Heresy!

Zombrex

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?

Like I said already, that isn't reductionism, you are miss representing that idea.

Saying children learn to walk through a process of trail and error is not a reduction at all.

If I said "How can you ride a bike?" and the answer was "I learnt how", even though that seems like a short statement, it is not a reductionist answer. The process of "learnt" can be very complex, it is not an attempt to simplify the process.

Like wise, who ever said trail and error was a simple process? (or complex one at that, it is not a reflection of the complexity, or lack of, at all)

Zombrex

Can anyone put forward a question that they believe is beyond the realm of science to explain?

Just curious ...

Playboy

Are you not contradicting yourself here? Firstly you say that reductionism is"not really relevant at all to the statement that children learn through trial and error" and then you state "The processes taking place under the banner "trial 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". Can you reduce this complex processes further to explain what you mean by trial and error or will you end up at "the study of genes (which, individually, act in a very simple manner)" The idea of reductionism is that you come to your conclusion of "trial and error" through reduction all the way from physics, chemistry, biology and end up at psychology. Just because we observe a process in children learning to walk which we believe to be trial and error doesnt offer us any conclusive proof that the inner workings of a child's mind are engaged in a process of trial and error. It is an assumption we have to make becuase we are unable to be in a child's mind to see for oursleves.

Wikipedia wrote:

Reductionsim

Roughly this means that physics is based on mathematics, chemistry is based on physics, biology is based on chemistry, psychology and sociology are based on biology. The first of these are commonly accepted but the last step is very controversial and therefore the frontier of reductionism: evolutionary -psychology and -sociology vs. those who claim people have a soul or another quality that separates them from the material world. Reductionists believe that the behavioral-sciences should become a genuine scientific discipline by being based on genetic biology.

Wicknight wrote:

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

I'm not saying a child does or doesnt. What I am trying to get accross is that there are different point's view out there and maybe different answers. I'm not trying to say that we are born with a supernatural motivation or ability to stand and walk on two legs becuase maybe it is a bad example but I do believe there are other possible answers out there for phenomena other than science.

Wicknight wrote:

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.

I didnt realise that instinctual learning was not learing? So what is your explanation for it? Evolution? Evolution is a hypothesis and not an answer.

Zombrex

Playboy wrote:

Are you not contradicting yourself here? Firstly you say that reductionism is"not really relevant at all to the statement that children learn through trial and error" and then you state "The processes taking place under the banner "trial 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".

Exactly ... The statement "Trail and Error" is not reductionism, as I have already explained, therefore reductionism is not relievent.

Playboy wrote:

Can you reduce this complex processes further to explain what you mean by trial and error or will you end up at "the study of genes (which, individually, act in a very simple manner)"

I don't know, I didn't try. See above.

Playboy wrote:

The idea of reductionism is that you come to your conclusion of "trial and error" through reduction all the way from physics, chemistry, biology and end up at psychology.

Er, you either don't know that psychology means or you don't know what "trail and error" means.

There is nothing in the statement "trail and error" that is a reduction away from physics, chemistry or biology. The chemical processes happening in the brain that form the neural pathways to contribute to the process of learning in a child have everything to do with physics, chemistry and biology. And they are also a perfect an example of "trail and error"

Playboy wrote:

Just because we observe a process in children learning to walk which we believe to be trial and error doesnt offer us any conclusive proof that the inner workings of a child's mind are engaged in a process of trial and error.

Actually the process that animals learn processes such as walking, balance, and lower level skills such as riding a bike etc, are quite well understood.

Playboy wrote:

It is an assumption we have to make becuase we are unable to be in a child's mind to see for oursleves.

No, its not really .... biologists have been studying how the brain functions and learns for the last 100 years.

Playboy wrote:

I'm not saying a child does or doesnt. What I am trying to get accross is that there are different point's view out there and maybe different answers.

And...?

Playboy wrote:

I'm not trying to say that we are born with a supernatural motivation or ability to stand and walk on two legs becuase maybe it is a bad example but I do believe there are other possible answers out there for phenomena other than science.

God? Aliens?

Seriously though, what "explination" there is for a phenomena or event is science. Thats what people seem to forget. If there is a God then that falls with in "Science". God is a scientific law, if he/she exisits.

Playboy wrote:

So what is your explanation for it? Evolution? Evolution is a hypothesis and not an answer.

What was the question again?

Serious, you don't really seem to know what you want to ask, so it is kinda hard to answer. You can believe that God implanted the instinct to walk into children if you like. There is no logical reason, or evidence to come to that conclusion. But even if he did, then that is with in the realm of science.

As someone said, "If God exisit then he is the ultimate law of physics"

Playboy

Wicknight wrote:

Er, you either don't know that psychology means or you don't know what "trail and error" means.

There is nothing in the statement "trail and error" that is a reduction away from physics, chemistry or biology. The chemical processes happening in the brain that form the neural pathways to contribute to the process of learning in a child have everything to do with physics, chemistry and biology. And they are also a perfect an example of "trail and error"

I am not saying that trial and error is the reduction. In order to explain the theory of trial and error you have to reduce. When you talk about neural pathways then you are reducing.

Wicknight wrote:

No, its not really .... biologists have been studying how the brain functions and learns for the last 100 years.

By reduction maybe?

Wicknight wrote:

Seriously though, what "explination" there is for a phenomena or event is science. Thats what people seem to forget.

If I said God did it or aliens did it would that explanation be science? Why does every explanation require scientific proof?

Wicknight wrote:

If there is a God then that falls with in "Science". God is a scientific law, if he/she exisits.

Really? Thats assuming we can ever prove scientifically he exists as we think he exists. Even if a God informed us of his existence how would we be able understand him through science? Do we make assumptions about him to formulate this "ultimate law of physics" ?

Wicknight wrote:

Serious, you don't really seem to know what you want to ask, so it is kinda hard to answer. You can believe that God implanted the instinct to walk into children if you like. There is no logical reason, or evidence to come to that conclusion. But even if he did, then that is with in the realm of science.

I'm not asking a question. I am merely arguing against the statement that "nothing lies outside science". Tbh I don't even know what I'm arguing atm - I think I started somewhere and ended up arguing for the sake of agrument

Playboy

"Science does not and cannot tell us what ends we ought to pursue; it does not and cannot tell us what our purposes ought to be. However useful it is productively, it does not tell us whether we ought or ought not to produce certain things (such as thermonuclear bombs or supersonic transport planes); it does not tell us whether we ought or ought not to exercise certain controls over natural processes (such as human procreation or changes in weather). However useful it is practically, it does not tell us whether we ought or ought not to employ certain means to achieve our ends, on any basis other than their relative efficiency; it does not tell us whether one goal ought or ought not to be preferred to another. It does not tell us, in short, what we ought or ought not to do and what we ought or ought not to seek.

In Chapter 5 [Ed. note: the present essay is Chapter 7 of the book], where I dealt with the tests of truth in philosophy, I pointed out that there were two distinct modes of truth, not one. The first is the correspondence theory of truth, according to which our thinking about reality is true if it agrees with the way things really are or are not. We called this mode of truth descriptive. It is expressed in statements that contain "is" and "is not." The other mode of truth is prescriptive, and is expressed in statements that contain the words "ought" or "ought not."

Philosophical knowledge of the first order is the dimension of philosophy in which we find descriptive truth. It is in the second dimension of philosophy that we find the prescriptive truths of ethical and political philosophy.

These truths state the categorical moral obligations that govern the conduct of our lives and the institutions of our societies. In this second dimension, we find the use that philosophy uniquely confers on us.

The difference in the usefulness of science and philosophy corresponds to the difference in their methods as modes of inquiry. No question properly belongs to science which cannot be answered or elucidated by investigation. That is precisely why no ought question is scientific and why, therefore, science includes no prescriptive or normative branch, no ought knowledge.

Beginning in the seventeenth century, the natural sciences gradually separated themselves from speculative philosophy. More recently, the social sciences have declared their independence of philosophy in its prescriptive or normative dimensions. In order to establish themselves as subdivisions of science, such disciplines as economics, politics, and sociology had to eschew all normative considerations (that is, all ought questions or, as they are sometimes called, questions of value). They had to become purely descriptive, in this respect exactly like the natural sciences. They had to restrict themselves to questions of how men do, in fact, behave, individually and socially, and forego all attempts to say how they ought in principle to behave."

Taken from here

pH

The difference in the usefulness of science and philosophy corresponds to the difference in their methods as modes of inquiry ...

The difference in usefulness is that one is and the other isn't.

Can anyone put forward a question that they believe is beyond the realm of science to explain?

I'm presuming you mean answer here (as opposed to explain).

Perhaps the more interesting question is:

"Can anyone put forward a question that they believe is beyond the realm of science to answer but is anwserable (by another discipline)?"

Now we all know that mathematics is not strictly science, so maths questions don't count. Also we need a formal definition of 'answer', in that I cannot think of a question that Astrology cannot answer. We implicitly mean 'correct answer' or 'meaningful answer', not just any answer.

So Science by definition covers the testable and verifiable answers, all other answers are by definition not.

So questions like 'Ought women be allowed to have an abortion?' in a sense have answers (Yes absolutely, or no it's murder! are both answers) but in another sense they don't. Opinions or positions on a sliding scale might be a better description of the responses to these 'ought' questions.

Zombrex

Playboy wrote:

"Science does not and cannot tell us what ends we ought to pursue;it does not and cannot tell us what our purposes ought to be.

"Science" doesn't tell us, as in instruct us, to do anything. I am not even sure where to start with that one.

The problem expecting "science" to answer questions such as "what ends we ought to pursue?" or "whether we ought or ought not to employ certain means to achieve our ends?" isn't that science is limited, its that the questions have no answers, no true answer at least, only opinions.

There is no true answer to the question "Should we start nuclear war?", only opinions as to yes or no. There is no "truth" in philisophical questions like the ones presented in the quote, only degrees of opinions.

Zombrex

pH wrote:

"Can anyone put forward a question that they believe is beyond the realm of science to answer but is anwserable (by another discipline)?"

True, as a follow on from my last post.

Question like, what is the meaning of life?, how should we live? are we good/evil? etc a not questions with any form of truth or reality behind them.

The problem is with the question, not with the limits of science.

Playboy

Your assuming that scientific answers are true.

Is The Goal of Scientific Research to Achieve Truth?
Except in special cases, most scientific researchers would agree that their results are only approximately true. Nevertheless, to make sense of this, philosophers need adopt no special concept such as "approximate truth." Instead, it suffices to say that the researchers' goal is to achieve truth, but they achieve this goal only approximately, or only to some approximation.

Other philosophers believe it's a mistake to say the researchers' goal is to achieve truth. These 'scientific anti-realists' recommend saying that research in, for example, physics, economics, and meteorology, aims only for usefulness. When they aren't overtly identifying truth with usefulness, the instrumentalists Peirce, James and Schlick take this anti-realist route, as does Kuhn. They would say atomic theory isn't true or false but rather is useful for predicting outcomes of experiments and for explaining current data. Giere recommends saying science aims for the best available 'representation', in the same sense that maps are representations of the landscape. Maps aren't true; rather, they fit to a better or worse degree. Similarly, scientific theories are designed to fit the world. Scientists should not aim to create true theories; they should aim to construct theories whose models are representations of the world.

Taken from this discussion. I posted the link to this thread earlier in case you missed it.

Playboy

Quote by Ph
>The difference in usefulness is that one is and the other isn't.

I don't understand what you mean by usefulness. Is it another insult directed at philosophy or are you merely pointing out that one is materially productive and one is not?

[There are questions which science cannot answer but which, nevertheless, can be answered and can be answered by philosophical knowledge, capable of evidential support, rather than by unfounded personal opinion. The questions which philosophy can answer and science cannot are radically different in type from the questions science can answer and philosophy cannot; and this difference in the problems and objects of philosophical and scientific inquiry is correlated with the fundamental difference in their methods of inquiry. The methods of each are adapted to solving problems of a certain limited sort, and so long as science and philosophy are each characterized by their own distinctive methods, neither will ever be able by its methods to solve the problems amenable to the methods of the other, and neither will ever be able to advance knowledge beyond the limited competence of its own methods.
Yet the methods of both are methods of learning what is true or probable, and so the methods of both, properly applied, are able to increase the store of human knowledge, each with respect to its own objects and problems. Both, in short, are methodical pursuits of objective truth; and though the way in which each establishes its conclusions is as different as the way in which each conducts its inquiries, the conclusions are either true or false, more probable or less probable, by the same ultimate criterion, namely, by the measure of their accord with existent realities or facts.
Apart from the distinction between science and philosophy, we are all acquainted with analogous distinctions among separate disciplines. The method of history is different from the method of natural science. The kind of questions the historian tries to answer by means of his method are radically different from the kind of questions the natural scientist tries to answer by means of his. The one is concerned with the occurrence and conjunction or sequence of particular events; the other, with correlations among phenomena, which can be expressed in general laws or probability statements. The scientist knows that he cannot solve a single genuinely historical problem by his methods, now or ever; just as the historian knows that he cannot solve a single problem in physics, chemistry, or biology by his.
The same relation obtains between the mathematical sciences, on the one hand, and the experimental or empirical sciences, on the other. Even though mathematics and physics are closely wedded in the hybrid discipline of mathematical physics, we know the difference between the mathematical and the physical problems of mathematical physics, and know that experimental methods cannot produce new mathematical formulations, just as mathematical methods cannot produce new experimental data. Advances in mathematical physics require, first, separate advances in pure mathematics and in experimental physics; only after both have been accomplished, can they be combined fruitfully. Otherwise, we have the situation, familiar to all of us, either of mathematical theorizing in advance of experimental data or of experimental findings waiting for mathematical formulation.

I liked this analogy.

The domain of science is the whole area of well-established knowledge. There everything is seen in a clear light. But on the borders or outskirts of this realm, one finds problems which have not yet been solved by the method of the scientist. Here things are much less clear. As one moves from the bright lights of the city of knowledge to its dimly illuminated suburbs, one finds philosophers at work, speculating about but not solving the problems which scientists will later solve when the city grows and extends its periphery. When that happens, what used to be suburb will be incorporated into the city, and the philosopher will move further out into underdeveloped areas.
According to this view of the philosopher as pioneering in the suburbs or as living and working in the underdeveloped areas of knowledge, there is no difference between the scientist and the philosopher so far as their problems are concerned. The difference between them lies only in this: that the philosopher lacks and the scientist possesses a method of solving problems in a way that confers upon the solutions the status of established knowledge. The sign that solutions have such status is that they are agreed upon by all or by most who are competent to judge. That the philosopher is merely able to speculate or theorize but not to solve problems is indicated by the fact that the "solutions" each philosopher offers are his own, and are seldom if ever shared by his colleagues. Life in the suburbs cannot help being a war of each against all.
Sometimes philosophers tire of this endless quarreling and, forsaking their birthplace, move into the city to enjoy a little harmony and peace in their declining years. Sometimes scientists, especially after they have won Nobel Prizes or have been invited to become Gifford Lecturers, feel the lure of the suburbs, where one can live a less formal and more fanciful existence, and they decide to sojourn there for a summer or two, or to become regulars commuters. Some even decide to take up permanent residence there, returning to the city only on the occasion of the great association meetings, when they try to excite, if not edify, their less adventuresome colleagues by reports of their explorations beyond the city limits.
We are not concerned with where any individual chooses to live and labor, but with the conditions and character of the life and work that he engages in when he is a scientist or a philosopher. According to this view, all real advances in knowledge are made by the solid work of scientists, though philosophers may prepare for some of these advances by their forays on the periphery of science. The fact that the growing city tends progressively to engulf the adjacent suburbs bespeaks the continuity of science and philosophy.
Some who hold this view of the difference and the relation between the two areas emphasize the continuity by looking upon the ultimate problems of science at any time as its philosophical problems, and by treating the established facts on which philosophy builds its speculations as its scientific basis. Philosophy and science are thus not two distinct domains, as two sovereign states are. They are only two aspects of one and the same sphere of activity, difficult to distinguish in the borderline cases. The whole enterprise is properly described as an inquiry into the nature or shape of things, and we simply call one phase of the activity "scientific" and another phase "philosophical." According to the temperament of the man who does such name-calling, the words "scientific" and "philosophical" are respectively eulogistic and pejorative, or the reverse.

Taken from here

pH

Quote by Ph
>The difference in usefulness is that one is and the other isn't.

I don't understand what you mean by usefulness. Is it another insult directed at philosophy or are you merely pointing out that one is materially productive and one is not?

The word usefulness is from your post, take it that I mean exactly what you meant, though, given that it was from a long tract of someone else's writing that you probably had not read, the misunderstanding is understandable.

And though I'm not sure that one can 'insult philosophy' in any meaningful way, you can take it that I was.

There are questions which science cannot answer but which, nevertheless, can be answered and can be answered by philosophical knowledge, capable of evidential support, rather than by unfounded personal opinion. The questions which philosophy can answer and science cannot are radically different in type from the questions science can answer and philosophy cannot;

When you're done posting the entire radical academy website, perhaps you'll supply the questions and answers rather than merely stating that they exist.

Playboy

pH wrote:

The word usefulness is from your post, take it that I mean exactly what you meant, though, given that it was from a long tract of someone else's writing that you probably had not read, the misunderstanding is understandable.

And though I'm not sure that one can 'insult philosophy' in any meaningful way, you can take it that I was.

Is it impossible for you to have debate without been rude and snide? Are you that unhappy irl that you have to make pathetic attempts to insult people? You have contributed nothing to this debate and have absolutely no understanding of Philosophy and its contribution to society and you refuse to educate yourself. Do you think that this little world you live in with its political systems, its ethics, morality and laws that protect you could have existed without philosophy? You seem to take the whole structure of our society and the way we live our lives for granted. Did you think that all our developed ways of being in this world have evolved on their own without any of the great thinkers. Do you even realise that the natural and social sciences owe its origins to philosophy and that the philosophers of Greece were the first great champions of mathematics.

pH wrote:

When you're done posting the entire radical academy website, perhaps you'll supply the questions and answers rather than merely stating that they exist.

The radical academy website hosts many essays and papers of a prominent philosopher named Adler who deals with the divisions between science and philosophy which are relavent to to the discussion. You however are not relavent becuase you have nothing to contribute.

Playboy

pH wrote:

"Can anyone put forward a question that they believe is beyond the realm of science to answer but is anwserable (by another discipline)?"

Now we all know that mathematics is not strictly science, so maths questions don't count. Also we need a formal definition of 'answer', in that I cannot think of a question that Astrology cannot answer. We implicitly mean 'correct answer' or 'meaningful answer', not just any answer.

So Science by definition covers the testable and verifiable answers, all other answers are by definition not.

So questions like 'Ought women be allowed to have an abortion?' in a sense have answers (Yes absolutely, or no it's murder! are both answers) but in another sense they don't. Opinions or positions on a sliding scale might be a better description of the responses to these 'ought' questions.

You are asking a stupid question. Is there any questions that science cant answer but can be answered by another discipline in a scientific manner. If you look for a scientific answer then the only discipline that can answer it is science. If you kew anything about the philosophy of science you might doubt the truth of your scientific answers. Let me rephrase that - If you knew anything about truth then you might doubt the truth of your scientific answers.

Obni

Been absent for a while, but I'd like to re-state my earlier claim.

Nothing lies outside of science.

That the answer to a moral/ought question cannot be scientifically derived, or that the truth of any given answer, however derived, cannot necessarily be either proven or disproven by science, has no impact on my statement.

In the absence of any submitted instances, and to avoid introducing controversial topics, that only serve to side-track the thread, let's ask whether it is acceptable for people of type A to be subjected to treatment type B by the majority of society. The causes of the animosity or adulation directed at group A may be picked apart by sociological, political, and anthropological means. The motivations for the selection of treatment B may be similarly analysed. The projected result on group A, on the majority implementing treatment B, and on the continuing relationship between the two groups, and even on the implications for the future treatment of related group Z or treatment Y, can form the source of many happy years of EU funded research. At what point does this 'ought' scenario stray beyond the reach of scientific enquiry? I realise that we may not be able to resolve many aspects of the argument to the level of detail that we might like, but as Iarnrod Eireann would say 'A lot done; a lot more to do'.

An ought subject may form a moral maze or philosophical minefield, but at what point can you say "Ah-ha! Now explain that bit science-boy!".

Nothing lies outside of science or perhaps I should now say that nothing lies outside of Philosophical knowledge of the first order. I am no philosopher (whiskey-induced rhetoric aside) but can I suggest that all second-order philosophical knowledge might be contained within the boundaries of first-order philosophical knowledge, unless special appeal is made to the supernatural?
Probably falling into an obvious trap any second-year philosophy student could spot, and perhaps I should have visited Tesco to consult with some philosophy graduates as they packed the shelves. :rolleyes:

Playboy

Obni wrote:

Been absent for a while, but I'd like to re-state my earlier claim.

Nothing lies outside of science.

That the answer to a moral/ought question cannot be scientifically derived, or that the truth of any given answer, however derived, cannot necessarily be either proven or disproven by science, has no impact on my statement.

Why has it no impact on science? Just becuase we can't answer it scientifically doesnt mean that this knowledge doesnt exists? It lies outside science. What other explanation is there? Moral and ethical questions cannot be answered by science so they lie outside of science. Just because philosophy cannot answer the same questions scientifically doesnt mean they cant answer them. Other disciplies dont have to apply the scientific method to get an answer like Historicism for example.

Obni wrote:

In the absence of any submitted instances, and to avoid introducing controversial topics, that only serve to side-track the thread, let's ask whether it is acceptable for people of type A to be subjected to treatment type B by the majority of society. The causes of the animosity or adulation directed at group A may be picked apart by sociological, political, and anthropological means. The motivations for the selection of treatment B may be similarly analysed. The projected result on group A, on the majority implementing treatment B, and on the continuing relationship between the two groups, and even on the implications for the future treatment of related group Z or treatment Y, can form the source of many happy years of EU funded research. At what point does this 'ought' scenario stray beyond the reach of scientific enquiry? I realise that we may not be able to resolve many aspects of the argument to the level of detail that we might like, but as Iarnrod Eireann would say 'A lot done; a lot more to do'.

I'm not sure what you are trying to do here? Do you think that picture sufficently represents the reality of the situation. Do you think that by reducing the reality of that situation to a simplistic answer like that that you have fully accounted for it?

Obni wrote:

Perhaps I should have visited Tesco to consult with some philosophy graduates as they packed the shelves. :rolleyes:

I am really amazed that you and pH feel like you have to insult people. Am I to assume that these digs are aimed at me. Why do ye continue to knock philosophy without knowing much about it. Ye are no better than the hacks who attack science without knowing anything about it.

Playboy

Obni does Gravity exist?

If it does exist then account for wavicles. Are they waves or are they particles? Can something be a wave and a particle?

If Gravity doesnt exist then how can science be true?

pH

Playboy wrote:

Obni does Gravity exist?

If it does exist then account for wavicles. Are they waves or are they particles? Can something be a wave and a particle?

If Gravity doesnt exist then how can science be true?

General relativity explains that the force we call gravity is caused by mass curving space-time. Whether it exists is best left to philosophers.

Wavicles have nothing to do with gravity. Wave Particle Duality is explained by quantum physics and not General Relativity.

And while we're at it, lest you conveniently forget may I remind you of your quote from the fountain of knowledge that is the radical academy.

Playboy wrote:

There are questions which science cannot answer but which, nevertheless, can be answered and can be answered by philosophical knowledge, capable of evidential support, rather than by unfounded personal opinion. The questions which philosophy can answer and science cannot are radically different in type from the questions science can answer and philosophy cannot;

I'm still waiting for these questions and answers, will you be supplying them?

Zombrex

Playboy wrote:

Your assuming that scientific answers are true.

No, I am assuming there is a correct answer, science can only ever hope to move closer and closer to the correct answer.

Playboy wrote:

Just becuase we can't answer it scientifically doesnt mean that this knowledge doesnt exists?

Yes it does, but what you are talking about isn't "knowledge", it is opinion.

Believing that causing human suffering is wrong is not "knowledge", it is an opinion based on moral beliefs. You cannot know human suffer is right or wrong. You can believe it yourself, but that is based on your opinion. You can be told it is, but that again is based on the opinon of another.

So when you ask the question "Is it wrong to start a nuclear war?" and say science cannot answer that, what you are saying is ridiculous, because nothing can answer that, there is no "answer" to a question like that.

It is like the mathematical idea of infinity. Infinity cannot be measured, there is no point of infinity because once you get to an infinite number you by definition add 1 to it. Likewise, philisophical questions like the ones you posse they have no anwser and at the same time infinate answers.

Playboy wrote:

Moral and ethical questions cannot be answered by science so they lie outside of science.

But they cannot be answered full stop. They lie outside of everything but the human imagination. They have no answers that lie within the reality of existance.

ISAW

As regards children and walking. There is a difference between learning something, how people learn things and explaining how people learn things.

Also children dont learn ONLY through trial and error.

ISAW

Wicknight wrote:

Reductionism ...ia 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.

I beg to differ. Reductionism or rather the definition given that simpler things can explain more complex is not necessarily chaotic. One may well be able to predice the future of a system given different starting conditions or predict an end point without any initial conditions.

A cell is to complex to form on its own

What do you mean?

the only real explanation is that an intelligence must have created it.

The only explanation? Is 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.

Actually it is learning and you are learning. Well "one" is. There is good evidence to suggest humans are "hardwired" to some degree and then learn after that. This suggests we are not born as tabulae rasae.

ISAW

emphasis added by me

pH wrote:

The difference in usefulness is that one [science] is and the other [philosophy] isn't.

That would be a philosophical position and by your own statement useless to the debate.

Perhaps the more interesting question is:

"Can anyone put forward a question that they believe is beyond the realm of science to answer but is anwserable (by another discipline)?"

If science is about answering answerable questions then by definition all unanswerable questions lie outside science.

Now we all know that mathematics is not strictly science, so maths questions don't count.

A fairly direct dismissal of the most formal system ever developed by humanity.

So Science by definition covers the testable and verifiable answers, all other answers are by definition not.

Oh! I see we agree on this I diodnt know this is where you were going.

Opinions or positions on a sliding scale might be a better description of the responses to these 'ought' questions.

And they call that social science ! and it is grounded in mathematics of all fields!

Playboy

pH wrote:

General relativity explains that the force we call gravity is caused by mass curving space-time. Whether it exists is best left to philosophers.

Wavicles have nothing to do with gravity. Wave Particle Duality is explained by quantum physics and not General Relativity.

So all of a sudden philosophy is useful? All of a sudden the science boys need philosophers to tell them whether gravity exists or not.That must be a hard bone to swallow. So relativity tells us what gravity is? What about Quantum mechanics and gravity? Why can't this issue be resolved? How can they both be true? Is string theory really anywhere close to unifying relativity and quantum or is it just a pipe dream? In this universe is it possible for two contradictory theories to be true? Maybe it is becuase Quantum physics has told us that one thing can be in two places at one time. They even have photographs of it.

I know Wavicles have nothing to do with gravity. The question was aimed at pointing out a problem within the scientific realist camp. (If you know what that is?). Realists hold that gravity does exists.

Wikipedia wrote:

Scientific realism is a view in the philosophy of science about the nature of scientific success, an answer to the question "what does the success of science involve?" The debate over what the success of science centers primarily on the status of unobservable entities (objects, process and events) apparently talked about by scientific theories. Roughly put, scientific realism is the thesis that the unobservable things talked about by science are little different from ordinary observable things (such as tables and chairs).

If you are a realist then the instrumentalist/anti-realist will probably present the problem of wavicles to you. In some instances light can be a wave or appear to behave like a wave and in other like a particle. So we have the problem of wave particle duality. Is light a wave or a particle or can it be both or is there a problem with our perception or understanding of it. An instrumentalist will tell you that it is pointless talking about theoritical terms as if they were facts like a realist does. An instrumentalist position will hold that unobservable theories are neither true nor false but are only tools (or instruments, hence the name) for finding out more facts. Because these unobservable phenomena cannnot be empirically verified then some of the hard line anti-realists will tell you they are not science since science is based around empirically observed and tested knowledge. So which are you pH or have ever even applied your healthy skepticism to your own discipline?

Playboy

pH wrote:

I'm still waiting for these questions and answers, will you be supplying them?

If you read the pieces I posted then you have your answer - ought questions for one.

Playboy

Wicknight wrote:

Yes it does, but what you are talking about isn't "knowledge", it is opinion.

Believing that causing human suffering is wrong is not "knowledge", it is an opinion based on moral beliefs. You cannot know human suffer is right or wrong. You can believe it yourself, but that is based on your opinion. You can be told it is, but that again is based on the opinon of another.

So when you ask the question "Is it wrong to start a nuclear war?" and say science cannot answer that, what you are saying is ridiculous, because nothing can answer that, there is no "answer" to a question like that.

It is like the mathematical idea of infinity. Infinity cannot be measured, there is no point of infinity because once you get to an infinite number you by definition add 1 to it. Likewise, philisophical questions like the ones you posse they have no anwser and at the same time infinate answers.

And you know that it isn't knowledge and only opinion how? Suddenly you have become an authority on epistemology and are defining what is knowledge and what is opinion/belief. Try and get out of your scientific mind frame. When you state that opinion isn't knowledge - then that is your opinion. Prove to me that opinion isn’t' knowledge. By all means use science to prove that what you said is true. Have a look at the Theory of justification in Epistemology. You could have a lifetime of fun expanding and proving your statement (non-scientifically ofc).

pH

I'm ignoring all your philosophical insights into quantum mechanics, suffice to say you don't understand it, and the philosophy adds nothing to it.

I'm still waiting for these questions:

Playboy wrote:

There are questions which science cannot answer but which, nevertheless, can be answered and can be answered by philosophical knowledge, capable of evidential support, rather than by unfounded personal opinion. The questions which philosophy can answer and science cannot are radically different in type from the questions science can answer and philosophy cannot;

Lets see a question AND the answer please.

Zombrex

ISAW wrote:

I beg to differ. Reductionism or rather the definition given that simpler things can explain more complex is not necessarily chaotic. One may well be able to predice the future of a system given different starting conditions or predict an end point without any initial conditions.

True, but then the point of "chaos theory" itself is that these events aren't actually chaotic, they just appear chaotic when the underlining process are not understood.

ISAW wrote:

The only explanation? Is it?

No, I was being sarcastic to point out the fallasy of statements that pertain such and such is the only logical explination.

ISAW wrote:

Actually it is learning and you are learning. Well "one" is. There is good evidence to suggest humans are "hardwired" to some degree and then learn after that. This suggests we are not born as tabulae rasae.

I see what you are saying, but if evolution hardwires an ability into your brain then you didn't learn it. The things you develop subsequently you learn. For example, the jerk response that someone does when something quickly moves close to the eye is not "learnt", it is in build. Likewise, a baby does not learn to swim, where as an adult must, because the baby still has the instinctive ability to do that.

Zombrex

Playboy wrote:

When you state that opinion isn't knowledge - then that is your opinion.

How do you "know" the correctness of an opinon? If I said "Oranges are the best fruit in the world" is it possible for someone, including myself, to know that statement is true or false?

Playboy wrote:

Prove to me that opinion isn’t' knowledge. By all means use science to prove that what you said is true.

I am not saying something is true, I am saying something is false (that philisophical opinons have a truth behind them that is based in reality). If you disagree please by all means put forward an example of an opinion that is "true"

And while you are at it you might want to get back to the question that has a correct answer but that lies out side the realm of science. Still waiting on that one.

Zombrex

ISAW wrote:

If science is about answering answerable questions then by definition all unanswerable questions lie outside science.

No, the answer to an unanswerable question is that there is no answer. And it is perfectly possible for science to come to that conclusion. You are "loading" the statement with the idea that all questions must have answers. They don't.

See my post about blue dragons breath.

Playboy

Wicknight wrote:

How do you "know" the correctness of an opinon? If I said "Oranges are the best fruit in the world" is it possible for someone, including myself, to know that statement is true or false?

But what if I said I think oranges are the best fruit in the world? Is that statement true or false? Can you scientifically verify if it is or not? Oranges in reality are my favourite fruit so the statement I think Oranges are the best fruit in the world is true for me.