Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
What can science not explain?
Comments
-
Somebody didn't get the ICP referenceTopper Harley wrote: »Science has explained that. It's to do with the direction of the movement of electrons within them...or something. Science can explain it better than me.
0 -
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Is there more than one universe.
Hard to say based solely on current data and evidence. But as someone else pointed out there is not much precedent for existence doing things in 1s.I always imagined things like a map in a video game. Close up view is earth, zoom out one and you have the solar system level with however many solar systems.
No need to imagine it. It has been done.
Also Douglas Adams in Hitchikers Guide to the Galaxy invented a torture device based on that idea. A machine that would drive people irremediably insane by simply showing them a zoomed out version of all of reality with a tiny arrow saying "You are Here".
The theory being that highlighting an individuals sheer insignificance in this manner is a blow that no ego in the universe could survive. And peoples reactions to things like Carl Sagans "Pale Blue Dot"..... or a trip to the Hayden Planetarium..... suggest he may just have been right.Not really.How do we know it can be explained?
He did not say we know it can be explained. He said there is a difference between "Has not explained" and "Can not explain".
If something is currently unexplained we only know that it is currently unexplained. We do not know if it can, can not, or ever will be explained. We JUST know it has not been yet.Why cats always land on their feet.
Think that is bad, I remember reading that they also found out (though I shudder to think why or how) that if you drop them from ever increasing heights you reach a height where they stop landing on their feet.
What is extra disturbing about this is that they then (somehow) discovered that if you keep going steadily higher you reach another height where they start landing on their feet again.
However WHY they land on their feet is not as much a mystery as you think. There is a very good video here observing it in slow motion as to how they achieve it. And while not SIMPLE to understand, it certainly is not a mystery.
The video is fun though, not the least of which is due to the footage of cats trying to land on their feet in a weightless environment. I can only imagine how confused a cat that was. Science is FUN sometimes, especially when tormenting cats.riffmongous wrote: »So what's at the edge? :P
Imagine you were a two dimension being on the surface of a balloon. You could travel through the "space" you observe and never hit an edge. All that would happen is that if you pick and one direction and head off in that direction long enough, you would come back to where you started.
That is an analogy that has been used to try and explain the concept of "no edge" to our universe to people. It fairly melts my limited mental capacities to try and envision it though.JustTheOne wrote: »We know something can't come from nothing.
I am not sure we "know" any such thing actually. We observe that particles are popping in and out of nothing all the time. However that said.....Why there is something rather than nothing, as with life and the universe.JustTheOne wrote: »So how did everything end up existing if things can't come from nothing?
..... who says everything DID come from nothing? That is an assumption I am not sure anyone can safely make yet.Also what started the universe? What was there before? I know someone will say big bang but that is just a theory and does not explain what caused it if it is true?What came before the universe.
I think one issue might be yours (well not you specifically, but most humans) and not science at all. We live in a temporal causal universe where effect follows cause. We have time. So that is the kind of thinking we are stuck with. We evolved to that kind of thinking. Thinking any other way is HARD if not impossible for most people.
But "time" and hence causation are attributes of our current universe. So asking questions like "before" in terms of the universe origin might simply be the wrong question. It simple might not apply at all. So it is no wonder the baffled human mind has to terminate the infinite regress of cause and effect by doing things like inventing gods and the like and then erecting a narrative around that god that terminates it (god being timeless and other such assertions).ClovenHoof wrote: »Dark Matter is just something they made up.
Well yes and no. It is not that we "made it up". We made up the term. But what the term applies to is not made up. It is something very real. It is essentially a placeholder term for our ignorance.
It is however unfortunate that they used the terms "Matter" and "Energy" when coining the terms "Dark Energy" and "Dark Matter" because it makes us sound like we have SOME idea what they are.
We do not know that they are Energy or Matter. We just used those terms. One person suggests "Dark Gravity" would have been better terms. But that calling them "Fred" and "Wilma" would have been just as helpful given how little we know about what they actually are.Also, how come we can make crazy things like USB Memory sticks, CDs, Spaceships that can make it to Mars, bit no cure for cancer?
Well the first answer to this is simple in that the things we can invent are isolated things that do not really effect anything around them. So it is possible to invent and create them in isolation.
Further we also started "big" and steadily got better and better at making those things. They were not invented in a vacuum. They are built on a steady linear mass of things that came before each iteratively better or more complex than the one before.
So why no cure for cancer?
1) We are not starting at a simple model and working towards more complex things here. We are starting with something massively complex and working backwards.... the human body. And this is HARD for us to do. We are simply not that smart and it has taken a LONG time to get where we are now and understand what little we do.
2) Fiddling around inside the body is not "isolation". There are numerous systems, reactions and processes at work in the human body. And disrupting any one or more of them can have a cascade effect through the rest. So it is not simply like inventing and building a USB stick which effects little around it. We have to tread carefully and slowly.
3) This stuff, cells and the causes of cancers, are small. Like seriously small. And our ability and technology to work at the level of things that small is still quite young and undeveloped. We are making amazing progress there, yes, but there is still a-ways to go.
4) "Cancer" is not one thing either. There are any number of cancers and we simply have one term "Cancer" for them all. So there never will be *A* cure for cancer most likely. What cures one will not cure others and in some cases the cure for one will EXACERBATE another form. So when you hear someone ask for "the" cure to cancer, they likely know very little about cancer at all.Scientists haven't a clue, but there sure it was nothing.
Which scientists are "sure" of this exactly? I think you will find the members of the scientific community claiming either that it came from nothing, let alone that they are "sure" of this, are quite the minority.-Purpose
I am not sure there is something to explain there however. Just because a question can be formulated coherently, does not mean the question itself is coherent. For example the question "What is the color of jealousy" is coherent, but is still a nonsense question.-What is moral
I am not convinced that science can not be brought to bear on that topic at all.-Miracles
It is hard to use science to evaluate something that has not been observed or evne substantiated in any way. Perhaps establish that "miracles" actually happen before trying to explain them with science.-God
There is currently zero arguments, evidence, data or reasoning on offer to suggest there even is a god, so I am not clear what you want science to do about it?-Art
What aspect of art and beauty do you think is beyond the realm of science exactly? I have seen a few people have working theories of art that are quite informative and substantiated and substantive.-Freewill
As with gods and ghosts the first step would be to establish that actually exists before attempting to get science to evaluate it.How? That sounds like blind faith to me - I think blind faith in anything be it science, politics or religion is a bad thing.
I think blind faith is bad too. But we can observe things like precedent and feel fairly confident about certain ideas. And one thing we have observed is that..... although slowly for sure.... science is steadily answering things one at a time. So it is not unreasonable to assume that precedent will continue.
I would not call that faith. Just optimism based on observed patterns.0 -
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »Re: Purpose
I am not sure there is something to explain there however. Just because a question can be formulated coherently, does not mean the question itself is coherent. For example the question "What is the color of jealousy" is coherent, but is still a nonsense question.
All of what you say may be reasonable but none of what you have said relates to science or something that can be explained by science How does science explain whether a question is coherent? A matter for logic, which science assumes, I would have thought.nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »Re: Morality
I am not convinced that science can not be brought to bear on that topic at all.
Well of course science can provide data to inform arguments, in that case science may "be brought to bear on that topic" - but no scientist can tell you whether it is *moral* do to something on the basis of their data alone.nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »Re: Miracles
It is hard to use science to evaluate something that has not been observed or evne substantiated in any way. Perhaps establish that "miracles" actually happen before trying to explain them with science.
I thought the point of miracles was that they are meant to "break" the "laws" of science rather than be explained by them.
All we have are people's testimony and it is up to our philosophy to decide whether it is possible to believe them - again not a matter for science.nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »Re: God
There is currently zero arguments, evidence, data or reasoning on offer to suggest there even is a god, so I am not clear what you want science to do about it?
Well most people don't believe God is a material being, so how could science be brought to bear on the topic? I.e. The point of this thread.
If you want to act as if the philosophy of religion/God doesn't exist - that's fine but it does and has generated plenty of reasoned debate over the centuries.nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »What aspect of art and beauty do you think is beyond the realm of science exactly? I have seen a few people have working theories of art that are quite informative and substantiated and substantive.
Please share these theories, for our interest!
There's plenty of things in art that are explained by science, paint texture, moulding technology, pottery formation, shading but science doesn't tell us why art is beautiful? Science can tell us about the paint, the moulds, the clay, the graphite, but doesn't tell us that it is art.nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »Re. Freewill
As with gods and ghosts the first step would be to establish that actually exists before attempting to get science to evaluate it.
This brings us back to one of the items on the list in another way "establishing that something actually exists" - but science can predict the existence of new planets and gravitational waves which is pretty damn cool.
If you don't feel free or feel in bondage to your feelings then good for you. It's a philosophical argument anyway, brain science is interesting but doesn't determine the answer.nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »I think blind faith is bad too. But we can observe things like precedent and feel fairly confident about certain ideas. And one thing we have observed is that..... although slowly for sure.... science is steadily answering things one at a time. So it is not unreasonable to assume that precedent will continue.
I would not call that faith. Just optimism based on observed patterns.
That's great that science is improving at answering the things it is meant to be answering. Total non-sequitur to believe that this gives it one bit of power over philosophical/aesthetic (and other non-scientific) topics.0 -
-
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
Given that you are "more schooled than most" in these matters and certainly me, I would be wasting your time and mine going into a long debate about this but two important things stand out to me in what you have said
1. "Again I do not see why it would be precluded from doing so. Though it heavily depends on how you define morality and goals. If for example we define morality as the maximisation of the well being of as many sentient beings as possible,"
2. "That you should take it up with people who have engaged in that non-sequitur. Given I am not, I am not sure why you bring it up with me. "
If we are defining our terms in totally different ways then we will only talk past each other. We need a very clear definition of "science" here.
One last thought - how does science inform this sentence "If for example we define morality as the maximisation of the well being of as many sentient beings as possible" - my argument is that it doesn't, nor can it.
To me a lot of what you have said smuggles in a philosophy in the back door under the guise of "science".
P.s. Thanks for the links to the vids 0 -
Advertisement
-
-
-
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »I did not and do not see it as a debate really. More as a sharing of information. For example you appear to have known very little about the neurological theories relating to art as an exaptation (Visual, Linguistic, and so on) and I do. So I saw it as a chance to share that information with you. There is no debate to "win" or "lose" there, so much as information that is real and can be shared among minds.
I don't consider a debate to be a pejorative term which it appears to me you make it out to be - it is a wonderful opportunity to express topics in satisfying way - much like a game of tennis! I simply don't have a racket with me and you are a professional
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »Science is just a methodology by which we evaluate claims and ideas for credibility and probability of being true. It is not a thing in and of itself so much as a methodology.
Basically science is the methodology of falsification. It is not, like many thing, the art of proving things to be true so much as the art of entirely failing to prove them false.
Of the methodologies of science the two most important (my opinion maybe but whatever) are:
1) The attempt to falsify a claim. That is to devise experiments and tests that show a claim or idea is false. That is why we have the phrase "The exception that proves the rule". How can an exception "prove" a rule? Surely exceptions show rules to be false or limited? Well that is because in science the word "prove" does not mean "show to be true" like we mean in, say, law.. In science it means "To test". So "The exception that proves the rule" means "The exceptional input by which we can test the truth value of a claim".
2) Prediction. A sub-set of falsification but a KEY one. In science we test theories not just with experiments designed to falsify or reproduce them, but also by tests that say "If X is true then Y should also be true" and then we go to test if Y is true. Prediction is MASSIVELY important in Science. A great recent example is the folding of space time itself which was measured using lazers recently. A measurement that was predicted by Einstein many years before.
This is all wonderful philosophy of sciencenozzferrahhtoo wrote: »At some point subjectivity is going to come into it, I do not deny that....
Ohhh... objectivity v subjectivity?
Hmm.....nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »We as a species or people in the conversation would have to decide the goal we have is to maximize well-being. That this is what we define morality to mean.
But what we define morality to be is going to come down to what we value, which is subjective. But why is science precluded from studying what we value and why?
Remember this is a thread not about what science informs, but what science can or can not explain. And I see no reason why it can not explain that subjectivity, nor explain moves on the continuum defined by that choice which we then call "moral or immoral" choices.
But it is all, at the foundation, the natural world. Natural brains, in a natural world, making natural choices and definitions and then making choices based on those ideas and definitions. So what aspect in that entire process is by definition outside the realm of science? I am not seeing it.
But science can very much inform us on what is moral and immoral because what is morality if not the evaluation of the consequences of our actions? And what does science do if not inform us as to what the consequences and effects of actions even are? Morality and science are therefore inextricably linked at that level at least.
There's a lot here I don't agree with.
Not because it's science, but because it's philosophy.
Why does morality *have* to be subjective?
Why does all activity within the natural world *have* to be inside the realm of science?
I could go on, but I won't, because that would be off-topic 0 -
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
... Go on. 
Advertisement