nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

What can science not explain?

kneemos

Dark matter.
Why nine out of ten people are right handed.
How the Suns corona is hotter than the surface.
Why we yawn.
Are some of the things beyond the wit of the learned lab coat wearing giant brains of our time.What other mysteries are we waiting patiently to have explained

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Anesthetize

Topper 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.

Somebody didn't get the ICP reference

Topper Harley

Anesthetize wrote: »

Somebody didn't get the ICP reference

Apparently not.

... Go on.

CarrickMcJoe

Was Gerry Adams ever in the IRA?

kimokanto

CarrickMcJoe wrote: »

Was Gerry Adams ever in the IRA?

Who knows? Might have been responsible for a Big Bang or 2 though?:p

Dughorm

Loads of stuff

-Purpose
-What is moral
-Multiverses
-The moment of creation
-Consciousness
-Conscience
-Miracles
-Philosophy
-God
-Now
-Angels/Spirit World
-Art
-Beauty
-Being
-Why mathematics exists
-Logic
-Soul
-Many aspects of social behaviour
-Love
-Freewill

Duggy747

Dughorm wrote: »

Loads of stuff

-Purpose
-What is moral
-Multiverses
-The moment of creation
-Consciousness
-Conscience
-Miracles
-Philosophy
-God
-Now
-Angels/Spirit World
-Art
-Beauty
-Being
-Why mathematics exists
-Logic
-Soul
-Many aspects of social behaviour
-Love
-Freewill

Most of those things listed are more philosophy than science, even then we have good scientific understanding of many things like social behavior (simple example is marketing products or classes in society) and........logic.........which is what science applies to pretty much everything it's used to look at and examine?

Victor

kneemos wrote: »

Why does the universe exist?

Because if it didn't exist, you wouldn't be here to question why.

Dughorm

Duggy747 wrote: »

Most of those things listed are more philosophy than science, even then we have good scientific understanding of many things like social behavior (simple example is marketing products or classes in society)

Eh? I don't think we have a "scientific" understanding of society and its problems -just a load of blah from Durkheim & co.

Duggy747 wrote: »

and........logic.........which is what science applies to pretty much everything it's used to look at and examine?

I'm no scientist but I thought science assumes logic rather than explains it.

Science doesn't explain why human logic gives us the ability to actually comprehend how the world works.

jungleman

Read recently that scientists still can't explain why looking up at light can cause us to sneeze sometimes.

Sam Kade

xzanti wrote: »

How they get the figs in the figrolls.

Jim figerty, is he still on the run?

matchthis

CarrickMcJoe wrote: »

Was Gerry Adams ever in the IRA?

it was a very secretive organisation, he wouldn't have known if he was

somuj

Science can explain everything. Maybe not today. Maybe not tomorrow, but soon and for the rest of our civilization.

Dughorm

somuj wrote: »

Science can explain everything. Maybe not today. Maybe not tomorrow, but soon and for the rest of our civilization.

How? That sounds like blind faith to me - I think blind faith in anything be it science, politics or religion is a bad thing.

Capt'n Midnight

Victor wrote: »

Because if it didn't exist, you wouldn't be here to question why.

Yeah if you change some of the fundamentals constants by even a tiny amount you don't get a universe that can support life.

Gravity appears to be fine tuned for a universe that can expand for billions of years but still be dense enough to form stars. Heavier atoms are made in stars, slight changes there means no carbon and for carbon based lifeforms that's not necessarily a good thing, also unless supernova's can explode the love doesn't get spread around.

Anthropic principle

Also the moon and our magnetic field have been very handy. Venus and Mars have lost their hydrogen. Both had oceans. Uranus has an axial tilt that would make life here interesting. The early earth would have had insane tides. But that may have mixed it up for life.

The fine structure constant is 137.035999139 and it drives physicists crazy.

Iwasfrozen

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

What exactly is the universe expanding into

When challenged the boffins sheepishly reply "nothing" but I say to them loudly what's holding the nothing in then

Nothing but silence

It's not expanding into "nothing" it's not expanding into anything, there's a subtle difference.

Vinculus

Was the big bang the first big bang or was there other big bangs before that big bang?

nozzferrahhtoo

Drexel wrote: »

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.

Drexel wrote: »

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.

kneemos wrote: »

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.

12Phase wrote: »

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.....

RobertKK wrote: »

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.

saabsaab wrote: »

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?

Letree wrote: »

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.

ceecee14 wrote: »

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.

ceecee14 wrote: »

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.

Dughorm wrote: »

-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.

Dughorm wrote: »

-What is moral

I am not convinced that science can not be brought to bear on that topic at all.

Dughorm wrote: »

-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.

Dughorm wrote: »

-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?

Dughorm wrote: »

-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.

Dughorm wrote: »

-Freewill

As with gods and ghosts the first step would be to establish that actually exists before attempting to get science to evaluate it.

Dughorm wrote: »

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.

Dughorm

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.

nozzferrahhtoo

Dughorm wrote: »

How does science explain whether a question is coherent?

I did not say whether it could or could not. What I AM saying is that unless you can ask a meaningful question then it will not enter into the purview of science at all. And sticking "purpose" into your list is an example of that. What exactly is the issue with purpose or what do you want science to explain exactly?

Dughorm wrote: »

but no scientist can tell you whether it is *moral* do to something on the basis of their data alone.

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, then there is nothing to preclude us from reaching a point where we can measure what "well being" means at the level of the brain and understand how to make moves on that continuum. Sam Harris has a book on the subject of turning the eye of science to morality which is still on my ever increasing "to read list".

Dughorm wrote: »

I thought the point of miracles was that they are meant to "break" the "laws" of science rather than be explained by them.

My point exactly. We have no evidence that any such thing has ever happened. So there is nothing to turn the eye of science towards there. Unless one can substantiate the existence of something then it simply is not in the purview of science to explain it.

So it is less that science can not explain it so much as there is nothing THERE for it to explain.

Dughorm wrote: »

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.

Again the same issue as above is the first problem. There is no reason to think there IS a god, so saying science can not explain something that is not even there to explain is kind of a moot point.

That said however the god most people claim to believe in may be outside the universe in some sense, but many believe this god influences the universe. It reaches in and makes changes, influence and more. THOSE things would happen in our natural world and therefore THEY would be in the purview of science.

But again we have ZERO evidence any such thing has actually happened so there is no THERE there.

Dughorm wrote: »

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.

I am more schooled than most on the discourse related to gods and I repeat what I said. There is currently no arguments, evidence, data or reasoning on offer that substantiates the idea that a non-human intelligent intentional agency exists that is responsible for the creation and/or subsequent maintenance of our universe.

Dughorm wrote: »

Please share these theories, for our interest!

There is enough to fill numerous books so I can not give you a full trans-author summary of everything there is out there. But you could read things like "The Science of Art - A Neurological Theory of Aesthetic Experience" by VS Ramachandran.

Or if reading is not your thing he has presented his through processes at some great length on you tube. Such as here and here.

Essentially a lot of our response to beauty and art are formed by stimulation or over stimulation of areas of our brain that evolved for other reasons. For example when focusing purely on visual art, there are many things we are evolved to do when processing visual inputs.... and a lot of art appears to be specifically (even without the artist realizing they are doing it) comandeering those faculties and (mis)using them in ways that are pleasurable and beautiful to us.

But it is not limited to visual Art. Take Literature for example. Metaphor would be an area of interest there. The connection of seemingly unrelated images and concepts. And the reason we have that ability is that all humans have some level of neurological synaesthesia which gives us this faculty of metaphor to use and enjoy.

So you will be surprised just how explanatory science is in relation to art and just how developed the neurological underpinnings of it are understood.

Dughorm wrote: »

If you don't feel free or feel in bondage to your feelings then good for you.

Well quite the opposite. The majority of humans do feel very strongly that we have free will. I am no different to the majority in this. But that does not actually mean we do have it. And there is no small movement of people replete with interesting talks and arguments showing the problems with thinking we actually do.

The most famous of these is the experiments showing that certain decisions at the level of the brain are actually already made before the subject is aware they have made their choice. So their feeling that they made a choice in a given situation is 100% illusory. The decision was already made and their impression they were making it is simply false.

But there are other thought experiments and arguments similar to that which show that we are much more a slave to our will than most think. A few philosophers have even given up trying to defend free will and have tried to establish the existence of "Free Won't" which is that while we are a slave to our will, we somehow have the power of veto.

However all that said, there is no reason that any of this should be outside the realm of science. It is one of those things that fall into the "Has not been explained V. Can not be explained" distinction that the OP is somewhat struggling with. Whether we have, or how we have, free will are very much in the purview of science to investigate.

Dughorm wrote: »

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.

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. All I am saying is that those who feel that science can not answer certain things simply do not have precedent on the side of their position. Because science has been consistently, although slowly, answering questions about our universe and existence one at a time.

Dughorm

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

Capt'n Midnight

http://asset-4.soupcdn.com/asset/16062/7008_4510_500.png

nozzferrahhtoo

Dughorm 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

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.

Dughorm wrote: »

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.

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.

Dughorm wrote: »

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".

At some point subjectivity is going to come into it, I do not deny that. 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.

Dughorm

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 science

nozzferrahhtoo 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

nozzferrahhtoo

Dughorm wrote: »

I don't consider a debate to be a pejorative term which it appears to me you make it out to be

Not implied by anything I wrote at all no. I never said, thought nor implied it was pejorative to describe it as "debate". Just that it is inaccurate to do so.

Dughorm wrote: »

This is all wonderful philosophy of science. Ohhh... objectivity v subjectivity? Hmm..... There's a lot here I don't agree with. Not because it's science, but because it's philosophy.

I am afraid it is not clear what, if anything, you are saying in these sections here I am afraid so I can not substantively parse it, let alone reply to it. You appear to think bringing the term "philosophy" into it is saying something but I am entirely unclear what you think it is.

Remember this is a thread about what Science "can not" explain. I can think of nothing in the natural world, including the things you appear to categorize under "philosophy", that is by any definition beyond the purview of science.

So as I say, I am entirely unclear what it is you think you are saying here. Perhaps my failing and not yours, who knows, but I am at a loss either way.

Dughorm wrote: »

Why does morality *have* to be subjective?

I am not so much saying it HAS to be as I am saying that at some point with the application of enough pedantry, we will find a point where it is.

Take one of the possible proposed definitions of morality I suggested.... not my actual definition just a simplistic one for example purposes.... the maximization of the well being of the maximum number of sentient minds.

Nothing about THAT is subjective really so much as the idea that that goal is one we should value at all in the first place.... certainly could be.

But that subjectivity does not put it beyond the purview of science and into the "can not explain" category that this thread is about. Because I see no reason what we value, and why, is beyond study or explanation.

Dughorm wrote: »

Why does all activity within the natural world *have* to be inside the realm of science?

I am not saying it "has" to be so much as I am saying I have seen no argument for why it is not. Perhaps it is not, but if that is so I have seen no reason yet to think so. I remain open minded.

But I repeat I see no argument that anything in the natural world is beyond the realm of science ultimately.

But I think it wonderful to watch how areas we once thought outside the realm of science coming very much into it. Art being the best example we have discussed so far. People used to think, and possibly most people still do, that science can say nothing about art, why we do it, why we like it, or why it is beautiful to us.

But a single hour spent listening to a single scientist like VS Ramachandran will instantly divest the average person of that illusion. There very much is a scientific theory of art in development, typing our appreciation to art very tightly into our understanding of neuroscience.

sryanbruen

Science cannot explain why After Hours threads' titles are misleading and confusing :cool:

222233

Science can not explain or dispute if people can genuinely be psychic or if they just genuinely think they are psychic

nozzferrahhtoo

222233 wrote: »

Science can not explain or dispute if people can genuinely be psychic or if they just genuinely think they are psychic

Not sure why it is hard to dispute. If someone claims to be psychic one simply has to ask them to be clear on what it is they claim to be able to do, then set up a double blind test condition in which you evaluate whether they are in fact able to do it.

And if they fail to do it, which they consistently do it seems, then I would consider their claims pretty well disputed.

The fact remains that under genuine test conditions we have found no evidence of such abilities in existence. Nor is there any coherent proposed mechanism by which such an ability would function. Nor is it congruent with anything else we do know to be true, quite the opposite.

take everything

It can't explain experience.
What it's like to experience what and how someone else thinks and feels.

Everyone could be a zombie behaving as they do for all I know (solipsism).

I don't believe that probably to preserve my own sanity but it's not inconsistent with evidence.

take everything

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Yeah if you change some of the fundamentals constants by even a tiny amount you don't get a universe that can support life.

Gravity appears to be fine tuned for a universe that can expand for billions of years but still be dense enough to form stars. Heavier atoms are made in stars, slight changes there means no carbon and for carbon based lifeforms that's not necessarily a good thing, also unless supernova's can explode the love doesn't get spread around.

Anthropic principle

Also the moon and our magnetic field have been very handy. Venus and Mars have lost their hydrogen. Both had oceans. Uranus has an axial tilt that would make life here interesting. The early earth would have had insane tides. But that may have mixed it up for life.

The fine structure constant is 137.035999139 and it drives physicists crazy.

There are some amazingly specific criteria that allow life on earth.
Can't remember the details but everything from the cosmic level down to how the moon orbits the earth (IIRC) etc. Whatever about the details it's mind-boggling to think of the unlikeliness of life.
It's one of those things (like the structure eye) that makes you think ”is there a designer". But as Dawkins would say a complex creator would be even more unlikely logically.

Obviously there's the anthropic principle which makes sense but I still struggle with it. Either way it makes you remember how awesome life is.

endacl

take everything wrote: »

There are some amazingly specific criteria that allow life on earth.
Can't remember the details but everything from the cosmic level down to how the moon orbits the earth (IIRC) etc. Whatever about the details it's mind-boggling to think of the unlikeliness of life.
It's one of those things (like the structure eye) that makes you think ”is there a designer". But as Dawkins would say a complex creator would be even more unlikely logically.

Obviously there's the anthropic principle which makes sense but I still struggle with it. Either way it makes you remember how awesome life is.

The other way of looking at this, of course, is that life can emerge and has emerged from everywhere that conditions allow it to. Life is an emergent property.