apply.

nagirrac

Zombrex wrote: »

True statement to me doesn't mean anything, you do not have your own personal "truth". Something is true or it is false.

If we could figure out the truth of that claim in any serious fashion the method we used to figure that out would be part of the scientific method

Our worldviews are so far removed Zombrex it is unlikely we will ever reach any consensus. Your last post is a posterchild for scientism, I would say it has every element that defines the philosophy. Starting with the all too comon claim nowadays that science can be extended to any field we feel like to make our argument.

It is quite easy to make the argument that science is the only path to real knowledge if you include everything as "science". Science is a method of inquiry following the five steps of the scientific method; collection of information, forming a hypothesis, running experiments against predictions of your hypothesis, reaching conclusions and verifying your conclusions against the predictions of your hypothesis. If you cannot do the above in my opinion, it ain't science. In addition, if it can't be falsified it ain't science either, so claiming something to be "true" and not "false" is in itself unscientific. We can certainly seek the truth using the scientific method, but claiming the truth is another matter.

Something is either true or false in a black and white world, but the world, our universe, our minds are one big giant grey area. If there is anything we have learned from the history of science and the quest for knowledge in general it is that the best we can hope for is to reduce uncertainty. This is seen most clearly in the fact that the same observed evidence examined by the scientific method can lead to several competing theories. Which one would you like to declare as the truth?

Scientism is basically extending science to try and provide answers to questions raised by spirituality/religion and philosophy. It fails because by trying to extend science into these areas, it turns science into metaphysics. To say that science is the only means to explore aspects of nature is a bit like "a drunk looking for his lost keys under the street light, as he believes thats the only place worth searching".

Zombrex

nagirrac wrote: »

Our worldviews are so far removed Zombrex it is unlikely we will ever reach any consensus. Your last post is a posterchild for scientism, I would say it has every element that defines the philosophy. Starting with the all too comon claim nowadays that science can be extended to any field we feel like to make our argument.

You apparently didn't bother to actually read the sentence you highlighted :rolleyes: I would guess that this is because you have considered the question I put to you, come to an unsettling conclusion, and are not panicking. But that would be only a guess.

I never said science can be applied to anything (in fact that is exactly the opposite of the point, so I suspect you aren't reading the posts properly)

There are lots of things that science cannot be applied to based on the restrictions science places on itself. But these restrictions exist for a reason, and saying that science cannot be applied to something simply means that something is considered unknowable.

Or to put it another way if we had a method to help discover it that method would be already be part of science.

nagirrac wrote: »

It is quite easy to make the argument that science is the only path to real knowledge if you include everything as "science". Science is a method of inquiry following the five steps of the scientific method; collection of information, forming a hypothesis, running experiments against predictions of your hypothesis, reaching conclusions and verifying your conclusions against the predictions of your hypothesis. If you cannot do the above in my opinion, it ain't science.

You keep not answering the question as to why this is.

Why does science impose this restriction, and why if there are other methods that work equally well to science are these methods not included in the scientific method.

As I mentioned earlier these restrictions science places on itself are not arbitrary. Scientists did not wake up one morning and say to themselves Man wouldn't it be cool if we had restrictions on what we can do.

nagirrac wrote: »

In addition, if it can't be falsified it ain't science either, so claiming something to be "true" and not "false" is in itself unscientific. We can certainly seek the truth using the scientific method, but claiming the truth is another matter.

You miss the point. I didn't claim we can know truth I claimed something must be true or false universally, that truth is not local to your opinion. And that, as you seem to sort of get, is the point of falsifiability.

The concept of falsifiability makes your statement that something is true to me ridiculous. Something is either true or it is false, and for us to study it within the scientific method we must be able to, at least theoretically, falsify the claim about it. We might never know if it is true or false, but there is no local true or false that we can know.

If in response to a claim our answer is that a claim is true and it is in fact "false" then we are simply wrong. You are not correct about its truth local to yourself. There is no "it is true to me"

nagirrac wrote: »

Something is either true or false in a black and white world, but the world, our universe, our minds are one big giant grey area. If there is anything we have learned from the history of science and the quest for knowledge in general it is that the best we can hope for is to reduce uncertainty. This is seen most clearly in the fact that the same observed evidence examined by the scientific method can lead to several competing theories. Which one would you like to declare as the truth?

Again that is utterly missing the point.

A claim is either true or it is false. We may never discover which of those is the case, and it may be impossible to know. But that simply highlights a lack of understanding or discovery on our part, the truth of a claim (or its falsehood) does not shift back and forth as we are making up our minds.

Your notion of "true to me" is therefore a non-statement. If you think something is true and in reality it is false then you are simply wrong, even if you never discover this. You aren't right local to yourself.

nagirrac wrote: »

Scientism is basically extending science to try and provide answers to questions raised by spirituality/religion and philosophy. It fails because by trying to extend science into these areas, it turns science into metaphysics. To say that science is the only means to explore aspects of nature is a bit like "a drunk looking for his lost keys under the street light, as he believes thats the only place worth searching".

Science should not be applied to particular areas because claims in these areas are unknowable.

Any time someone says we cannot apply science to that question that is simply another way of saying we cannot know the answer to that question

Now you clearly think that there are areas of inquiry that science cannot be applied to but which we can still know with high accuracy the answers to the questions.

So (again) can you explain why these methods are not included in the scientific method.

Morbert

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I'm not sure if you caught his appearance on Unbelievable? or not but he was roundly dismissive of philosophy as a discipline and in particular philosophers who happen to criticise his "something is the new nothing" hypothesis. (I would personally use the term "equivocation".) Indeed, if I recall correctly, he appeared not to have been familiar with one of the famous philosophers who may or may not have appeared in this excellent sketch from Monty Python.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=92vV3QGagck

But perhaps he was speaking off the cuff and I shouldn't look into it as binding. Listening to the show I get the impression that once he gets going his mouth is as close to an unstoppable force as anything in the universe. I'll try to check out the articles you linked to if I ever again experience personal time.

I do often cringe when Krauss begins to ramble. But what I find frustrating about philosophers criticizing his hypothesis is it is clear they have not read his book thoroughly. Specifically, much of the criticisms are addressed in the chapters "Nothing is Something" and "Nothing is Unstable". It is frustrating because it is quite a short book. Krauss is making very specific claims about physical mechanisms, and carefully describes their relevance to the existence of God debate.

Fanny Cradock

Morbert wrote: »

Krauss is making very specific claims about physical mechanisms, and carefully describes their relevance to the existence of God debate.

Can you give an example? The criticisms I've heard are always about this part of his book. It's not so much "the science bit" that has gotten people hot and bothered, it's the (apparent) metaphysics in sheep's clothing.

nagirrac

Zombrex wrote: »

Science should not be applied to particular areas because claims in these areas are unknowable.

Any time someone says we cannot apply science to that question that is simply another way of saying we cannot know the answer to that question

Now you clearly think that there are areas of inquiry that science cannot be applied to but which we can still know with high accuracy the answers to the questions.

So (again) can you explain why these methods are not included in the scientific method.

The statement "we cannot know the answer to that question unless we apply science to the question" is scientism. I have been answering your question, you just don't like the answer because it does not fit your world view.

Methods of inquiry such as spirituality and philosophy are not included in the scientific method as they are based on mental processes and not external empirically observed processes. Let's take a question that science cannot answer as an example: "How should man behave"? To say the answer to that question is unknowable because it cannot be studied by the scientific method is ludicrious. We have thousands of years of human experience, advice from spiritual teachers and philosophers, and the long history of human behavior to draw on. I would turn there for guiedelines on how to live one's life as opposed to what the current scientific interpretation is of neurons firing in the brain. Not that the latter is not useful and helpful, but the value of the former cannot be discounted.

At the end of the day it comes down to value. If for example ever human believing in God were to result in a peaceful and just society (and I fully agree it has not in the past due to religion) then the value of that belief far exceeds the risk of the belief being wrong.

Morbert

Zombrex wrote: »

Maths is a formal science (as opposed to empirical science).

You have to be careful with definitions here. Scientism specifically pertains to the scientific method (I.e. the empirical sciences). The reason empiricism is considered consistent with formal systems like mathematics is such systems say nothing about reality.

Morbert

Nagirrac, just so that we can be clear about definitions, do you believe someone can be an empiricist (believe that we can only know about the real world through observation and measurement), and simultaneously not subscribe to scientism?

[edit]- Fixed description of empiricism

nagirrac

Morbert wrote: »

Nagirrac, just so that we can be clear about definitions, do you believe someone can be an empiricist (believe that everything we can only know about the real world through observation and measurement), and simultaneously not subscribe to scientism?

Yes, absolutely. Scientism to me is metaphysics and very poor metaphysics at that.The only slight modification I would make to your definition is empiricism is the knowledge gained of our "observed" world rather than necessarily the "real" world. I am not sure we have much of a clue yet regarding the real world.

Zombrex

nagirrac wrote: »

The statement "we cannot know the answer to that question unless we apply science to the question" is scientism. I have been answering your question, you just don't like the answer because it does not fit your world view.

Methods of inquiry such as spirituality and philosophy are not included in the scientific method as they are based on mental processes and not external empirically observed processes. Let's take a question that science cannot answer as an example: "How should man behave"? To say the answer to that question is unknowable because it cannot be studied by the scientific method is ludicrious.

It is the other way around. That question cannot be studied by science precisely because it is unknowable, or more specifically we have developed no method capable of distinguishing a true answer from a false answer to that question. You can give your opinion, but that is a completely different thing.

If we had a method to distinguish fact from fiction in this regard it would be part of the scientific method all ready.

And no nagirrac you haven't answered my questions. You have just repeated the same thing, that there are areas we can discover but that are outside of science, but you haven't dealt with the issues of why that is, why does science restrict itself or why these other methods are not included in science.

Morbert

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Can you give an example? The criticisms I've heard are always about this part of his book. It's not so much "the science bit" that has gotten people hot and bothered, it's the (apparent) metaphysics in sheep's clothing.

I can provide more quotes, but it is evident from these that he makes it clear what he means by nothing, and what questions he is specifically answering.

From the preface:

"A century ago, had one described "nothing" as referring to purely empty space, possessing no real material entity, this might have received little argument. But the results of the past century have taught us that empty space is in fact far from the inviolate nothingness that we presupposed before we learned more about nature works. Now, I am told by religious critics that I cannot refer to empty space as "nothing", but rather as a "quantum vacuum" to distinguish it from the philosopher's or theologian's idealized nothing.

So Be it. But what if we are then willing to describe nothing as the absence of space and time itself. Is this sufficient? Again, I suspect, it would have been ... at one time. But, as I shall describe, we have learned that space and time can themselves spontaneously appear, so now we are told that even this is not really the nothing that matters. And we're told that the escape from the real nothing requires divinity, with nothing thus defined by fiat to be that from which only God can create something.

It has also been suggested by various individuals with whom I have debated the issue that, if there is the potential to create something, then that is not a state of true nothingness. And surely having laws of nature that give such potential takes us away from the true realm of nonbeing. But then, if I argue that perhaps the laws themselves arose spontaneously, as I shall describe might be the case, then that too is not good enough, because whatever system in which the laws may have arisen is not true nothingness."

From the chapter "Nothing is Something":

"We have to be particularly cautious about why questions. So [in answering the question] I am going to assume what this question really means to ask is "How is there something rather than nothing?". I hope you will forgive me if I sometimes fall into the trap of appearing to discuss the more standard formulation when I am really trying to respond to the more specific how question.

Even here, from the perspective of actual understanding, this question has been supplanted by a host of operationally more fruitful questions, such as "What might have produced the properties of the universe that most strikingly characterize it at the present time?""

keane2097

nagirrac wrote: »

The statement "we cannot know the answer to that question unless we apply science to the question" is scientism. I have been answering your question, you just don't like the answer because it does not fit your world view.

Methods of inquiry such as spirituality and philosophy are not included in the scientific method as they are based on mental processes and not external empirically observed processes. Let's take a question that science cannot answer as an example: "How should man behave"? To say the answer to that question is unknowable because it cannot be studied by the scientific method is ludicrious. We have thousands of years of human experience, advice from spiritual teachers and philosophers, and the long history of human behavior to draw on. I would turn there for guiedelines on how to live one's life as opposed to what the current scientific interpretation is of neurons firing in the brain. Not that the latter is not useful and helpful, but the value of the former cannot be discounted.

At the end of the day it comes down to value. If for example ever human believing in God were to result in a peaceful and just society (and I fully agree it has not in the past due to religion) then the value of that belief far exceeds the risk of the belief being wrong.

You don't seem to be making any argument for philosophy or any other non-scientific methods being able to answer questions like "How should man behave" definitively, isn't that the point?

To counter what Zombrex is saying I think you need to be able to make an argument for a question that can be definitively by a non-scientific method that can't be definitively answered by the scientific method.

Otherwise what he's saying is correct - that if science can't answer a question then it's unknowable.

Turtwig

Oh I hate to step it in, but

"Does she love me?"

nagirrac

Jernal wrote: »

Oh I hate to step it in, but

"Does she love me?"

Apparently (according to science) it depends on how long you have been together Jernal. The region of the brain that lights up when you see your beloved is the same as when you eye up a Mars bar. Scientists have found that this effect that we call romantic love lasts on average 12 - 18 months. After that, apparently, whatever it is, its not romantic .

tommy2bad

nagirrac wrote: »

Apparently (according to science) it depends on how long you have been together Jernal. The region of the brain that lights up when you see your beloved is the same as when you eye up a Mars bar. Scientists have found that this effect that we call romantic love lasts on average 12 - 18 months. After that, apparently, whatever it is, its not romantic .

Mars bars never had that effect on me tbh of course at my age Viagra might be better than chocolate.
Yes, science can measure chemical and electromagnetic phenomena and then say that this effect is what happens when we are in what we call 'love'. It's not much help and doesn't scan or rhyme like Shakespeare's sonnets.

nagirrac

keane2097 wrote: »

You don't seem to be making any argument for philosophy or any other non-scientific methods being able to answer questions like "How should man behave" definitively, isn't that the point?

Otherwise what he's saying is correct - that if science can't answer a question then it's unknowable.

Correct, I am not making the point that a non scientific method, such as philosophy, can give a definitive answer or "truth". The best it can do is bring us closer to the truth or reduce uncertainty. It's not that something is necessarily unknowable, from my perspective its that knowledge is an ongoing endevour and there are no absoute truths.

The same is true of science. No scientist would ever will claim the "truth" or that a question is answered definitively. A scientific theory is the "best available explanation for some aspect of the natural world based on observation and experiment". There may be several equally compelling theories that are all equal in terms of "best available explanation" to a specific question.

The discussion Zombrex and I are having is on theories of knowledge or epistemology, and the difference of opinion is based on where you lie on the absolute realism to pragmatic realism spectrum. As such we will likely never agree as we are probably on opposite ends of the spectrum. My core belief is that we live in a constantly evolving and dynamic reality and that "truth" is whatever works best at present.

Zombrex

tommy2bad wrote: »

Mars bars never had that effect on me tbh of course at my age Viagra might be better than chocolate.
Yes, science can measure chemical and electromagnetic phenomena and then say that this effect is what happens when we are in what we call 'love'. It's not much help and doesn't scan or rhyme like Shakespeare's sonnets.

As ever, I'll hand you over to the great Richard Feynman

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZbFM3rn4ldo

Zombrex

nagirrac wrote: »

Correct, I am not making the point that a non scientific method, such as philosophy, can give a definitive answer or "truth". The best it can do is bring us closer to the truth or reduce uncertainty.

Can you explain the process by which it does that, and then explain why this process is not incorporated into the scientific method.

nagirrac wrote: »

It's not that something is necessarily unknowable, from my perspective its that knowledge is an ongoing endevour and there are no absoute truths.

There are no absolute truths in science either. So surely the lack of absolute knowable truths in these fields would not block them from being assessed in a scientific manner if these methodologies can actually do as you say, reduce uncertainty and increase accuracy.

nagirrac wrote: »

The discussion Zombrex and I are having is on theories of knowledge or epistemology, and the difference of opinion is based on where you lie on the absolute realism to pragmatic realism spectrum.

You haven't answered the question yet, so how can you say you know where the difference of opinion lies!

You have not provided your explanation for why these methods that increase understanding, reduce uncertainty and bring us closer to truth (while acknowledging we cannot reach absolute certainty), are not included in the scientific method, a process concerned with increasing understanding about reality, reducing uncertainty about reality and bringing us closer to the truth of the reality that we find ourselves living in.

You have just repeated that science cannot explore these things, but you haven't explain why you think that is true.

tommy2bad

Zombrex wrote: »

As ever, I'll hand you over to the great Richard Feynman

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZbFM3rn4ldo

Indeed, one of the great science writers. Dawkins used to be that good but he lost the plot about the time he came up with the whole meme thing.

Zombrex

tommy2bad wrote: »

Indeed, one of the great science writers. Dawkins used to be that good but he lost the plot about the time he came up with the whole meme thing.

I don't know why people find memes so difficult.

Firstly, most of the people who object to memes seem to not understanding what Dawkins was talking about (not including you in this, but more objections out on the web)

Secondly it was just a curious aside by Dawkins, a way of showing people Darwinian processes at work that are far easier to see and understand that biological evolution.

It is like someone explaining how airplanes fly who says "Hey, notice how when it is hot you find flags blowing upwards, that is the same principle" and everyone goes "This guy is clearly CRAZY!" :pac:

Morbert

Jernal wrote: »

Oh I hate to step it in, but

"Does she love me?"

What do you observe?

nagirrac

Zombrex wrote: »

Can you explain the process by which it does that, and then explain why this process is not incorporated into the scientific method.

You have just repeated that science cannot explore these things, but you haven't explain why you think that is true.

I have been answering your question Zombrex, it is just not the answer you believe in so you continue to ask the question. The issue here is how science is defined. If you define science narrowly in terms of the modern scientific method as I have done in an earlier post you get a completely different answer compared to defining science broadly as you do. Scientism is broadening science to include every field of human inquiry and the claim that if something cannot be examined by the scientific method it is unreliable.The vast majority of great advances in human knowledge were made by inspirational breakthroughs, something we do not understand well by the way, and not diligently following the scientific method.

The clearest way to see through this is how scientism refers to critical thinking. Critical thinking has been around for many thousands of years prior to the development of the scientific method and science as we know it today. To claim that critical thinking belongs to the scientific method is nonsense, it is used by the scientific method, but is not the key component of the scientific method. The key component of the scientific method is that it relies on experiment. While it is true that experiment adds great confidence in a hypothesis being provisionally correct, it is the idea itself that is the basis of knowledge.

I am not arguing against or belittling science, it is the only way we can approach truth about our observed natural world. However scientific truth is only one type of truth. There is also mathematical truth, legal truth, philosophical truth, spiritual and religious truth, emotional truth, etc. These use critical and abstract thinking only and not experiment. From my perspective they are as valuable in informing us about our reality as science. That is a philosophical position and one I am sure is different to yours, but arguing over it is similar to arguing which flavor of ice cream is better.

If you don't believe critical and abstract thinking, meditation,etc. are reliable avenues to truth that's fine, you are as entitled to your opinion as is everyone. However, you cannot apply the scientific method to thinking as you cannot measure a thought. How do you "know" the scientific method is the best avenue to truth? Did you use the scientific method to establish that? That is what's called a circular argument. If there is some method of knowing that the scientific method is the best avenue to truth, then there must be some other method that establishes that fact that is better than the scientific method. What method could that be?

tommy2bad

Zombrex wrote: »

I don't know why people find memes so difficult.

Firstly, most of the people who object to memes seem to not understanding what Dawkins was talking about (not including you in this, but more objections out on the web)

Secondly it was just a curious aside by Dawkins, a way of showing people Darwinian processes at work that are far easier to see and understand that biological evolution.

It is like someone explaining how airplanes fly who says "Hey, notice how when it is hot you find flags blowing upwards, that is the same principle" and everyone goes "This guy is clearly CRAZY!" :pac:

So he used it as a metaphor?
The problem is that he became evangelical about that time and like his evangelical Christian counterparts, that kinda thing is a big turn off!
Oh and he got the selfish gene idea wrong, but in fairness it suited the zeitgeist of the time so getting caught up in that is forgivable. Going on a crusade against a straw-man God isn't.

Zombrex

nagirrac wrote: »

I have been answering your question Zombrex, it is just not the answer you believe in so you continue to ask the question.

If you have answered that question I haven't seen it. Can you quote the specific part where you explain the reasoning why these methodologies are not included in the scientific method even though they work at accurately sorting fact from fiction.

nagirrac wrote: »

The issue here is how science is defined. If you define science narrowly in terms of the modern scientific method as I have done in an earlier post you get a completely different answer compared to defining science broadly as you do.

Use what ever definition of science makes it possible for you to answer the question nagirrac, just include that definition in the answer.

nagirrac wrote: »

Scientism is broadening science to include every field of human inquiry and the claim that if something cannot be examined by the scientific method it is unreliable.

Yes you have stated that a number of times. I don't think there is any confusion about what you think scientism is.

But again you have no answered the question of why you think science is not be extended to these other areas of human inquiry if we have methods in these fields that produce reliable accurate knowable information.

nagirrac wrote: »

The vast majority of great advances in human knowledge were made by inspirational breakthroughs, something we do not understand well by the way, and not diligently following the scientific method.

Which surely makes the scientific standards unnecessary? So why do you think we still have them?

nagirrac wrote: »

While it is true that experiment adds great confidence in a hypothesis being provisionally correct, it is the idea itself that is the basis of knowledge.

Even if the idea is false or inaccurate? So if you know the Earth is flat you possess knowledge, even if that concept is not in anyway a close representation of how the universe really is?

You seem to put a lot of weight on someone having an idea, and very little weight on whether that idea is actually an accurate reflection of reality or not.

Surely that would make the most ignorant person in the world the most knowledgeable?

nagirrac wrote: »

I am not arguing against or belittling science, it is the only way we can approach truth about our observed natural world. However scientific truth is only one type of truth. There is also mathematical truth, legal truth, philosophical truth, spiritual and religious truth, emotional truth, etc.

Ok ... so AGAIN why (in your opinion) does science not care about any of these truths. Why if we have methods to discover and assess the accuracy of claims in these fields does science not care about that?

Someone arbitrarily decided in the 1800s that science was only going to care about X,Y,Z and was going to ignore all these other areas where humans search for methods to asssess the truth of claims?

nagirrac wrote: »

These use critical and abstract thinking only and not experiment. From my perspective they are as valuable in informing us about our reality as science.

As valuable but not included in science itself.

nagirrac wrote: »

If you don't believe critical and abstract thinking, meditation,etc. are reliable avenues to truth that's fine, you are as entitled to your opinion as is everyone. However, you cannot apply the scientific method to thinking as you cannot measure a thought. How do you "know" the scientific method is the best avenue to truth? Did you use the scientific method to establish that? That is what's called a circular argument. If there is some method of knowing that the scientific method is the best avenue to truth, then there must be some other method that establishes that fact that is better than the scientific method. What method could that be?

I don't know why people keep saying this. Leaving aside the metaphysics, you can actually apply the scientific method to the study of the scientific method. And in fact scientists do this in the study of the future accuracy of scientific claims.

Science itself is a form of experiment.

But then that isn't the issue. The only question I'm asking you, and the only question you haven't answers, is why do you believe science doesn't want to know about all these areas you say we have methodologies that work pretty well.

After all science is just the systematic study of claims about reality. Why would it not want to know about all the areas you have mentioned?

nagirrac

Zombrex wrote: »

But then that isn't the issue. The only question I'm asking you, and the only question you haven't answers, is why do you believe science doesn't want to know about all these areas you say we have methodologies that work pretty well.

After all science is just the systematic study of claims about reality. Why would it not want to know about all the areas you have mentioned?

If you keep changing the question Zombrex, it indicates that your argument is a house of cards.

If you go back to post #6678 you asked "If scientific study is not the only source of knowledge about the world around us, why are these other methodologies that give as good results as the one's science uses not themselves included in the scientific method"?

I have answered this question repeatedly, but here goes again:
"Scientific study is the only way to gain knowledge about the world we observe with our senses".

Now let's move on to your latest question above: "Why does science not want to know about all these areas you say we have methodogies that work pretty well?"

The answer to this question is because science cannot make value judgments. It cannot tell you what is right and wrong. As an example eugenics was based on scientific study and seriously investigated and proposed during the latter half of the 19th century and early 20th century. It became scientism when governments thought what a good idea it was and started to implement it, leading to 50,000 sterilizations in the US and hundreds of thousands in Germany in the 1930s, and that's before the Nazis started herding all the undesirables into gas chambers.

The human mind is what makes value judgments, based on experience and accumulated wisdom and on rare occasions great mental breakthroughs. Of course ideas can be wrong, but over time good/right ideas replace bad/wrong ideas. In terms of how to live one's life, both individually and as members of society, the good/right ideas come from the great spiritual teachers in history from Guatama Buddha through Jesus Christ to the Dalai Lama.. and guess what, when you study them they are all saying the same thing, and it isn't round up the gays and put them in a gas chamber.

Morbert

nagirrac wrote: »

I have answered this question repeatedly, but here goes again:"Scientific study is the only way to gain knowledge about the world we observe with our senses".

Empiricism is a little stronger than that. It asserts that the senses (i.e. careful observation and measurement), are the only way to gain knowledge about the real world. An empiricist would say value judgements (E.g. murder is wrong), are not statements about the real world. They are instead human constructs.

nagirrac

Morbert wrote: »

Empiricism is a little stronger than that. It asserts that the senses (i.e. careful observation and measurement), are the only way to gain knowledge about the real world. An empiricist would say value judgements (E.g. murder is wrong), are not statements about the real world. They are instead human constructs.

If one were about to be on the receiving end of murder they surely would say the statement "murder is wrong" is a statement about the real world:rolleyes:.

Zombrex

nagirrac wrote: »

If you keep changing the question Zombrex, it indicates that your argument is a house of cards.

The question is the same as it was 5 days ago nagirrac

nagirrac wrote: »

The answer to this question is because science cannot make value judgments. It cannot tell you what is right and wrong.

I'm asking you why something is not included in science and you are just answering that question by saying it isn't included in science because it isn't included in science. I ask why science cannot do this and you say it can't do it because it is restricted. I ask why is science restricted and you say it is restricted because it cannot do this. :rolleyes:

I know that nagirrac, I'm asking you why it can't do that. That is not an arbitrary restriction, it is imposed on science by the scientists. Why do they impose this restriction?

You say we can know the accuracy of value judgements, that we can get close to the truth of what is right and wrong. We can say that killing in circumstance X is wrong, that this statement is an accurate reflection of reality.

Ok, so why isn't that included in science? If this methodology works as a method of discovering the accuracy of claims about reality why is it not included in science.

And please don't just answer this question by saying it isn't included in science because science does not include it.

lmaopml

Zombrex wrote: »

The question is the same as it was 5 days ago nagirrac


I'm asking you why something is not included in science and you are just answering that question by saying it isn't included in science because it isn't included in science. I ask why science cannot do this and you say it can't do it because it is restricted. I ask why is science restricted and you say it is restricted because it cannot do this. :rolleyes:

I know that nagirrac, I'm asking you why it can't do that. That is not an arbitrary restriction, it is imposed on science by the scientists. Why do they impose this restriction?

You say we can know the accuracy of value judgements, that we can get close to the truth of what is right and wrong. We can say that killing in circumstance X is wrong, that this statement is an accurate reflection of reality.

Ok, so why isn't that included in science? If this methodology works as a method of discovering the accuracy of claims about reality why is it not included in science.

And please don't just answer this question by saying it isn't included in science because science does not include it.

Zombrex, sometimes you speak like as if you 'own' science! ..and believe that it should own people.

I don't think that you ever considered that yours is simply a philosophy of life that you derive from the method? You don't think that this is 'religous' in nature? ....but hey that's not unusual I guess. Don't be too shocked when actual people think you are religious however? Especially when you are so dedicated to your philosophy as the one and only method of living and being human and knowing anything? No?

Zombrex

lmaopml wrote: »

Zombrex, sometimes you speak like as if you 'own' science! ..and believe that it should own people.

So you keep saying Imaopml. What you don't say (and I asked you a few months ago), is what purpose you think the restrictions science places on itself serve if we can discover all these other things using no scientific methodologies.

People who like religion, superstition and pseudo-science have retreated into this notion that science does not allow itself to attempt to answer these questions. But you ignore why science does not allow itself to attempt to answer these questions.

So you get people saying science cannot explore the question of God, which is correct, but then the same people go on to say other things can, as if science just woke up this morning and decided that instead of exploring the question of God it would rather go get a doughnut :rolleyes:

The reason science doesn't explore these questions is because we (humans) have not come up with any methodology that allows us to have any confidence in the accuracy or truth of a claim made about these questions. All science is is the best methodologies we have so far come up with to have confidence about claims about reality. That is all science is. There is absolutely no reason not to include a methodology in the scientific method if we can have confidence in the answer that methodology gives us

Science is not limited to things like empirical measurement, falsifiability and testable claims simply because someone woke up one morning and said Hey I like a challenge :rolleyes:. Science limits itself to those things because philosophers worked out that we have to limit methodologies to those things in order to have any confidence in the conclusions that methodology provides.

If I'm wrong you are perfectly free to explain the alternative reason why science doesn't explore these things and limits itself in this way. But of course neither you nor nagirrac have done that. Because there isn't another answer. That is the answer, that is why science does this.

At the very least have a think about why you cannot explain these things to me before lecturing me on how much I "own" science. I'm just representing how science is. You don't like how science is because you want to believe in invisible deities. That is your problem, not mine. The universe is under no obligation to be comfortable and easy to you. Science limits itself in this way because we can't know these things, or have any confidence in claims about them (1 theory of electricity, 40,000 religions). The fact that you don't like that because you really want to believe that you can know these things, is irrelevant.