Heresy!

SkepticOne

Wicknight wrote:

Examples?

Rather than repeat what has already been written, look for examples on this thread which have been countered with replies along the lines of

but we don't really "know" it,
but that is part of science,
but that is not well defined,
but imo that is a bit overrated,

etc.

Zombrex

SkepticOne wrote:

Rather than repeat what has already been written, look for examples on this thread which have been countered with replies along the lines of

but we don't really "know" it,
but that is part of science,
but that is not well defined,
but imo that is a bit overrated,

etc.

I am still not sure what you mean, but I assume you are talking about questions like these -

"Is nuclear war justifiable?"

"Is one persons life more important than anothers?"

"Is democracy fair?"

"Should the needs of the many out way the needs of the few?"

etc...

The point I have been making along is that these "questions" have no correct/incorrect answers, only opinions.

So saying that science can/should cannot/shouldn't attempt to provide answer these questions is a non-sensical statement because they have no correct answers to find. I don't really understand what you mean when you say science should have provided answers. All science can do is further our understanding of the universe, which in turn effects our opinions on moral beliefs. For example, since can tell us that one way of killing a man is very painful and the other is painless. Based on that we can form a moral opinion on what is the best most humain way to execute a criminal. But the question "Is execution right?" cannot be answered by science, not due to a limitation of science but simply because there is no correct answer

Science does not offer opinions it offers facts, because "science" has no imagination, it deals simply in reality. It cannot give an answer to a question that has no answer.

Now some call that a limitation. I don't, because the "answers" provided by philosophy hold no more weight in the "truth" of reality than simply saying "I cannot answer that"

Of course i am back to square one where I was with Playboy on this issue ...

SkepticOne

pH wrote:

I agree there are questions that cannot be adequately addressed (answered?) by science, but can they be answered by another means? Again we get into definitions, but please let's have an example question and answer.

Well, if we are agreed that there are some areas of concern that can't be adequately dealt with by purely empirical study then I have no further quarrel. I have put forward the issue of sentience as an example of an area that science can't get to the core of yet many people hold to be important. Can other systems, 'disciplines', whatever provide explanations? That is a separate issue. What started off this digression from the main topic was the claim "nothing lies outside of science". It may be the case that some areas lie outside of not only science but every mode of enquiry and human understanding itself.

We have a number of systems for arriving at these 'ought' questions, none of them providing answers in my view.

Democracy - 'ought' is derived by strength of numbers.
Religion - By the will of God
Ethics - By accepting various axioms (e.g The greatest good for the greatest number) ought questions can then be resolved.
etc.

The problem with these systems is that if you question or do not accept the foundation then all the answers then also fall away.

Again, there are long discussions you could have about the success or failure of philosophy or religion or politics to resolve various questions. So long as we agree that there are areas that ordinary people concern themselves with and discuss among themselves yet are outside strict empirical investigation, I'm happy.

The important point, imo, is that people do have these concerns. They will talk about them among themselves and those discussions will not be meaningless to those taking part in them. Dismissing them (e.g. calling them overrated etc.) in an attempt to support a grandiose and unscientific claim ("nothing is outside science") only serves to undermine the credibility of the scientific community (and I think society in general suffers as a result).

Far better to say: here's what science does. Here's the sort of questions science tries to answer and here's the sort of question it doesn't answer. If you want answers to these sorts of questions (whether or not they exist) you need to look elsewhere. The question itself of whether these things have answers is itself outside the scope of science.

After all, to the man in the street (and I think the majority of scientists), the idea that science can answer moral issues is simply absurd, yet this would appear to be implied by the claim "nothing lies outside science".

A lot of pseudoscience practicioners will argue the same about the scientific method.

After the recent Lancet Homeopathy paper we had this:

"It has been established beyond doubt and accepted by many researchers, that the placebo-controlled randomised controlled trial is not a fitting research tool with which to test homeopathy." http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4183916.stm

I think this is an area that could benefit from the approach I'm advocating. Here is something that science can perfectly well address yet society at large seems to be ignoring the evidence.

I would suggest the following:
1. Drop the arrogant claims and disparaging remarks about other methods.
2. Understand and communicate patiently to the public the areas that science deals with and those areas that it does not.
3. You may need to step outside science in order to explain science, but do so with respect. People are not idiots.

robindch

> After all, to the man in the street (and I think the majority of scientists),
> the idea that science can answer moral issues is simply absurd, yet this
> would appear to be implied by the claim "nothing lies outside science".

Quite right. While I agree that there are plenty of questions which have no 'right' answers, it seems that these are usually called 'moral' questions to which one provide one's own 'right', and usually unarguable, answers (frequently provided by religion, where conclusions without supporting facts or reasoning is 'good'). And hence the talk of a million sulphurous dinner conversations...

Anyhow, one can certainly apply scientific principles to these questions. Using the previous example:

> "Is execution right?" cannot be answered by science, not due to
> a limitation of science but simply because there is no correct answer

Yes, so why not throw away the overloaded word 'right', rephrase the question in some way where it's amenable to logic, and answer that question instead? My guess for a rephrased question is "Is execution likely to lead to an increase in the happiness of society?". And to which the answer seems to be 'No', when we consider whether (a) execution reduces crime (studies indicate that it doesn't) or whether (b) it achieves much more than satisfying the blood lust of the murdered person's relatives (can't see how that could be considered good either).

In conclusion, science isn't any good at answering meaningless questions, but then again, nothing else is either. But by sitting down and thinking about how to phrase a question so that it can have an answer, then using the scientific method of observe + test to answer it, I think you can deal with a much larger range of questions than you'd expect.

Playboy

robindch wrote:

> "Is execution right?" cannot be answered by science, not due to
> a limitation of science but simply because there is no correct answer

Yes, so why not throw away the overloaded word 'right', rephrase the question in some way where it's amenable to logic, and answer that question instead? My guess for a rephrased question is "Is execution likely to lead to an increase in the happiness of society?". And to which the answer seems to be 'No', when we consider whether (a) execution reduces crime (studies indicate that it doesn't) or whether (b) it achieves much more than satisfying the blood lust of the murdered person's relatives (can't see how that could be considered good either).

In conclusion, science isn't any good at answering meaningless questions, but then again, nothing else is either. But by sitting down and thinking about how to phrase a question so that it can have an answer, then using the scientific method of observe + test to answer it, I think you can deal with a much larger range of questions than you'd expect.

That explanation would be part of philosophy/ethics. It's called utilitarianism

Playboy

SkepticOne wrote:

The question itself of whether these things have answers is itself outside the scope of science.

Very well said. A point I was trying to make but couldnt get accross and you say it simply in one easy sentence.

ISAW

Playboy wrote:

Very well said. A point I was trying to make but couldnt get accross and you say it simply in one easy sentence.

Let me try another tack. People believe that science is the greatest thing ever discovered/developed/invented by mankind. The same people be they athiest or believe in God or some spiritual force beyond science would also believe that a world ruled by scientists would be a terrible place.

This in itself suggest that important concepts such as value ethics morality etc. are informed from or lie outside of science. The point i was trying to get across is that these fields may be very important but do not arrive at scientifically verifiable positions though the position may well be valid. Indeed as pointed out one can argue within the philosophy of science that "scientific" opinions may not be justifiable.

Also there is the problem that people assume science presents a single coherent and static view when in reality both within and without science social context changes the understanding of what the view was interpreting or representing or sometimes even whether what was being represented existed in a way which is possible for us to understand.