Heresy!

Obni

ISAW wrote:

This is scientism! i.e. a claim that science has the answers to everything.

Perhaps you would like to start a thread by listing things that science cannot answer (not just things beyond our current understanding).

ISAW wrote:

It didnt seem to give us world peace did it?

What gave you the idea that world peace was a natural product of science? The idea of world peace is based on the fundamental idea that this world is somehow supposed to 'work'.

ISAW wrote:

What is the difference between believing science can explain everything and in saying religion can?

All the difference in the world. The exclusion of the divine, mystical, and supernatural as valid explanations. The acknowledgement that fundamental principles of the system in which you believe may be revealed to be completely wrong and have to be revised, and the system loses none of its integrity in the process.

ISAW wrote:

Ever heard of Godel?

Yes, and what's more, I also have a keen sense of when I'm straying out of my depth, so I leave Herr Godel's theorems and the philosophy of science in general, in your hands.

ISAW wrote:

What do you mean by "comprehend"?

It can be found at www.dictionary.com :rolleyes:

Obni

pH wrote:

Well the scientist in me would say ...

Propose another system of knowing things about the universe, and we'll compare how well they do. If this other system gets better results, then science could then be dropped the new system adopted in its place.

Or, wouldn't the new system simply become 'science'. By proving science wrong, you are actually developing a new branch of science, ... no harm done!

robindch

> > what about walking up to one and asking
> > "are you sentient?".
>
> If it answered "yes", would you be happy
> to say that it is sentient?

Not at all -- this is more the domain of the Turing Test and its own peculiar (or not?) characterization of 'sentience'. The fact that many people fail the Turing Test, at least on the side of the 'sentient' side of the Turing conversation (by assuming that something like Eliza is 'sentient'), makes me suspect that sentience may be a somewhat over-rated, or perhaps under-defined, quality in a being. Other life-forms may disagree

> Perhaps, that is the issue: are there answerable
> questions outside science.

Personally, I don't believe so -- if it's agreed that a question (scientific, or not) can have an fact-based answer, then I don't see how this answer could reasonably be said to be outside of science, assuming that 'science' is synonymous with 'knowledge' and 'knowledge' largely synonymous with observable facts. In short, an question which does have an answer, but which answer is not 'scientific', is a contradiction in terms.

Playboy

robindch wrote:

[Personally, I don't believe so -- if it's agreed that a question (scientific, or not) can have an fact-based answer, then I don't see how this answer could reasonably be said to be outside of science, assuming that 'science' is synonymous with 'knowledge' and 'knowledge' largely synonymous with observable facts. In short, an question which does have an answer, but which answer is not 'scientific', is a contradiction in terms.

Ah but does every answer have to be fact based. What about moral, ethical, political, philosopical etc. questions? Are the answers to these questions facts in a scientific sense? If you asked me is abortion wrong and I answered no then how would that fit into "science"? Can there ever be a fact based answer for these kinds of questions? Or do these questions and their answers fall outside of knowledge?

Zombrex

ISAW wrote:

I wasnt asking about whether we can close the questions. I was asking how others are so sure science is the ultimate system of knowing things about the universe.

That doesn't make sense ... what ever system there is for knowing things about the universe, then that is science ... as someone has already said, science means "to know" ... if you "know" something to a scientic degree (ie not something like "I know there is a god", because you don't really "know", that is teh wrong use of the word or idea of knowledge) then how ever you came across that knowledge was science.

Can you give me an example of something you can know but that that knowledge was gained using a system other than science?

pH

Wicknight wrote:

Can you give me an example of something you can know but that that knowledge was gained using a system other than science?

A moderately clever 'philosophy undergrad' will be able to take this question and run with it no problem, without adding anything to our understanding of science. As usual we will end up having to define every word in your question.

Here's an example - just to get the ball rolling ...

Do you know who the president of the US is? Is that knowledge gained by science? and on and on ...

Yes it's all terribly clever and intellectual, but as Playboy has already argued convincingly my views are ignorant and uneducated!

Playboy

pH wrote:

Yes it's all terribly clever and intellectual, but as Playboy has already argued convincingly my views are ignorant and uneducated!

Your insulting and continuining insulting attitude towards philosophy is ignorant and eduacated. If you are a scientist at least know where your roots lie. Ever heard of Aristotle?

Wikipedia wrote:

In Aristotle's terminology, the term natural philosophy corresponds to the phenomena of the natural world, which include: motion, light, and the laws of physics. Many centuries later these subjects would later become the basis of modern science, as studied through the scientific method.

At one time Philosophy was Science so treat it with a bit of respect please.

Playboy

Wicknight wrote:

That doesn't make sense ... what ever system there is for knowing things about the universe, then that is science ... as someone has already said, science means "to know" ... if you "know" something to a scientic degree (ie not something like "I know there is a god", because you don't really "know", that is teh wrong use of the word or idea of knowledge) then how ever you came across that knowledge was science.

Can you give me an example of something you can know but that that knowledge was gained using a system other than science?

Hmmm it seems that science when it suits itself encompasses everything there is to know but is only too quick to distance itself from other disciplines when it suits also. Which is it? Is philosophy a science? Is the English language a science? Is ethics science? Is sport science? Is parenting a science? Is changing a child's nappy science? Is walking a science? I would assume that when people refer to science then they are referring to disciplines that rigoursly enforce the use of the scientific method.

SkepticOne

Wicknight wrote:

Can you give me an example of something you can know but that that knowledge was gained using a system other than science?

Logic.

Zombrex

SkepticOne wrote:

Logic.

Firstly "logic" isn't something you know, it is a process to understand something ... you don't know logic, you use logic to know something.

Secondly logic reasoning is part of science ....

People seem to think science is limited to blowing things up in test tubes while wearing a lab coat ... it is a bit more than that ...

Zombrex

Playboy wrote:

Hmmm it seems that science when it suits itself encompasses everything there is to know but is only too quick to distance itself from other disciplines when it suits also. Which is it? Is philosophy a science? Is the English language a science? Is ethics science? Is sport science? Is parenting a science? Is changing a child's nappy science? Is walking a science? I would assume that when people refer to science then they are referring to disciplines that rigoursly enforce the use of the scientific method.

I don't understand this post at all .... you talk about "science" as if it is a politician ... how does "science" distance itself from something? Are you referring to the scientific community?

Is philosophy a science?
No, not really. Some of the logical reasoning in philosphy is scientific, but most of philosophy is really just human imagination.

Is the English language a science?
The study of the constructs and laws of the human language could be considered a science, encompassing mathematics, logic and human behavioural science

Is ethics science?
No, like philosophy, ethics is a creation of the human imagination, and as such cannot be "studied" in a scientific manner. The social/cultural/behaviour parterns of humans that give rise to ethical thought can be studied and falls under science.

Is parenting a science?
Yes, it would fall under human behavioural science.

Is changing a child's nappy science?
See above ...

Is walking a science?
The study of how/why we walk falls under biological and behavioural science.

SkepticOne

Wicknight wrote:

Firstly "logic" isn't something you know, it is a process to understand something ... you don't know logic, you use logic to know something.

But there are some people who know logic and others that don't. Some people study and develop it for years.

Secondly logic reasoning is part of science ....

Well historically, it has emerged out of philosophy. It does not fit into the robindch's "empirically tested and observed knowledge". It is used by science of course, so in that sense it is part of science.

Playboy

Wicknight wrote:

I don't understand this post at all .... you talk about "science" as if it is a politician ... how does "science" distance itself from something? Are you referring to the scientific community?

Yes I was under the impression that science was its community. If not who will define it and how can it exist independently of the people in it?

Wicknight wrote:

Can you give me an example of something you can know but that that knowledge was gained using a system other than science?

Is philosophy a science?
No, not really. Some of the logical reasoning in philosphy is scientific, but most of philosophy is really just human imagination.

Is the English language a science?
The study of the constructs and laws of the human language could be considered a science, encompassing mathematics, logic and human behavioural science

Is ethics science?
No, like philosophy, ethics is a creation of the human imagination, and as such cannot be "studied" in a scientific manner. The social/cultural/behaviour parterns of humans that give rise to ethical thought can be studied and falls under science.

Is parenting a science?
Yes, it would fall under human behavioural science.

Is changing a child's nappy science?
See above ...

Is walking a science?
The study of how/why we walk falls under biological and behavioural science.

Do you not distinguish between the study of something and the knowledge of something? Human Behavioural science might study and ask questions about parenting, it might even offer better ways to be a parent, but it is not how we came to learn or know how to be parents. Same goes for walking, we dont use the system of science to know how to walk but we might use it to study how/why. I think we are getting into a Reductionist debate here that isn't going to be won by either side.

Wikipedia wrote:

Reductionism in science can have several different senses. One type of reductionism is the belief that all fields of study are ultimately amenable to scientific explanation. Perhaps an historical event might be explained in sociological and psychological terms, which in turn might be described in terms of human physiology, which in turn might be described in terms of chemistry and physics. The historical event will have been reduced to a physical event. This might be seen as implying that the historical event was 'nothing but' the physical event, denying the existence of emergent phenomena.

Daniel Dennett invented the term greedy reductionism to describe the assumption that such reductionism was possible. He claims that it is just 'bad science', seeking to find explanations which are appealing or eloquent, rather than those that are of use in predicting natural phenomena. He also says that:

There is no such thing as philosophy-free science; there is only science whose philosophical baggage is taken on board without examination. —Daniel Dennett, Darwin's Dangerous Idea, 1995.

Arguments made against greedy reductionism through reference to emergent phenomena rely upon the fact that self-referential systems can be said to contain more information than can be described through individual analysis of their component parts. Examples include systems that contain strange loops, fractal organisation and strange attractors in phase space. Analysis of such systems is necessarily information-destructive because the observer must select a sample of the system that can be at best partially representative. Information theory can be used to calculate the magnitude of information loss and is one of the techniques applied by Chaos theory.

Take from here

pH

Here's a definition of Science taken from evolutionblog

Science, by definition, is a method of learning about the physical universe by asking questions in a way that they can be answered empirically and verifiably. If a question cannot be framed so that the answer is testable by looking at physical evidence and by allowing other people to repeat and replicate one's test, then it is not science. The term science also refers to the organized body of knowledge that results from scientific study.

It is not the same as the community of scientists, who as humans are susceptible to all the normal frailties.

SkepticOne

Taking pH's quote, we can clearly see that science is limited in its scope. There are questions that can be asked that can't be answered within science (e.g sentience). There are bodies of knowlege (e.g. logic) that fall outside the scope of science (according to pH's quote) yet, as Wicknight points out, are of incredible use to science. Of course, we can get around these by modifying our definition of science, or downplaying the significance of those things that are outside its scope.

I think problems are caused when people claim (unscientifically) that science has a potential answer to everything. I think relativist post-modern notions that science is just another form of myth-making, are partly a reaction to the percieved arrogance of this position.

robindch

> I think problems are caused when people claim
> (unscientifically) that science has a potential
> answer to everything.

While I can't think of anyone -- at least, anybody outside a hammy hollywood script -- who's ever claimed that science can answer everything, I do know many people (all thoroughly unfamiliar with science), who do believe that these universal claims are made on behalf of science.

'zfar as I can see, when you hold, for example, a religious worldview which asserts, then requires you to believe, that there are meaningful answers to everything (and that your own pet religion is the one to supply them) then it seems that most such people then go on to assume incorrectly that everybody else's worldview somehow includes an answer, or the possibility of an answer, to everything too. Hence the claims made by the uninformed on behalf of science.

The question of whether a question ("What is the meaning of life?") can actually have an answer, let alone a worthwhile one, is one which never seems to enter the minds of these good folks.

Playboy

robindch wrote:

> I think problems are caused when people claim
> (unscientifically) that science has a potential
> answer to everything.

While I can't think of anyone -- at least, anybody outside a hammy hollywood script -- who's ever claimed that science can answer everything, I do know many people (all thoroughly unfamiliar with science), who do believe that these universal claims are made on behalf of science.

I think the claim that was made earlier that prompted this debate was "that nothing lies outside science", not whether "science has an answer to everything". Or do both of those coments mean the same thing?

robindch

> I think the claim that was made earlier that prompted this
> debate was "that nothing lies outside science", not whether
> "science has an answer to everything". Or do both of those
> coments mean the same thing?

Not at all, but the earlier debate had slowly moved away from where it had started...

SkepticOne

robindch wrote:

> I think problems are caused when people claim
> (unscientifically) that science has a potential
> answer to everything.

While I can't think of anyone -- at least, anybody outside a hammy hollywood script -- who's ever claimed that science can answer everything, I do know many people (all thoroughly unfamiliar with science), who do believe that these universal claims are made on behalf of science.

Obni: " Nothing lies outside science."

However, yes, such claims are fairly rare.

robindch

> Obni: " Nothing lies outside science."

...is not the same as:

> science can answer everything

As before, I can't think of anything which isn't worth looking at from a scientific (read "observe + test") point of view, including all those topics which self-approving 'disciplines' like religion and philosophy traditionally believe to be their own domains, such as 'morality', 'ethics' and the rest. Others may disagree!

It also depends heavily upon what you mean by 'answer' -- if you mean 'provide a some useful information to help you deal with the something-at-hand', then the sentiment is workable. But if you mean the more traditional sense of 'provide a full, working knowledge of the wherefores, and especially the whys', then there's clearly little way that science, or indeed, anything at all, can answer everything (regardless of how much people might wish that some simple idea could reduce the world for them to convenient, bite-sized pieces).

Zombrex

Playboy wrote:

Yes I was under the impression that science was its community. If not who will define it and how can it exist independently of the people in it?

Of the top of my head ...

Science is a method of learning in a structured way, where the methods and results of this process can be independently verified and measured.

Learning to walk -

Do you learn in a structured manner?
Yes, learning to walk is a process of trail and error, where a baby (or car crash victim) trains his brain by trying different methods until one produces the correct result.

Can the process be repeated independently
Yes, it is by millions of children all over the world everyday.

Can the results be tested and verified
Yes, you fall over if you did it wrong.

So, while a 2 year old isn't going "Umm, today I am going to scientifically learn how to walk", the natural instinctive process that a child uses is a completely scientific

robindch wrote:

The question of whether a question ("What is the meaning of life?") can actually have an answer, let alone a worthwhile one, is one which never seems to enter the minds of these good folks.

The scientific answer to taht is "There isn't one" ... that is of course ignoring the fact that it is a totally loaded question and as such would not be entertained in the first place.

It is not a bad reflection on the process of "science" if the answers it provides do not met the expectations of the people who ask them.

For example, if I asked the loaded question "Can science explain, why dragons breath is blue?" the scientific answer would not "No it can't" but it would be "Dragon's breath isn't blue, because dragons don't exisit".

Playboy

Wicknight wrote:

Learning to walk -

Do you learn in a structured manner?
Yes, learning to walk is a process of trail and error, where a baby (or car crash victim) trains his brain by trying different methods until one produces the correct result.

This is exactly what I am talking about - reductionism. You have a hypothesis about how a baby learns to walk. You reduce it down to a completely simplistic explanation. You apply the 'scientific method' to it and because your assumed results fall nicely into your hypothesis you think that that sufficiently explains how a child learns to walk whilst ignoring all of the larger complexities at work. Trial and error is only one small part of how a child learns to walk. Since we are on the subject of developmental psychology could you explain scientifically to me how a child learns to speak a language? Most developmental psychologists will tell you that language should be way beyond the abilities of an infant to learn. The only real explanation being that we are born with some innate ability to develop one of our most complex abilities.

Chomsky's 1965 theory

He argued that the structure of human language dictates that knowledge of its structure must be innate. This is because the underlying or deep structure of sentences is not manifest in the structure of the sentences we hear (the surface structure). Given that children are only exposed to surface forms, Chomsky argues that it is impossible for them to work out the deep structure unless they already know certain linguistic categories (e.g. verbs, subjects). Knowledge of these principles constitutes Universal Grammar (UG) and this is what is contained within our innate LAD. It must be noted that deep structures are not themselves innate - each language has its own. What is innate - the UG - is at a very abstract level, something so general that all languages will have this in common.

Taken from here

robindch

> [Wicknight] For example, if I asked the loaded question "Can science
> explain, why dragons breath is blue?" the scientific answer
> would not "No it can't" but it would be "Dragon's breath
> isn't blue, because dragons don't exisit".

My point exactly. Science is useful, not only because it allows us to search for answers in a coherent way, but also because it allows us to say that the entire basis for a question might be invalid ("Have you stopped beating your wife yet?"). As I said above, other systems of enquiry like religion and philosophy have a marked tendency not to look at the logical questions very closely before delivering answers ex cathedra -- ask a Baptist, "How can I be saved?", or (oddly) a Christian Scientist, "What prayer should you say to cure cancer?", etc, etc.

> [Playboy] your hypothesis you think that that sufficiently explains
> how a child learns to walk whilst ignoring all of the larger
> complexities at work

That's a rather sweeping statement to make. Could you enlarge upon what you mean by 'the larger complexities' and also why the simple feedback loop of "struggle upright, take step, fall, hurt" proposed by Wicknight, when experienced by a brain which is believed to have evolved to cope with dealing this situation, isn't enough to explain why a baby can learn to walk?

Myksyk

Playboy wrote:

Most developmental psychologists will tell you that language should be way beyond the abilities of an infant to learn.

:eek: :eek:

Can we assume that you have in fact not surveyed most developmental psychologists?

Can we assume that given that almost all infants do in fact learn a language that no developmental psychologist would tell you any such thing?

Can we also assume that learning based on innate mechanisms is still learning?

Playboy

robindch wrote:

> [Playboy] your hypothesis you think that that sufficiently explains
> how a child learns to walk whilst ignoring all of the larger
> complexities at work

That's a rather sweeping statement to make. Could you enlarge upon what you mean by 'the larger complexities' and also why the simple feedback loop of "struggle upright, take step, fall, hurt" proposed by Wicknight, when experienced by a brain which is believed to have evolved to cope with dealing this situation, isn't enough to explain why a baby can learn to walk?

So you think all the cognitive, behavioural, evolutionary and developmental mechanisms involved in learning how to walk can be reduced to a simple statement of trial and error?

Playboy

Myksyk wrote:

:eek: :eek:

Can we assume that you have in fact not surveyed most developmental psychologists?

Can we assume that given that almost all infants do in fact learn a language that no developmental psychologist would tell you any such thing?

Can we also assume that learning based on innate mechanisms is still learning?

I'm not sure I understand your post. I'm refering to that fact that an infant without the presence of an unexplained innate ability to learn a language would not be able to learn a language at the age that it does. This is in comparison to his/her inability to perform other tasks of equal complexity at the same age. I was told this by a developmental psychologist and it should be obvious in the quote that I posted that this was a common view?

SkepticOne

Playboy wrote:

I'm not sure I understand your post. I'm refering to that fact that an infant without the presence of an unexplained innate ability to learn a language would not be able to learn a language at the age that it does. This is in comparison to his/her inability to perform other tasks of equal complexity at the same age. I was told this by a developmental psychologist and it should be obvious in the quote that I posted that this was a common view?

Well, this innate ability isn't really mysterious and is amenable to scientific enquiry. Many animals are born with the ability to walk and fend for themselves with little or no learning. Evolution endows them with abilities that don't need to be learned. Instinct. Stephen Pinker has a book called "The Language Instinct".

Myksyk

Playboy wrote:

So you think all the cognitive, behavioural, evolutionary and developmental mechanisms involved in learning how to walk can be reduced to a simple statement of trial and error?

I think you're mistaking semantic shortcuts on Robin's part for reductionism. They are not the same. Robin probably assumes the complexities behind the learning process but it can be neatly (and in fact accurately) simplified as 'trial and error' when it comes to the actual process of learning in the here and now.

Playboy

SkepticOne wrote:

Well, this innate ability isn't really mysterious and is amenable to scientific enquiry. Many animals are born with the ability to walk and fend for themselves with little or no learning. Evolution endows them with abilities that don't need to be learned. Instinct. Stephen Pinker has a book called "The Language Instinct".

I would have to disagree with you Skepticone. Pinker himself has described children as "grammatical genius's” and his book is pervaded with a sense awe throughout. He attempts as does Dawkins to explain our development scientifically but he doesn’t prove it. His argument is in direct contrast to Chomsky though who came up with the theory. Chomsky believed that the phenomena could not be explained by evolution through natural selection. Difference of Opinion, one mysterious and one not – Who’s right?

Zombrex

Playboy wrote:

This is exactly what I am talking about - reductionism. You have a hypothesis about how a baby learns to walk. You reduce it down to a completely simplistic explanation.

Thats not "reductionism" at all, you are applying an idea that has no relievence to what I am saying.

Reductionism states that all complex processes can be reduced down to sets of simple processes working together in complex ways. Its a form of chaos theory. For example, human behaviour (a very complex thing) can be reduced down to the study of genes (which, individually, act in a very simple manner), or weather can be reduced down to the study of air and heat.

Thats not really relievent at all to the statement that children learn through "trail and error", as that is not an attempt to break some complex process into a set of simple ones. Just because trail and error is a short sentence, doesn't mean it is a simple process.

Also, trail and error is a description of types of process, it isn't really a process itself. The processes taking place under the banner "trail and error" are very complex, from the nerve signals in the brain attempting to form path ways, to the muscles in the leg to the balance feed-back a child gets from their ear.

I am also still not sure how this shows that you do not learn to walk in a "scientic" fashion, ie structured, measured and repeatable.

Playboy wrote:

You apply the 'scientific method' to it and because your assumed results fall nicely into your hypothesis you think that that sufficiently explains how a child learns to walk whilst ignoring all of the larger complexities at work.

Are you saying a child does not learn to walk through trial and error?

Playboy wrote:

Trial and error is only one small part of how a child learns to walk.

Trail and error is the basic method that humans "learn" to do anything, it is how the pathways in the human brain develop. How else would a child learn to walk?

Playboy wrote:

Since we are on the subject of developmental psychology could you explain scientifically to me how a child learns to speak a language? Most developmental psychologists will tell you that language should be way beyond the abilities of an infant to learn. The only real explanation being that we are born with some innate ability to develop one of our most complex abilities.

Well firstly you are talking jumps there. "The only real explaniation" is famously something that is rather unscientific to start with. For example, a cell is to complex to form on its own, the only real explanation is that an intelligence must have created it.

But say humans posses instinctive processes in the brain that make developing language much easier that it should be. Well, you aren't really "learning" it if it is instinct are you? So saying that is learning but non-scientific learning is incorrect, because it is not actually "learning" at all.