Can science REALLY explain Reality?

OrdinaryMelkite · #1 May 11, '12, 5:06 pm

I'm sorry, but I do not think so.

Science's domain concerns explaining the world of nature and its phenomena.

It is PHILOSOPHY (and Religion) that explain Reality, not science.

Anybody who thinks Science=Reality is under the spell of Scientism, and that is faith-based.

And true science is NOT faith-based in any way. It concerns studying and explaining (defined) natural phenomena. NOT reality.

Got this explanation from a response in another forum. Parapharsed this somewhat and added "religion" to it. Made by a scientist, as a matter fact.

Thought it wa a cool response to a question asked there.

Anybody agree/disagree with it?

Julia Mae · #2 May 11, '12, 6:46 pm

What definition did y'all give "reality?"

atheistgirl · #3 May 11, '12, 6:57 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by OrdinaryMelkite

It concerns studying and explaining (defined) natural phenomena. NOT reality.

Is the natural world not reality

Sarah x

davidv · #4 May 11, '12, 7:05 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by atheistgirl

Is the natural world not reality

Sarah x

Yes the natural world is real. Is the natural world all that is real?
I know the is more to reality than the natural world.

OrdinaryMelkite · #5 May 11, '12, 7:59 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidv

Yes the natural world is real. Is the natural world all that is real?
I know the is more to reality than the natural world.

Exactly my point.

presidentjlh · #6 May 11, '12, 8:02 pm

You're starting to get into epistemology here. The nature of scientific knowledge is never 100% certain, there are no true "facts" because it takes but one valid proof against the "fact" to render it not a fact, and science is a process of continual testing and verification. We have certain theories and "laws" that seem to do a pretty bang-up job of describing our world, but that doesn't mean it is necessarily impossible for them to be disproven at some point in the future.

Science is but our way of ascertaining knowledge about the physical properties of the universe. We are flawed, hence, our science is never going to be truly perfect. This is by no means a bash on science, though, the pursuit of science is, in my opinion, something that I think brings glory to God. Look at the beautiful complexity of our universe, and the relatively simple math equations which we have broken so much of it down into.

sw85 · #7 May 11, '12, 8:54 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by OrdinaryMelkite

Exactly my point.

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***."

InJesusItrust · #8 May 12, '12, 12:30 am

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.

itullian · #9 May 12, '12, 12:50 am

science deals solely with the imperical and so it should.

the rest is up to philosophy and religion.

as a science fan and a subscriber to multiple magazines over the years, scientific theories are subject to constant change.

**tonyrey** · #10 May 12, '12, 2:17 am

The inability of science to explain itself is proof that it cannot explain reality!

Sair · #11 May 12, '12, 2:56 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidv

Yes the natural world is real. Is the natural world all that is real?
I know the is more to reality than the natural world.

Considering that most philosophers and even scientists are not keen to state what the limits of the 'natural' world actually are, whence your confidence that anything exists beyond nature? Where, exactly, is the boundary between 'nature' and 'not-nature'?

**tonyrey** · #12 May 12, '12, 3:28 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sair

Considering that most philosophers and even scientists are not keen to state what the limits of the 'natural' world actually are, whence your confidence that anything exists beyond nature? Where, exactly, is the boundary between 'nature' and 'not-nature'?

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

**tonyrey** · #13 May 12, '12, 3:32 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by itullian

science deals solely with the empirical and so it should.

the rest is up to philosophy and religion.

as a science fan and a subscriber to multiple magazines over the years, scientific theories are subject to constant change.

Philosophical truths like the power of reason do not change!

Sair · #14 May 12, '12, 3:52 am

Quote:

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'm intrigued by the fact that so many people seem to think there are aspects of reality that are necessarily inaccessible to science. For example, the fact that there is no scientific evidence for the Flood story - not only is there no scientific evidence that it happened, but there is actual evidence against the possibility that it could have happened, especially as regards the literalist creationist interpretation that it was Noah's flood that laid down sedimentary rock and also killed and subsequently fossilised all extinct animals for which fossils have been found. The explanations given to try to reconcile the findings of geology and palaeontology with the flood story are utterly laughable.Or would be, were it not for the fact that so many people apparently take it seriously.

After all, it's one thing to appreciate that people tell stories - that seems to be one of the defining features of our species. And no-one doubts that the stories people tell carry important cultural and even moral lessons. But this can be the case even if the stories are complete fiction. What is important is that the stories provide a framework for our thinking, not that they are literally true.

As an aside, this would seem to indicate that history and literary criticism are as much enemies of religion as science could be - all seek underlying truths, while religion tends to glorify the mysterious, the gloss upon actual reality that may be more superficially appealing, but does nothing other than reflect the way our minds operate, or what our preferences might be.

Let's say someone has what they would call a 'religious' experience. A supernaturalist, religious view would tend to take this claim at face value, whilst a scientific analysis would seek the underlying causes, whatever those might be. The latter approach does not invalidate the experience itself - what it might do, though, is show that such experiences are generated by sources other than externally-existing supernatural phenomena. Maybe some people don't want these illusions debunked - I guess that is their prerogative. But it's interesting that those who value such experiences insist that, in order to actually be valuable, they must be caused by supernatural phenomena, rather than being the results of internal fluctuations in their mental states - which is what scientific investigation might discover.

And it's worth pointing out that in certain circumstances, religious believers are happy to hand over to the naturalist empiricists - when it comes to medicine or computing or other scientifically-determined technologies upon which we rely in our everyday experience, there aren't many religionists who would place their trust in their vague intuitions or the voices in their heads before the advice of doctors, IT experts or air traffic controllers.

I am inclined to think that those who insist that science cannot, in principle, penetrate certain aspects of reality are saying so only because they wish to maintain their illusions. This is not to say that science "knows" everything - there is not a single scientist worth their salt who would claim so, and as Dara O'Brien eloquently said, "If science knew everything, it would stop" - but that the methods employed by science are largely only a formalisation of how we verify any claim. If ancient stories and myths are invalidated, in a literal sense, by modern scientific findings, then I would suggest that the proper approach is then to ask, "Why were these stories believed by our ancestors? Why were they important? What were the lessons they sought to convey?" - not to reject science, out of hand, as being somehow incapable of penetrating the real truth about the universe. After all, how would anyone ever verify a supernatural claim that is held to be necessarily beyond our merely human understanding? That is where faith comes in, and where Mark Twain's famous phrase comes to bear - "Faith is believing what you know ain't so."

**tonyrey** · #15 May 12, '12, 4:03 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sair

I am inclined to think that those who insist that science cannot, in principle, penetrate certain aspects of reality are saying so only because they wish to maintain their illusions..

Yet another argumentum ad hominem!

One could assert with equal facility:

"Those who insist that science can, in principle, penetrate all aspects of reality are saying so only because they wish to maintain their illusions."

Quote:

That is where faith comes in, and where Mark Twain's famous phrase comes to bear - "Faith is believing what you know ain't so."

Which applies equally well to materialism!