Can science REALLY explain Reality? - Page 3

Sair · #31 May 12, '12, 5:36 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by OrdinaryMelkite

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.................................. .......................

If there is a will or a designer, how would we know? A lot of people claim they know by 'intuition', but I've seldom seen anyone unpack precisely what that means and how it doesn't represent mere wishful thinking. ID proponents like to propose "theories" like "irreducible complexity" but that is just a way of shutting down enquiry, rather than a serious attempt to examine any evidence. Some people used to claim that eyes were irreducibly complex, but that idea has been thoroughly debunked, largely on the basis of finding examples in nature of pretty much every intermediate stage from light-sensitive cells through to highly complex eyes such as those of eagles. There's nothing inherently problematic in hypothesising that chemical replicators (RNA and DNA) underwent gradual self-assembly, through perfectly natural processes, from simpler molecules. The point is that in order to actually understand how this might have happened, if it happened, observation and experiment are necessary. It doesn't advance our comprehension one jot to arrive at DNA and simply say, "Well, I can't figure out how this could have come about. Someone must have designed it."

I will add my attempt to the many that have already been made to clear up the apparently persistent confusion between "random" and "undesigned". Randomness - that is, the nature of events that have no directly determining cause, like the onset of decay in radioactive isotopes, or mutations and variations in recombinant DNA, or the output of a random number generator - is not the alternative to design. It plays its role in the causal chain, to be sure, but it is only a small part of the story. Natural selection is the non-random survival and replication of particular combinations of genes. It is non-random because this survival is dependent upon all those environmental conditions that come to bear upon the survival and reproduction rates of the organisms in question. I repeat, this is a non-random process, but that does not mean it requires a designer or a conscious will to guide it. As for control mechanisms, you only need to look, for example, to the delicate balance between predator and prey species in many parts of the world. For millions of years, these balances have ensured that the populations of these animals remain such that the environment can sustain them. There need not be any designer driving such a process - natural forces by themselves can bring it about perfectly well. By all means, posit a level of "reality" above and beyond all this - but while you're at it, do explain also how any purported reality that fails to make an impression upon our senses and experience, remains inaccessible to scientific investigation, and of itself makes no discernible impact on our world, is in any way relevant to our existence.

**tonyrey** · #32 May 12, '12, 5:52 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Julia Mae

Quote:

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.

Thank you, Julia. Having specialised in the subject for more than five decades I would be extremely dim-witted if I hadn't discovered anything!

OrdinaryMelkite · #33 May 12, '12, 5:58 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sair

If there is a will or a designer, how would we know? A lot of people claim they know by 'intuition', but I've seldom seen anyone unpack precisely what that means and how it doesn't represent mere wishful thinking. ID proponents like to propose "theories" like "irreducible complexity" but that is just a way of shutting down enquiry, rather than a serious attempt to examine any evidence. Some people used to claim that eyes were irreducibly complex, but that idea has been thoroughly debunked, largely on the basis of finding examples in nature of pretty much every intermediate stage from light-sensitive cells through to highly complex eyes such as those of eagles. There's nothing inherently problematic in hypothesising that chemical replicators (RNA and DNA) underwent gradual self-assembly, through perfectly natural processes, from simpler molecules. The point is that in order to actually understand how this might have happened, if it happened, observation and experiment are necessary. It doesn't advance our comprehension one jot to arrive at DNA and simply say, "Well, I can't figure out how this could have come about. Someone must have designed it."

I will add my attempt to the many that have already been made to clear up the apparently persistent confusion between "random" and "undesigned". Randomness - that is, the nature of events that have no directly determining cause, like the onset of decay in radioactive isotopes, or mutations and variations in recombinant DNA, or the output of a random number generator - is not the alternative to design. It plays its role in the causal chain, to be sure, but it is only a small part of the story. Natural selection is the non-random survival and replication of particular combinations of genes. It is non-random because this survival is dependent upon all those environmental conditions that come to bear upon the survival and reproduction rates of the organisms in question. I repeat, this is a non-random process, but that does not mean it requires a designer or a conscious will to guide it. As for control mechanisms, you only need to look, for example, to the delicate balance between predator and prey species in many parts of the world. For millions of years, these balances have ensured that the populations of these animals remain such that the environment can sustain them. There need not be any designer driving such a process - natural forces by themselves can bring it about perfectly well. By all means, posit a level of "reality" above and beyond all this - but while you're at it, do explain also how any purported reality that fails to make an impression upon our senses and experience, remains inaccessible to scientific investigation, and of itself makes no discernible impact on our world, is in any way relevant to our existence.

I understand what you are saying------but I have to say:

I'm not a statistician (VERY far from it) but I would bet the probability of self-developing and replication occurring naturally over a long period of time is astronomical.

Just saying. Again................................... ...

Sair · #34 May 12, '12, 6:02 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by OrdinaryMelkite

I understand what you are saying------but I have to say:

I'm not a statistician (VERY far from it) but I would bet the probability of self-developing and replication occurring naturally over a long period of time is astronomical.

Just saying. Again................................... ...

I'm no statistician either, but highly improbable or not, the development of self-replicating molecules, leading to life as we know it, only had to happen once in order for us to be here considering it. Once in 13.4 billion years...sounds pretty improbable to me. Just saying...

Sair · #35 May 12, '12, 6:41 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by tonyrey

Thank you, Julia. Having specialised in the subject for more than five decades I would be extremely dim-witted if I hadn't discovered anything!

Your post was full of little other than flat denial of the possibility that humans are natural beings - and the insistence that if we are so, we can only be cogs in a machine. That seems like a false dichotomy to me - souls or cogs. Can't you imagine anything in between, any alternative explanation for human abilities other than magic? In your five+ decades of study, have you found any explanation for how supernatural entities, whatever they are, can interact with natural entities?

jimmy · #36 May 12, '12, 7:16 pm

Science is essentially empiricicism coupled with reason. Theology purports to be reasonable. From a scientific perspective, what is its value if it doesn't have any empirical relevance? Whys should someone believe something that has no bearing on empirical reality? Why should I believe something that has no effect on me; considering the fact that I am a phycal being?

Sair · #37 May 12, '12, 8:17 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by sw85

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 point was to respond to the general flavour of this thread, in which many of those posting seem to hold science in very low esteem, since it is "merely" concerned with physical reality - such subjective philosophical discussions as people have regarding the interpretations and alternative relationships between various empirical findings would, I assume, be regarded as "non-physical" by those who consider science in this light.

I would suggest there are those who indeed do believe science to be worthless when it comes to considering questions of spirituality, for example, or the existence or otherwise of gods. What I would ask is that if such is the case, how exactly does one discern the content of a field of study such as spirituality or theology? What is it, exactly, that makes theology, for example, different to something like literary criticism?

Consider two possible points of view on the proposition that we are spiritual beings: one point of view - the supernaturalist point of view - takes as a fundamental premise the idea that there is some aspect of the human animal (not that they'd call us that!) that is not physical, that is, in fact, not in any way bound by laws of physics and yet is able to act to control the actions of the body it inhabits; and also able to sense the "higher" things of the universe, such as love, beauty, justice (which have an ideal existence all of their own) and connect with God, who is "pure spirit", whilst we are adulterated by the flesh.

An alternative point of view does not adopt the premise that we are supernatural, but instead starts from the assumption that whatever we are, we are susceptible to explanation. It might then examine the question of precisely why it is that we feel like we have this 'other' entity within our bodies that seems to govern, at least to some extent, our choices and actions. It does not assume that love, beauty, justice and other abstract universals have an independent existence that somehow influences our behaviour because we can "sense" them at a spiritual level, but entertains the possibility that these abstract universals may in fact be our mental shorthand, so to speak, for states of affairs in the real world.

Some would see the latter approach as "reductive", or somehow belittling to human experience - if we are not really connecting with other spiritual entities, then we don't really have spiritual experiences at all! Well, actually we do - it's just that these experiences might not be what we imagine them to be. That doesn't mean that they don't matter to us, nor does it mean we should shy away from investigating them by whatever means we have to hand, for fear of shattering our own illusions. What happens if a scientific, natural philosophy approach doesn't tell us what we want to hear? Do we reject it and just invent, on an ad hoc basis, the content of our philosophy from then on? Do we say, "Well, that explanation didn't satisfy me - it must be that there are some other things going on that science just can't discern"? What does it mean, after all, to seek the truth if not to allow ourselves to be confident that our perceptions and expectations correspond to what is really going on in the world?

Godmachine · #38 May 12, '12, 8:57 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by OrdinaryMelkite

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.

Why can science not compliment religion (philosophy)? How do you define "reality anyway?

Quote:

Originally Posted by OrdinaryMelkite

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

Perhaps people who do not understand science think science = reality. That is NOT what science says. Those who understand science say that science provides the best explanation for observed phenomena. I happen to agree with them.

Quote:

Originally Posted by OrdinaryMelkite

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

Since when is natural phenomena NOT reality? Again, how are you defining "reality"?

Quote:

Originally Posted by OrdinaryMelkite

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?

So far I disagree. Please elaborate.

BobCatholic · #39 May 12, '12, 9:23 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by atheistgirl

Is the natural world not reality

Sarah x

Is the natural world ALL of reality?

Can natural science answer all questions about reality? If yes, please tell me the answers to the following questions.

1) What is the mathematical equation of Love?
2) What is its chemical formula?
3) What is the biological cell structure of love?
4) Using the scientific method, please tell me why Dr. Mengele was out of line.
5) Using the principles of calculus, please calculate the mathematical formula that will tell me exactly when I will get my next job.

Of course, I'm making an interesting type of point by asking those questions. They cannot answered because of jurisdictional issues. All the answers to those questions involve things in reality that are outside the jurisdiction of natural science.

Love does exist in reality, natural science cannot measure it. Dr. Mengele was out of line, and that was in reality, natural science cannot condemn him.. My future job may be a reality (don't know yet, nobody did the math for me yet

) - but the future, though unknown, is in reality.

I'm still trying to find out Who put the ram In the rama lama ding dong...but maybe science will answer that question too

Natural science has its jurisdiction. Supernatural science has its jurisdiction..

Qoeleth · #40 May 12, '12, 9:26 pm

It would seem that 'reality' is simply a cultural and linguistic construction, and not a meaningful one at that. To have a notion of 'reality' requires a notion of something 'other than reality'- a word which is all inclusive can have no communicative value (e.g. if there was never any nightime, would we have a word for 'day'? No. It would be a useless word.)

Now, anything 'other-than-reality' is, by definition, non-existent, fictional.

Since the existence of the concept 'reality' depends upon the idea of 'other-than-reality', which does not exist, it follows that 'reality' is a meaningless concept.

Moreover, science itself is a form of fiction. It proceeds on the assumption that their are various 'classes' of things (numbers, planets, trees, etc.). Now such classes, as shown by William of Ockham, are simply mental concepts or fictions. Therefore, the material of scientific hypothesis is fiction.

Sair · #41 May 13, '12, 2:02 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Godmachine

Why can science not compliment religion (philosophy)? How do you define "reality anyway?

Perhaps people who do not understand science think science = reality. That is NOT what science says. Those who understand science say that science provides the best explanation for observed phenomena. I happen to agree with them.

Since when is natural phenomena NOT reality? Again, how are you defining "reality"?

So far I disagree. Please elaborate.

Definitely one of the best posts I've seen on this thread

Sair · #42 May 13, '12, 2:09 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobCatholic

Is the natural world ALL of reality?

Can natural science answer all questions about reality? If yes, please tell me the answers to the following questions.

1) What is the mathematical equation of Love?
2) What is its chemical formula?
3) What is the biological cell structure of love?
4) Using the scientific method, please tell me why Dr. Mengele was out of line.
5) Using the principles of calculus, please calculate the mathematical formula that will tell me exactly when I will get my next job.

Of course, I'm making an interesting type of point by asking those questions. They cannot answered because of jurisdictional issues. All the answers to those questions involve things in reality that are outside the jurisdiction of natural science.

Love does exist in reality, natural science cannot measure it. Dr. Mengele was out of line, and that was in reality, natural science cannot condemn him.. My future job may be a reality (don't know yet, nobody did the math for me yet

) - but the future, though unknown, is in reality.

I'm still trying to find out Who put the ram In the rama lama ding dong...but maybe science will answer that question too

Natural science has its jurisdiction. Supernatural science has its jurisdiction..

It may just be that you're asking the wrong questions - there may not actually be a mathematical equation for the subjective experience of love, but it doesn't follow from this observation that love is therefore illusory, or that it is somehow the result of supernatural magic. The same may well be true of why Mengele's experiments were morally wrong, and why you may or may not get a particular job on the basis of your application and interview. A mathematical formula for either of these things would need to identify certain constants, presumably (and I must admit to being no mathematician) but if there are many variables in any given formula, it seems to me that there must be a comparable number of possible outcomes.

I am intrigued by the idea if a supernatural "science", though - what is the content of such a science? What is its area of study? What are its methods?

**tonyrey** · #43 May 13, '12, 2:09 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobCatholic

Is the natural world ALL of reality?

Can natural science answer all questions about reality? If yes, please tell me the answers to the following questions.

1) What is the mathematical equation of Love?
2) What is its chemical formula?
3) What is the biological cell structure of love?
4) Using the scientific method, please tell me why Dr. Mengele was out of line.
5) Using the principles of calculus, please calculate the mathematical formula that will tell me exactly when I will get my next job.

Of course, I'm making an interesting type of point by asking those questions. They cannot answered because of jurisdictional issues. All the answers to those questions involve things in reality that are outside the jurisdiction of natural science.

Love does exist in reality, natural science cannot measure it. Dr. Mengele was out of line, and that was in reality, natural science cannot condemn him.. My future job may be a reality (don't know yet, nobody did the math for me yet

) - but the future, though unknown, is in reality.

I'm still trying to find out Who put the ram In the rama lama ding dong...but maybe science will answer that question too

Natural science has its jurisdiction. Supernatural science has its jurisdiction..

..... Superb questions which pose the materialists with insurmountable problems!

**tonyrey** · #44 May 13, '12, 2:11 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sair

It may just be that you're asking the wrong questions - there may not actually be a mathematical equation for the subjective experience of love, but it doesn't follow from this observation that love is therefore illusory, or that it is somehow the result of supernatural magic. The same may well be true of why Mengele's experiments were morally wrong, and why you may or may not get a particular job on the basis of your application and interview. A mathematical formula for either of these things would need to identify certain constants, presumably (and I must admit to being no mathematician) but if there are many variables in any given formula, it seems to me that there must be a comparable number of possible outcomes.

I am intrigued by the idea if a supernatural "science", though - what is the content of such a science? What is its area of study? What are its methods?

What is your concept of love? You once stated something to the effect that it has a sexual origin...

Ancient1 · #45 May 13, '12, 2:32 am

Mankind, or the "intelligentsia", seem to always believe that we have attained almost full knowledge of everything, with just some gaps to fill in. Then a few hundred years go by and we are proven dead wrong. Classic case: earth is not flat.

We are adding to the body of scientific knowledge, but maybe we only have about .0001% of our facts straight. Not long ago Einstein's theory of relativity was hailed as a brilliant breakthrough and all theories shifted to accommodate it. Now some scientists want to chuck that old passe relativity out the window because we have the new discovery of "chaos theory."

Right now "scientific facts" that have trickled down from the highest halls of research to the grade school classroom include global warming, evolution, a gay gene, depression as a neurotransmitter-induced disease (now being called into question in all research facilities, but mums the word while Eli Lilly racks up the profits), mammograms (you're shooting your chest full of radiation once per year...sounds to me more like a cause for cancer than cure), ETC!

How many of these ideas are really scientifically proven? How many were "established" by studies (usually comprised of 30 college kids, not exactly the general population)? How many will be completely tossed out in 10 or 30 years? Either because new evidence becomes irrefutable, or faulty research is corrected?

Now that science is largely driven by motives of politics, ideology or self-promotion, it may be just as unstable as it was 500 years ago.