Can science REALLY explain Reality?

[Sair]

Originally Posted by tonyrey

The boundary is between that which controls nature and that which cannot control nature. There is no evidence that nature creates or controls itself.

There is no evidence (nor, if one takes supernaturalist claims seriously, any possibility of evidence) of anything "beyond" or "above" nature that does any controlling, nor is there actual support for the claim that nature has no internal control mechanisms or patterns - quite the opposite, in fact.

[tonyrey]

Originally Posted by Sair

But there is likewise no evidence of anything "beyond" or "above" nature that does any controlling, nor is there actual support for the claim that nature has no internal control mechanisms or patterns - quite the opposite, in fact.

1. The very fact that you are thinking about and discussing nature implies that you are not a natural object in every respect.

2. The outstanding success of science is evidence for man's ability to control nature.

3. There are no internal control mechanisms or patterns in nature comparable to the transcendent control of nature by human beings.

4. There is no evidence that any natural force has transformed nature both positively and negatively to anywhere near the extent that human beings have done.

[Julia Mae]

So from the posts I assume we are defining "reality" as Time/space, generally. Except for the poster below, who is including that which is outside of Time/Space in Reality.

Originally Posted by InJesusItrust

Since science can only account for the natural, and the supernatural is also part of reality, science cannot account for reality. I'm often told the flood is a myth because science does not prove it. But you see, science assumes natural mechanisms, so if a supernatural event caused water to exhaust from deep underground and then recede, science could never prove it. The resurrection is scientifically impossible but it still happened.

I do not agree that "science can only account for the natural." Sciences are a variety of disciplines that attempt to describe and explain the way things work. Many scientists have and are invested in describing and explaining things we often label "supernatural."

Some things are beyond the capacity of the human brain to comprehend. But the brain can and did invent ways to extend itself, so, we invented computers that do calculations far beyond our capacity at speeds we can't approach in order to manipulate a vehicle in space, for instance.

There things we consider supernatural that we also can't begin to fathom. But science can, and has, made a start. As science progresses along the "supernatural" axis, we'll find more and more we'll accept as part of "reality," that people now often shun as superstitious nonsense or religious wishful thinking.

As Catholics, we are a lot further along that axis than most and we have a history of producing exceptional scientists.

[Sair]

Originally Posted by sw85

"Science is good at describing the natural world" proves that science is an epistemology suited to the description of the natural world. Which is obviously true: it was never intended to do anything but describe the natural world. Science can't discredit philosophy because it's a product of it. It's based on epistemological assumptions for which it, itself, provides no basis. Science cannot prove either that (a) there is an objective reality or (b) that our senses are basically competent to discern its nature. Even if it could, we could not accept its evidence without an a priori assumption of those predicates.

Amazingly silly stuff, really, but this is the kind of nonsense you wind up believing when you refuse, in principle, to talk about that "philosophical bulls***."

If we agree that science is good at describing the natural universe, the question then must be asked - what else is there to describe? What is there that can be demonstrated to be "beyond" nature and thus beyond the theoretical scope of scientific investigation? Logic, after all, can be used to "prove" any claim, no matter how absurd - it all depends upon the premises.

It's all very well to claim that there are philosophical 'levels' above and beyond science, but what is the content, then, of such philosophy? What is the scope of any philosophy that does not take empirical findings into account? Philosophy may come to profound conclusions about the nature of reality, but does it contain, within itself, the explanation of why humans are so constituted as to engage in philosophical pursuits? If not - and if it can only speculate, and weave sophisticated words around realities that it cannot actually explain - then it falls into the same trap as is postulated for science: that it does not, in itself, justify its own endeavours.

[Sair]

Originally Posted by tonyrey

1. The very fact that you are thinking about and discussing nature implies that you are not a natural object in every respect.

That only follows if you assume that thinking and language are not natural processes - which, given that they are caused by natural processes and can affect other natural processes, is a hard claim to justify.

2. The outstanding success of science is evidence for man's ability to control nature.

It is nothing of the kind. That we can understand and harness natural processes to achieve ends we consider desirable is perfectly natural, and is entirely bound by the possibilities presented by nature. It is only in understanding how nature works - not in imagining we are beyond it - that we have succeeded in achieving our relative mastery of the world. If we were still doing rain dances and sacrificing animals (and each other) to imaginary supernatural entities, we would never have made any kind of progress.

3. There are no internal control mechanisms or patterns in nature comparable to the transcendent control of nature by human beings.

Transcendence is absolute rubbish - we operate entirely within nature, and we cannot do that which is impossible according to physical laws. Cold fusion, anyone? Only consider our utterly imperfect ability to predict the weather, for example, and our absolute lack of ability to control it - if we were actually transcendent over nature, rather than supremely talented manipulators of nature, wouldn't we have figured out how to do these things by now?

4. There is no evidence that any natural force has transformed nature both positively and negatively to anywhere near the extent that human beings have done.

By whose value system are you judging "positive" and "negative" here? Are you ignoring, for example, the transformation of Earth's atmosphere brought about by the evolution of photosynthesising plants, and how it allowed oxygen-dependent organisms to migrate from the sea to the land once the atmosphere was favourable to their survival? And let's not forget that it's looking very probable that humans, by our exploitation and abuse of natural resources, are bringing about the latest mass extinction of species, on a comparable scale to the Permian and Cretacious extinction events... And you are assuming, without support, that we are not a natural force.

[Julia Mae]

Originally Posted by Sair

Transcendence is absolute rubbish -

If we are going to try and have this discussion without the thread getting locked, perhaps we could leave off the insults to others' beliefs and just address the topic?

we operate entirely within nature, and we cannot do that which is impossible according to physical laws.

But we have done this continually through history, because "physical laws" are written by us and they change as we learn more. In highschool, we were shown a paper written at the time the steam engine was invented that proved scientifically that if a human traveled faster than 30mph, he would explode. Or implode, I can't recall.

Dinosaurs lived in water because physics proved that they could not support their bodyweight on land.

Padre Pio and others bilocated and healings with tissue growth that science says is impossible to achieve in the time observed have been thoroughly documented. Physical laws do not define or limit reality, they just attempt to define, explain and predict.

Cold fusion, anyone? Only consider our utterly imperfect ability to predict the weather, for example, and our absolute lack of ability to control it - if we were actually transcendent over nature, rather than supremely talented manipulators of nature, wouldn't we have figured out how to do these things by now?

That we predict imperfectly, doesn't mean we don't do it exceptionally well relative to how well we did it 100 years ago. Jesus could control the weather, some Saints have shown the ability in limited ways, but, look what they had to do in order to achieve the knowledge necessary.

Also, "by now" indicates you think we have come a long way in terms of science. Science, the way we define it now, has only been defined that way for about the last 100 years. We are infants. And the last thing we need to be able to do is control the weather - what a global disaster that would be.

We already knew how to NOT pollute the oceans and air so badly we are threatening our own existence and that of an untold numbers of creatures, but we did it, anyway. Humanity simply cannot be trusted with too much information. A point on which I think you and I agree.

[Sair]

Originally Posted by Julia Mae

If we are going to try and have this discussion without the thread getting locked, perhaps we could leave off the insults to others' beliefs and just address the topic?

Uh, actually, the entire thread is an insult to those who believe science is our best avenue for examining and ultimately understanding reality. The only problem with my statement about the supposition of human transcendence of nature being completely and utterly erroneous and misguided is that it disagrees with some people's cherished supernaturalist beliefs.

But we have done this continually through history, because "physical laws" are written by us and they change as we learn more. In highschool, we were shown a paper written at the time the steam engine was invented that proved scientifically that if a human traveled faster than 30mph, he would explode. Or implode, I can't recall.

Dinosaurs lived in water because physics proved that they could not support their bodyweight on land.

Padre Pio and others bilocated and healings with tissue growth that science says is impossible to achieve in the time observed have been thoroughly documented. Physical laws do not define or limit reality, they just attempt to define, explain and predict.

That we predict imperfectly, doesn't mean we don't do it exceptionally well relative to how well we did it 100 years ago. Jesus could control the weather, some Saints have shown the ability in limited ways, but, look what they had to do in order to achieve the knowledge necessary.

Also, "by now" indicates you think we have come a long way in terms of science. Science, the way we define it now, has only been defined that way for about the last 100 years. We are infants. And the last thing we need to be able to do is control the weather - what a global disaster that would be.

None of this demonstrates that we operate outside any natural laws - just that our understanding of them has been, and may be even now, quite imperfect. We operate entirely within natural laws - we have no ability to dictate or subvert them. That we have been wrong in the past is not an indication that physical laws change - it is our comprehension of them that has changed. How did these changes in comprehension come about? By empirical observation of the fact that some hypotheses are untenable. People thought, for example, in the middle ages, that the plague was caused by miasma. Strangely enough, efforts to keep out "bad air" didn't work in terms of preventing infection by the Yersinia pestis bacteria, but the only way of discovering this was empirical observation. Eventually our observations and our development of technology that extended our observational powers allowed us to uncover the truth about what causes the plague and what can cure it.

Science advances by testing hypotheses and ruling out false conclusions. How, if one posits a fundamentally untestable hypothesis about the nature of reality (which pretty much all supernatural claims are) could any advancement of knowledge actually occur? How could any supernatural claim be demonstrated to be false? And if you were to attempt to replace one supernatural claim with an alternative, what sort of argument or evidence could you possibly use to justify such replacement?

We already knew how to NOT pollute the oceans and air so badly we are threatening our own existence and that of an untold numbers of creatures, but we did it, anyway. Humanity simply cannot be trusted with too much information. A point on which I think you and I agree.

Actually, I think it's fairer to say that we cannot be trusted with too little information. Most of the pollution and environmental destruction for which humans are responsible has been the result of ignorance and carelessness, not deliberate attempts to destroy the environment and the other species that depend upon it. We have now got to the stage where it is only the progress of scientific knowledge that will allow us to prevent another mass extinction, and to overcome the effects of our excessive reliance upon fossil fuels for energy. Even now, there are those who short-sightedly complain about measures such as the carbon tax that is coming into law in Australia - it will undoubtedly interfere with our freedom to exploit such resources as coal-fired electricity, but it seems rather insane to assume that the only time to start coming up with viable long-term alternatives is when we've already exhausted all the available energy sources.

[sw85]

Originally Posted by Sair

If we agree that science is good at describing the natural universe, the question then must be asked - what else is there to describe? What is there that can be demonstrated to be "beyond" nature and thus beyond the theoretical scope of scientific investigation? Logic, after all, can be used to "prove" any claim, no matter how absurd - it all depends upon the premises.

Is this a joke? I mean obviously you don't believe this last sentence. Science produces false conclusions under bogus presuppositions, as well; it doesn't follow we ought to abandon science. If you follow scientific journals at all you'll routinely see letters suggesting a revision to the way another author interpreted his findings, follow-up analyses attacking the spin others attach to their findings, etc. That part of it -- qualitative analysis of statistical results, the part of it that matters most -- is ludicrously subjective, yet literally no one anywhere thinks science is, as a result, worthless.

The solution is not to abandon philosophy or science but not to have bogus presuppositions. Which is easy, since bogus presuppositions are usually either stupid on their face (nominalism) or produce stupid conclusions (actually, again nominalism).

Originally Posted by Sair

It's all very well to claim that there are philosophical 'levels' above and beyond science, but what is the content, then, of such philosophy?

This gets it all backwards. It's not that there are levels of philosophy "above" or "beyond" science, as if there's science and then also philosophy. Science is a specific application of a specific philosophy. Science is epistemology and epistemology is philosophy. It cannot discredit philosophical inquiry in principle because it is itself a field of philosophical inquiry.

Originally Posted by Sair

What is the scope of any philosophy that does not take empirical findings into account?

Who's talking about doing this? What "empirical finding" has discredited, say, teleological realism? It's an absurd thing even to suggest. Science can't discredit teleological realism because it's dependent on it. A thing cannot discredit its own presupposition.

Originally Posted by Sair

Philosophy may come to profound conclusions about the nature of reality, but does it contain, within itself, the explanation of why humans are so constituted as to engage in philosophical pursuits?

Some systems of thought do, which is evidence that they are, in fact, correct. Others don't, which is evidence that they aren't.

[tonyrey]

Originally Posted by Sair

That only follows if you assume that thinking and language are not natural processes - which, given that they are caused by natural processes and can affect other natural processes, is a hard claim to justify.

How do you demonstrate that thinking is caused by natural processes? There is no evidence that biochemical reactions have insight of any description.

It is nothing of the kind. That we can understand and harness natural processes to achieve ends we consider desirable is perfectly natural, and is entirely bound by the possibilities presented by nature.

How do you demonstrate that the power to understand and control natural processes is caused by natural processes? There is no evidence whatsoeve that biochemical reactions have any understanding whatsoever.

It is only in understanding how nature works - not in imagining we are beyond it - that we have succeeded in achieving our relative mastery of the world.

Ay, there's the rub - for the materialist. Matter is supposed to have magically acquired the power to understand and control itself!

If we were still doing rain dances and sacrificing animals (and each other) to imaginary supernatural entities, we would never have made any kind of progress.

Irrelevant. You have obviously not bothered to read anything by Stanley Jaki or anything opposed to your views.

Transcendence is absolute rubbish - we operate entirely within nature, and we cannot do that which is impossible according to physical laws.

An unsupported dogmatic assertion which is obviously false. We control ourselves as well as our environment.

Cold fusion, anyone? Only consider our utterly imperfect ability to predict the weather, for example, and our absolute lack of ability to control it - if we were actually transcendent over nature, rather than supremely talented manipulators of nature, wouldn't we have figured out how to do these things by now?

Non sequitur. It doesn't follow from our limitations that we have no insight or control at all.

By whose value system are you judging "positive" and "negative" here? Are you ignoring, for example, the transformation of Earth's atmosphere brought about by the evolution of photosynthesising plants, and how it allowed oxygen-dependent organisms to migrate from the sea to the land once the atmosphere was favourable to their survival?

You are assuming the development of living organisms (and rational beings into the bargain) has been produced by purposeless events.

And let's not forget that it's looking very probable that humans, by our exploitation and abuse of natural resources, are bringing about the latest mass extinction of species, on a comparable scale to the Permian and Cretacious extinction events... And you are assuming, without support, that we are not a natural force.

The very fact that we have such amazing knowledge that the universe exists and the amazing power to destroy all life on this planet is a formidable objection to your assumption that we are merely insignificant cogs in a vast machine which just happens to exist for no reason whatsoever.

[OrdinaryMelkite]

Originally Posted by sw85

I had an exchange with an atheist online once over this. Actually he issued a standing challenge to theists everywhere to debate him on the question of whether or not God exists, on the condition that it be conducted without what he called "philosophical bulls***." It had to be conducted on the grounds of "science and empiricism" alone.

Now I pointed out that whether or not science and empiricism were the best descriptors of reality was precisely what is at issue here. There's no reason to suppose they are -- after all, the conclusion "science and empiricism alone describe reality in its totality" is a conclusion that science and empiricism themselves do not furnish. That only that which can be observed "counts" scientifically is an intentionally affected methodological limitation, not an ontological conclusion. In other words, he was simply begging the question in favor of his position.

His response was, hey, it's not begging the question; science is a very good descriptor of reality -- it's proven wildly successful at describing the natural world.

OK, so... what? As Edward Feser pointed out once, metal detectors have proven wildly successful at detecting metal. It doesn't follow that metal is all there is.

"Science is good at describing the natural world" proves that science is an epistemology suited to the description of the natural world. Which is obviously true: it was never intended to do anything but describe the natural world. Science can't discredit philosophy because it's a product of it. It's based on epistemological assumptions for which it, itself, provides no basis. Science cannot prove either that (a) there is an objective reality or (b) that our senses are basically competent to discern its nature. Even if it could, we could not accept its evidence without an a priori assumption of those predicates.

Amazingly silly stuff, really, but this is the kind of nonsense you wind up believing when you refuse, in principle, to talk about that "philosophical bulls***."

Awesome post. Great points all around.

I would also point out that 100% empiricism is an impossibility.

Yep.

[OrdinaryMelkite]

Originally Posted by InJesusItrust

Since science can only account for the natural, and the supernatural is also part of reality, science cannot account for reality. I'm often told the flood is a myth because science does not prove it. But you see, science assumes natural mechanisms, so if a supernatural event caused water to exhaust from deep underground and then recede, science could never prove it. The resurrection is scientifically impossible but it still happened.

Indeed.

[OrdinaryMelkite]

Originally Posted by Sair

There is no evidence (nor, if one takes supernaturalist claims seriously, any possibility of evidence) of anything "beyond" or "above" nature that does any controlling, nor is there actual support for the claim that nature has no internal control mechanisms or patterns - quite the opposite, in fact.

Is there a WILL and DESIGN behind these supposed "controls," though?

If not, then are you saying somehow these "controls" made themselves "workable" and "feasible" RANDOMLY?

Just asking.................................. .......................

[OrdinaryMelkite]

Originally Posted by tonyrey

How do you demonstrate that thinking is caused by natural processes? There is no evidence that biochemical reactions have insight of any description.
How do you demonstrate that the power to understand and control natural processes is caused by natural processes? There is no evidence whatsoeve that biochemical reactions have any understanding whatsoever.

Ay, there's the rub - for the materialist. Matter is supposed to have magically acquired the power to understand and control itself!
Irrelevant. You have obviously not bothered to read anything by Stanley Jaki or anything opposed to your views.
An unsupported dogmatic assertion which is obviously false. We control ourselves as well as our environment.
Non sequitur. It doesn't follow from our limitations that we have no insight or control at all.

You are assuming the development of living organisms (and rational beings into the bargain) has been produced by purposeless events.
The very fact that we have such amazing knowledge that the universe exists and the amazing power to destroy all life on this planet is a formidable objection to your assumption that we are merely insignificant cogs in a vast machine which just happens to exist for no reason whatsoever.

Great post, Tony.

[Credo in Deum]

I think it’s a huge mistake to think science is the only means to gather evidence; such a standard it too rigid and closes off one’s ability to take in other evidence that exists. If someone asked me how does water boil on the stove I could reply by saying it’s because h2o molecules bounce around causing friction, heat, etc.., or I could just as easily reply by saying because someone turned on the stove, or someone wanted tea.

[Julia Mae]

Originally Posted by tonyrey

How do you demonstrate that thinking is caused by natural processes? There is no evidence that biochemical reactions have insight of any description.
How do you demonstrate that the power to understand and control natural processes is caused by natural processes? There is no evidence whatsoeve that biochemical reactions have any understanding whatsoever.

Ay, there's the rub - for the materialist. Matter is supposed to have magically acquired the power to understand and control itself!
Irrelevant. You have obviously not bothered to read anything by Stanley Jaki or anything opposed to your views.
An unsupported dogmatic assertion which is obviously false. We control ourselves as well as our environment.
Non sequitur. It doesn't follow from our limitations that we have no insight or control at all.

You are assuming the development of living organisms (and rational beings into the bargain) has been produced by purposeless events.
The very fact that we have such amazing knowledge that the universe exists and the amazing power to destroy all life on this planet is a formidable objection to your assumption that we are merely insignificant cogs in a vast machine which just happens to exist for no reason whatsoever.

I've been posting on forums for almost two decades. This is one of the best posts I've ever read on this topic.