Does Science Answer All Our Questions?

[Ahsaniqbalkmc 0]

Well the question that whether science answers all of our question or not will remain debatable but one thing is clear like a diamond crystal tha is the quuestions answered by scientific knowledge are fully understood and nothing un-understandable is left in that matter. All is completly logical.

[Pii 0]

I agree with most of the people that science won't be able to answer all our question because there are lots of questions that science can't proved/answered such as religious believe, or trick question also some silly question. Still science could be first approach to deal with the questions we have as it is an effective measure to many questions.

[Skepticus 0]

I like to think of science as having all the questions. It is nature that we should ask as to whether is has all the answers. Science after all is a method of inquiry. To obtain a meaningful answer we must first ask a meaningful question. The question also has to be relevant and answerable to natural phenomenon. Nature is assumed as being causative. That is, it manifests as a network of cause and effect relationships. Any phenomenon that can not be reconciled on this matrix of causal relationships, is deemed to be anomolistic. Here we meet the interesting things we can not yet explain, but that may be simply a matter of detail in practice. There is a big difference between as yet unexplained natural phenomenon and inexplicable in principal. It must be assumed that there is a reason for anything we observe. In order to test the possible reasons we must assume they have some natural causes. If any phenomenon could manifest without cause or reason, then there is little hope that science can help to explain it.The question we might ask instead then, might be ¨is everything in reality natural, i.e. a manifestation of cause and effect?¨ In principal, it is possible to imagine an unnatural or supernatural realm, which has no causative accountability to nature, but how would we know such things exist? The usual claims made for supernatural things, posit entities such as spirits or EUTS (energies unknown to science), but nevertheless they manifest on the completely mundane level of reality, in a form that interacts with (and often contradicts) what is otherwise well understood, lawful and natural phenomenon.Taking the earlier mentioned idea of ghosts as an example, their existence is usually predicated on empirical grounds of observed phenomenon. They are claimed to be seen, heard or otherwise sensed, by mortal humans with natural sense organs such as eyes and ears. So the would-be supernatural phenomenon, is altogether predicated on causal relationships in natural phenomenon. What CAUSES a ghost to be visible? The problem with such a question is manifold. Firstly it should not be granted the status of a meaningful question unless we a] know ghosts are real and b] know what they are. We can´t even converse in a meaningful way unless we share a common notion of the subject we are talking about. Unless the word ´ghost´ has a common meaning we cant hope to reach agreement in anything else about ghosts. We might choose to accept the popular notion, that ghosts are disembodied souls, but that is highly controversial, as what we even understand about the existence of a soul, is speculative and fraught with intangible ideology. Speaking of ghosts as if they actually exist, is putting the cart before the horse, whether anybody believes they exist or not. The question is how do we KNOW this? We can´t even pretend to know ghosts are real, unless we are able to define them in terms of other known things. So we may fairly disagree that ghosts are actually disembodied souls, on the grounds that the soul is not a concrete, natural phenomenon for which we have any tangible evidence based understanding of. Even still, there may be a valid case to justify the collective experience of all those who claim to experience a range of phenomena, that are often attributed collectively to ghosts. Maybe something IS real that is being granted the imprimatur of the label ´ghost´. We can simply take the pragmatic approach and examine the evidence for the phenomenon as described at face value. The problem is then, that supernatural claims are given the poetic license to not have any need to account for anything akin to reasons or causes. They may be posited as effects without rational cause, because they are supernatural and by definition have no need to be reconciled within the cause and effect relationships, so what makes them real is not predicated on what makes them necessary in terms of cause and effect. So again; how do we know that what we are talking about is real, let alone a commonly defined phenomena based on common understandings? To do something as meaningful as SEE A GHOST, it assumes that a ghost is a meaningful thing, with optical properties. It either produces some light of it´s own, or it reflects light that can be detected on our retina. Otherwise it may appear like a hallucination, within our visual cortex and stimulate our brain to perceive a phenomenon, which is then mentally ´projected´ into the real world. In the latter case there is no need for the subject to be in any way a real part of the actual world outside of our mind, in which case there is nothing to explain. Since we already have a fairly firm grasp of the science of optics and an understanding of how the eye perceives optical phenomenon, it only remains to be explained how and why some claimed phenomenon, appears to be interjecting in this process. By producing some optical effects it actually IS being reported as a natural phenomena, because the natural process of optical vision is the source of evidence being enlisted to ratify the claim that there is anything to explain in the first place. What we observe with our senses, for want of any better reason must be assumed to be natural. If a supernatural explanation is proposed, it immediately forsakes any onus to account for itself in terms of rational cause and effect relationships. In any case if you simply look at the empirical claim on face value (if you are rationally minded and fairly well educated) you are beset with a host of anomalies. If these entities were remnants of the human soul (whatever that is), why do the apparitions invariably appear fully clothed? (do clothes have souls?). There is little consistency in the reported visual properties of ghosts anyhow. Sometimes they are claimed to be invisible, other-times they appear as having degrees of transparency sometimes they are fully translucent. But WHY? It is no accident or anomaly, that there are no good answerers to these kinds of questions. You don´t even hear paranormalist asking this kind of question, as if they should even expect a parsimonious, rational answer to exist. Again WHY? All that is proposed to be supernatural evades any recourse to the causative relationships we expect of the natural world. By definition it is accepted as needing no cause or reason. A supernatural explanation, is not an explanation at all. It is simply the excuse for having no explanation in terms of parsimony, with respect to other natural phenomena and the cause and effect relationships they bring to bear, on our understanding of how things work. For all rational intents an purposes, it is indistinguishable from a cop-out. There may be very many questions which science can not yet answer, but this is the strength of science. It just isn't prudent to profess an answer to an unanswered or even meaningless question. It is BECAUSE science has been so prudent in admitting what it does not yet know, that it has found answers to any questions. You wouldn't even bother to ask a question unless you could admit you don´t know the answer. But as I said from the outset, it is science that asks the questions and nature which provides the answers. In any case if nature can not provide an answer to a question, then I fail to see how anything else (supernature?) might be able to.

[The Simpleton1405241582 0]

Right from the beginning, we ended up asking too many questions and now all those questions are piled up, with their answers still yet to be found. If we hadn't bothered to ask those questions, then we would probably still be living in caves today. So it's a good thing that someone asked all those questions which brought such a radical change in our lives. Now the question remains as to when will those other questions be answered?

 

Most of these other questions involve the supernatural, as Skepticus has pointed out above. Then there are spiritual questions, historical questions and other assorted questions. So to some extent, we have already answered the questions whose answers have helped us improve our lives. The remaining questions are like surplus, and although some of the answers might change our lives yet again, I feel that for now there is no immediate need to rush through to find answers. Instead, science could be used to solve more important issues.

 

For example, there was that mega project conducted in Europe recently - oops I don't remember the name - it was the world's largest........damn it I forgot. Anyway, a lot of money was poured into that project and the goal was to find some answers. Just for a second, let's imagine what could have been done with that same amount of money - it could have helped in improving the lives of a lot of people who are starving to death. The answers are important, but they certainly aren't more important than the lives of our fellow people. Development should take place throughout the world - today a few countries have raced ahead and are enjoying luxuries that a few other countries can only dream of. The people of the developed countries have very little to complain about, and spend all their money in efforts like this, to find the answers. But think about places like Africa, where the people live in a miserable state. Of course its not as if there's a law that the developed countries should try to develop other countries, but it's just a suggestion.

 

In science fiction stories, the writers always talk about life on other planets being as being united. Do they talk about different countries on those planets? No (because that would mean additional writing!) Wouldn't it be a real achievement for science if it brought together all countries? Yes we do need some answers about questions related to religion, the afterlife, etc. But let's not forget today's world, and let's try to use science to do something better today!

[mahesh2k 0]

For example, there was that mega project conducted in Europe recently - oops I don't remember the name - it was the world's largest........damn it I forgot. Anyway, a lot of money was poured into that project and the goal was to find some answers.

You're talking about LHC which was conducted by CERN am i right ? This project was succesful and it is answering many questions regarding particle physics. But thing that people are worried about is that they think artificial synthetic life is impossible and so is cern experiment. They dont see the success of CERN brought to us. They're just changing the goal post of their spiritual and supernatural questions after getting the answers.

it could have helped in improving the lives of a lot of people who are starving to death.

really ? then why people waste money on spiritual and and church building, temple building things if there are many important questions to solve and people are starving. Besides if people htink LHC is not at all important then i'll say either they've no idea about physics or they just make comments based on news paper content.

But think about places like Africa, where the people live in a miserable state. Of course its not as if there's a law that the developed countries should try to develop other countries, but it's just a suggestion.

why to think about africa ? when vatican orders no condom usage for christians in vatican. increasing population doubles the issue of mankind on this planet and people think science waste money, yeah i believe ya.

if it brought together all countries? Yes we do need some answers about questions related to religion, the afterlife, etc.

after all these experiments for afterlife and death, science concluded that there is no proof for afterlife. People will gather here and argue about it but will not able to produce proof. It's just as i say, when science debunks any religious concept or spiritual concept, they change the goalpost

A supernatural explanation, is not an explanation at all. It is simply the excuse for having no explanation in terms of parsimony, with respect to other natural phenomena and the cause and effect relationships they bring to bear, on our understanding of how things work. For all rational intents an purposes, it is indistinguishable from a cop-out. There may be very many questions which science can not yet answer, but this is the strength of science. It just isn't prudent to profess an answer to an unanswered or even meaningless question. It is BECAUSE science has been so prudent in admitting what it does not yet know, that it has found answers to any questions.

Perfect.

[The Simpleton1405241582 0]

You're talking about LHC which was conducted by CERN am i right ? This project was succesful and it is answering many questions regarding particle physics. But thing that people are worried about is that they think artificial synthetic life is impossible and so is cern experiment. They dont see the success of CERN brought to us. They're just changing the goal post of their spiritual and supernatural questions after getting the answers.

Yup that's the one. I followed it with interest for a while and somewhere lost track of it. Yes it's main purpose is to answer the many questions left unanswered over the years and these answers could help us in unexpected ways. But when do we get to see these changes? That's a big question.....

really ? then why people waste money on spiritual and and church building, temple building things if there are many important questions to solve and people are starving. Besides if people htink LHC is not at all important then i'll say either they've no idea about physics or they just make comments based on news paper content.

I'm not entirely against to spending money for science. If we hadn't spent any money in the past, we wouldn't be in this rich technological age today. So what we did wasn't wrong. What I'm proposing is that we give a small break to these advancements and concentrate on other burning issues as well. Developing science to answer long-pending questions is not a bad idea. If we could wait all these years, why not wait for a little longer? There's a lot of black money lying waste all over the world. If only it could be extracted there would be enough to fund projects like these and yet there would be enough left to try to remove poverty etc. Lol but that is a far-fetched dream which is never going to happen.

why to think about africa ? when vatican orders no condom usage for christians in vatican. increasing population doubles the issue of mankind on this planet and people think science waste money, yeah i believe ya.

So you don't want to think about the rest of the world at all? One part of the world advances too fast and one part advances too slow - the impact will hit the whole world in unexpected ways.

after all these experiments for afterlife and death, science concluded that there is no proof for afterlife. People will gather here and argue about it but will not able to produce proof. It's just as i say, when science debunks any religious concept or spiritual concept, they change the goalpost tongue.gif

Science can never prove anything about afterlife and death. It's something that we should accept. People will still hold on to these things with religion and spirituality but it's best to let them be as they are now. Tinkering with the name of science is not such a good idea when we know there's no good outcome in trying.

[Skepticus 0]

Right from the beginning, we ended up asking too many questions...

Huh? What beginning? How did we ¨end up¨ at this beginning? How can you ask too many questions? Why is that a bad thing? It seems to me, we did´t ask anywhere near ENOUGH questions (as we didn´t know any better) and professed too many answers (or allowed others to profess too many answers) for which we had no reason to assume. That is, if this ´beginning´ you are talking about, is of the beginning what today we would call society.

 

 

and now all those questions are piled up, with their answers still yet to be found.

Again! HUH!!? Questions piled up? No answers? What in the world are you on about? Can you give examples or is it just hollow rhetoric?

 

 

If we hadn't bothered to ask those questions, then we would probably still be living in caves today. So it's a good thing that someone asked all those questions which brought such a radical change in our lives.

Good point We would probably also, still by dying by the age of 35 from tooth infections and plague. Although it isn't the questions that saved the day, it was the answers we found; what we LEARNED about nature. It´s a struggle to learn, we should all be VERY grateful for.

 

 

Now the question remains as to when will those other questions be answered?

And now I´m back to HUH? WTF are you on about?

 

 

Most of these other questions involve the supernatural, as Skepticus has pointed out above.

OH! Then it seems you didn´t appreciate what I was saying. The very nature of ´spiritual´ matters is a linguistic cloak, to mask meaninglessness. You can ask these questions anytime you like. What they mean and what answers you can expect, is an entirely different mater. If you wish to pursue common understandings, then common definitions are a must. Then having a method of inquiry is also a rather indispensable asset. When you can rule one set of answers out in favor of another and can demonstrate their parsimony, finding common agreement is much more likely. Nature has this because effects appear to have causes and explanations can be tested. What I was trying to express was the futility of supernatural ´explanations´ because they don´t even begin with understood concepts and their language is meaningless. They are manifestly untestable, because they are proffered as causeless or caused by some ´UNKNOWN´ forces/entities beyond nature. How anybody then professes to KNOW this in the first place, is the biggest mystery of all.

 

 

Then there are spiritual questions, historical questions and other assorted questions.

Spiritual!? I thought i covered that. Spirits, souls, EUTS etc. First define precisely what you mean by these things and then how you know they even exist and then perhaps we can talk about how to find answers about them. For now they appear to be contrived words, which appeal only to those who wish to profess knowledge they have not earned by honest (i.e. rational) means.

 

 

So to some extent, we have already answered the questions whose answers have helped us improve our lives. The remaining questions are like surplus, and although some of the answers might change our lives yet again, I feel that for now there is no immediate need to rush through to find answers. Instead, science could be used to solve more important issues.

You seem to have very little idea of how science works or what it is about.

 

 

For example, there was that mega project conducted in Europe recently - oops I don't remember the name - it was the world's largest........damn it I forgot. Anyway, a lot of money was poured into that project and the goal was to find some answers. Just for a second, let's imagine what could have been done with that same amount of money - it could have helped in improving the lives of a lot of people who are starving to death.

How sad that people so readily decry the meager pittance spent on science. The cost of the LHC is a paltry $6.3 billion US. That would´t put the tiniest dent, in the massive, unfathomable wealth possessed by the catholic church alone. What could be done with six billion dollars? Not a whole lot on the grand scale of global economics. It is but a tiny fraction of the global expenditure on foreign aid. To quote a commenter on a blog that I found

 

 

To complain about the cost of LHC is like spending 10 quid on a pizza then blaming the plight of the poor on someone who refused to give them a penny.

If you want to help the poor, I could suggest multitudes of scandalous money sinks that most of us are guilty of endorsing and wasting money on. My first target would be religion, followed by newage BS therapy/self help (like we need paid help from others, to help ourselves). But then what about cosmetics and other wasteful indulgences. Fast food, Booze, drugs, The war on drugs, Hollywood car chases. The catatonic decadence of our opulent wasteful lifestyles knows no bounds. How about money spent on wars or mopping up after wars (mostly caused by religion of course). Penny pinching from science is ridiculous. Please go and get a sense of perspective and then an education about what it is that we learn from pure scientific research.

 

 

The answers are important, but they certainly aren't more important than the lives of our fellow people.

But why do you imply that these are two mutually exclusive trade offs? Why cant we spend MORE on ´our fellow people´ and still spend the same or even MORE on science research? Why do you posit the equation, as if these are the only two variables in global economics and that they must be mutually exclusive? That is a false dichotomy my friend.

 

 

Development should take place throughout the world - today a few countries have raced ahead and are enjoying luxuries that a few other countries can only dream of.

I think you are confusing technology and industry with pure science. No we don´t need an electric shaver that says good morning to us and has an in built mp3 player, or a coffee peculator that we can turn on from our mobile phone five minutes before we arrive home. That is opulence in our economic habits but it isn´t the pre-conceived motive to do theoretical science. We don´t have to spend money on consumer luxuries and if we did spend less on them then we could all afford more, MUCH more benevolence AND theoretical science. The technology that allowed us to put mp3 players in our electric shavers, allows industry to make trillions out of us today, but it was made possible by science that our governments spent a relative pittance on, decades ago. The same science however also led to the development of the WWW you are currently enjoying the benefits of. The unforeseeable spin-off of digital electronics, that has made globalised multimedia communications a ubiquitous convenience. I will note two further points about this, that a} The www came out of the very same research establishment (CERN) as the LHC has been built by and b} it has a powerful tenancy to enable poor communities since they can learn an trade more freely as the price of digital computing devices falls dramatically over time.

 

 

The people of the developed countries have very little to complain about, and spend all their money in efforts like this, to find the answers.

All of their money and efforts you say? WTF!? I don´t know which part of the developed world you live in, but the developed world I know of spends Veeeeeery very little indeed on basic theoretical research to understand the laws of nature. We could do with ten times the budget thanks and then we would´t be so much as tipping our hat, to the absurd extravagances wasted on religion, wars and worthless junk. As for those answers, those answers benefit EVERYBODY even the poor countries that never spent money on their development. The aid given to poor countries includes the benefits of prior research such as vaccines, textiles agricultural produce and even education that is delivered on black boards and in books rather than scratched into the dirt with a stick.

 

 

But think about places like Africa, where the people live in a miserable state. Of course its not as if there's a law that the developed countries should try to develop other countries, but it's just a suggestion.

Yes and here´s another suggestion. Tell the Pope that he is a filthy piece of dirty lowlife ****, for condemning the use of prophylactics. A country for which itś population is starving and dying of aids, does NOT need more mouths to feed and certainly needs to protect those who are alive from suffering with a disease of such horrible torture. If I were living in these conditions, I would not wish to bring new life into this world. I have not ever been so well heeled that I feel I could afford the luxury of being able to support children in my own country. But then I don´t believe in state supporting the cost of children and I also care about the over population of the planet, so I have never been ambitious for my own family. How is it that the people in these countries can see fit to bring children into the world when the know what their own suffering is like? I wouldn't like to know I rely on foreign aid for subsistence, let alone bring more children I can´t support, into a world ravished by famine and aids.

 

Take all the wealth off of the catholic church (many hundreds of times that spent on the LHC) and give it to these poor people, with my blessing, but in thirty years time, I bet those kids who live, will have raised a new generation of poverty ridden children and they will not have learned a damn thing. The money could be better spent, on teaching family planning (avoidance actually), contraception and on rewarding women who successfully continue to avoid pregnancy. When they start initiating programs such as this, rather than feeding these people hand to mouth, I will be very generous indeed. But then, there is no need for any of us to demand the government take our taxes and spend them on foreign aid programs. Those of us who want to donate more, are welcome to do so any time we wish. What is stopping us? Why is it necessary for the government to spend part of our money on our behalf to fund foreign aid? Those who agree the money is well spent, could actually donate directly to the aid agencies like UNICEF, OXFAM and Red Cross themselves. Still this is a pointless debate, because as I have said, the cost of science research is not a mutually independent trade off against foreign aid, in fact everybody (including third world countries) benefits massively from science research in the long run.

 

 

In science fiction stories, the writers always talk about life on other planets being as being united. Do they talk about different countries on those planets? No (because that would mean additional writing!) Wouldn't it be a real achievement for science if it brought together all countries?

I don´t see how this is a matter for science at all (unless you want to reverse continental drift and reunite Pangaea). This is politics, sociology and economics. What do you expect science to do that could foster such a goal? The purpose of science is to learn whatever can be understood about the natural world and that is what it does very well. There is no telling what benefits such knowledge can lead to. No doubt without modern agriculture, we couldn't have even expanded into such complex prosperous societies and the population we can support as a result, includes the ability to give as much foreign aid to poor countries as we do. That may not be enough to please you, but it certainly wouldn't be more if we were still living as pre-industrial peasants. The poor countries get the benefits of vaccines, mass produced food and modern textiles that come not only from and as technology, but from the affluence of a technological world that made aid possible. We could´t even give this if technology hadn't made it possible in the first place.

 

Technology is merely a by-product of science though. The primary product is just knowledge. Factual knowledge about the workings of the natural world. This knowledge, knows no geographic boundaries (especially since the Internet). Our technological wealth IS shared as it happens, but simple economics and social reform, is what is needed to provide realistic population control measures. The problems of the third world are not scientific ones, but they are problems that science serves greatly to soften the blow of.

 

 

Yes we do need some answers about questions related to religion, the afterlife, etc.

Like I said, when somebody gets around to finding meaningful definitions for and then demonstrating evidence for these things, so that we can agree there are REAL phenomenon to ask questions about, maybe then we can think about placing them in meaningful questions and looking for answers; until then asking questions about religion or the afterlife is akin to asking if Tinkerbell´s wings really are large enough for her to fly.

 

 

But let's not forget today's world, and let's try to use science to do something better today!

See above, RE: What we gain from science is KNOWLEDGE and the uses of knowledge (especially the kind nobody has ever know before) are unforeseeable. Suffice is to say, that gaining a better understanding of our universe is priceless Asking what use is science, is like asking what use is a newborn baby. We didn't discover the electron so we could invent the Internet, but it wouldn't have been possible otherwise. In any case who´s forgetting todays world? Science is what we are doing in todays world to benefit tomorrows world. A world in which we might have to leave the planet. A world in which aids and cancer might be as much a historical foot note as the plague is today. The science of years gone by is what is is being implemented today and that IS for the whole world, not just wealthy countries. So we ARE using science to do something better today.

[The Simpleton1405241582 0]

Sorry Skepticus, I think I didn't make myself very clear while talking about some aspects. I just skipped past some things by speaking in general. Well no wonder you wondered what I was talking about. I'll try to clear up a few of those things.

 

blink.gif Huh? What beginning? How did we ¨end up¨ at this beginning? huh.gif How can you ask too many questions? Why is that a bad thing? It seems to me, we did´t ask anywhere near ENOUGH questions (as we didn´t know any better) and professed too many answers (or allowed others to profess too many answers) for which we had no reason to assume. That is, if this ´beginning´ you are talking about, is of the beginning what today we would call society.

By "beginning" I mean the beginning of life, in whatever way it was created. And by "ended up" I just meant we got so used to asking questions that it became like a habit, i.e., it ended up becoming a habit to us. I never said it was a bad thing. In the very next sentence I say its a good thing that we asked all those questions or else we would still be livng in caves (you commented that this was a good point - so why did you think I was referring to it as a bad thing?!)

 

What you said is right - we can never ask enough questions and asking new questions isn't wrong. It's just that we've already got many questions to answer already that it the new questions seem to pile up on top of the old, or else the old questions are put aside to find answers for the new ones. Hmm looks like I'm speaking too much in general. Time to get down to detail.

 

Again! HUH!!? Questions piled up? No answers? What in the world are you on about? Can you give examples or is it just hollow rhetoric?

And now I´m back to HUH? blink.gif WTF are you on about?

Lol ok I'll get to the point. Some of the questions I had in mind were something like:

 

--> Proof of origins of the universe

--> Death of dinosaurs

-->Existence of God

-->Where is mankind headed to

 

I could go on if you like but I think you get the point. There have been endless debates on questions like these but there hasn't been a satisfactory conclusion in any of them. This is why I said there are questions piling up. There have been efforts to answer these questions although the results haven't been satisfactory. In the meantime other issues have taken up the time of our researchers and thus it's become like a long waiting list.

 

And in case you didn't notice, the OP of this thread didn't mention specifically what the "questions" are about. Almost all the replies follow suit.

 

Good point We would probably also, still by dying by the age of 35 from tooth infections and plague. Although it isn't the questions that saved the day, it was the answers we found; what we LEARNED about nature. It´s a struggle to learn, we should all be VERY grateful for.

Yes it's the answers that saved us, but we should remain equally thankful for the questions as well. Without them life would have continued as always without any significant change and everyone of us might have dying early as you pointed out. So it's good that we got the answers, and at the same time, we should be glad that the questions were there.

 

What I was trying to express was the futility of supernatural ´explanations´ because they don´t even begin with understood concepts and their language is meaningless. They are manifestly untestable, because they are proffered as causeless or caused by some ´UNKNOWN´ forces/entities beyond nature. How anybody then professes to KNOW this in the first place, is the biggest mystery of all.

Well I can't argue much about that. All I can say is that if we think these explanations are futile, then we shouldn't try to explain. Let it remain unexplained. Let those forces remain a mystery. Let's not waste much time discussing about something if we think beforehand that it's a bad idea to do so.

 

Spiritual!? dry.gif I thought i covered that. Spirits, souls, EUTS etc. First define precisely what you mean by these things and then how you know they even exist and then perhaps we can talk about how to find answers about them. For now they appear to be contrived words, which appeal only to those who wish to profess knowledge they have not earned by honest (i.e. rational) means.

Come on now, spiritual doesn't just mean spirits, ghosts, etc! There's more to spirituality than just that. I'm no expert on that matter so I won't go deep into that, but there are matters related to the mental power of an individual that can be accessed through techniques like meditation. There are claims that individuals immersed deep in spiritual powers can perform astonishing feats with their mind. I was referring to these claims (i.e. questions....)

 

You seem to have very little idea of how science works or what it is about.

Maybe you're right. And maybe you're not. Everyone has their own perceptions about science and look at it in a different way. As to how science works, maybe I don't know anything about it. Or maybe I'm just too lazy to explain myself better over here. When talking about science being used for development I'm talking about using what we have achieved through all these years to help make people's lives better. Hmm I'm not doing a good job defending myself so for now I'll just agree - yes, I have a minuscule idea about science

 

That said, I don't think I can justify anything I've said so far, and can't comment on your other fine arguments. So I'll stop by summarizing some of my views on what you've said - spending money on science is not a bad thing and we shouldn't stop in any case. You said we're not spending enough while I'm saying we should be spending on better things. I think both can be done if we recognize where the money is actually going. Science does give us knowledge and we should try to use this knowledge to improve our lives; not make it worse.

[mahesh2k 0]

Yup that's the one. I followed it with interest for a while and somewhere lost track of it. Yes it's main purpose is to answer the many questions left unanswered over the years and these answers could help us in unexpected ways. But when do we get to see these changes? That's a big question.....

Which question you wanted to know that are unanswered ? Dark energy's existence is proved with this experiment and some of the particle physics questions are answered because of this experiment. I don't know what were the expectations of people that they think it's unanswered. If you expect people of accepting big-bang/inflation questions for this experiment then sorry to disappoint you but people will not accept the fact because of their religious/creator assumptions.

What I'm proposing is that we give a small break to these advancements and concentrate on other burning issues as well. Developing science to answer long-pending questions is not a bad idea. If we could wait all these years, why not wait for a little longer?

excuses will be always there when it comes to halting scientific development. How many people think before donating 1-2 crore ruppees to church or balaji temple in india ? shirdi temple in india ? Don't tell me they do charity and stuff ? if they were to seriously do the charity then atleast 1-5% of indian population will get daily food because of 10-12crore yearly income of those church/temples. Now can we stop this ? then why stop serious development which helps us in future. And lol about black money..

So you don't want to think about the rest of the world at all? One part of the world advances too fast and one part advances too slow - the impact will hit the whole world in unexpected ways.

As i said earlier i don't want to waste money on part that is not developing in the situation where one part is wasting money on religious hollow charity and corruption. what's the point about thinking for africa ? if people can be selfish and bribe temple/church for prayers/goodwill in the excuse of charity then why not be selfish a little more and secure your own environment instead of thinking about africa? i dont see the difference this way,rather later is more obvious with self-bias and no one will deny it.

Science can never prove anything about afterlife and death.

Lol, why is that ? cause you don't want to accept what science says ? or you want to keep barrier in such way that whatever science comes up with has to be declined ? or perhaps cognitive dissonance ?

1) It's something that we should accept
2) people will still hold on to these things with religion and spirituality but it's best to let them be as they are now. Tinkering with the name of science is not such a good idea when we know there's no good outcome in trying.

1) without knowing why we should accept ? or accept it from religious claims and random spirituality without verifing? duh..
2) lol, so you do know there is lot of religious drama and wild claims that can be debunked by science if we tinker ? or you think other way ?

[mahesh2k 0]

--> Proof of origins of the universe--> Death of dinosaurs
-->Existence of God
-->Where is mankind headed to

I'll try to answer these questions but i'm sure this will not satisfy those who believe in supernatural and spirituality.

1) Proof of origin of universe:- Big bang and inflation theory best explains origin of universe. Expansion of universe proves "inflation theory" and there are many evidences for big-bang and LHC can confirm it as well. I can go on with primeval atom model and big-bang but people who want creator as origin of universe will just discard all the big-bang proofs without any reasoning so it's not even worth attempt to explain scientifically.

2) Death of dinosaurs - Two possible scenarios explain death of dinosaurs and earlier civilizations, that is one meteor showers and second- ice age and changes in environment after meteor showers.

3) Existence of god- Looking at the answer 1) i don't understand why we need god behind everything and even if there is any creator which formed his own existence after existence of this universe then asking for his address or praying for him to solve our problem is like bottle no 13,670 in coca cola company is asking for CEO's help. Which any entity at that stature will hardly care for it. In any case, thinking about existence of god is pure waste of time and fetches nothing unless a person is limited with scientific facts and prefers delusion and less complex answers.

4) Where is mankind headed to - This depends on many factors, environmental changes of this planet, scientific development and defense and how people at higher stature manipulate and maintain peace on this planet. More blind belief and religious delusion, more will be the chaos. More cold-hearted people manipulation more will be the chaos.

[Skepticus 0]

i don't understand why we need god behind everything and even if there is any creator which formed his own existence after existence of this universe then asking for his address or praying for him to solve our problem is like bottle no 13,670 in coca cola company is asking for CEO's help.

Douglas Adams couldn´t have said it better. ¨Help me lord Cola. I was supposed to be a 1.25 Ltr no 500 ml¨

4) Where is mankind headed to - This depends on many factors, environmental changes of this planet, scientific development and defense and how people at higher stature manipulate and maintain peace on this planet. More blind belief and religious delusion, more will be the chaos. More cold-hearted people manipulation more will be the chaos.

Touche

[Skepticus 0]

A PILOSOPHICAL INTERLUDE

I would like to interject here with a couple of points more of a philosophical nature and clarify some hazy semantics, that tend to cloud any constructive debate. Let´? look at some previous discourse:

after all these experiments for afterlife and death, science concluded that there is no proof for afterlife. People will gather here and argue about it but will not able to produce proof. It's just as i say, when science debunks any religious concept or spiritual concept, they change the goalpost tongue.gif

Science can never prove anything about afterlife and death.

Lol, why is that ? cause you don't want to accept what science says ? or you want to keep barrier in such way that whatever science comes up with has to be declined ? or perhaps cognitive dissonance ?

Firstly to the semantics: Personally, I avoid the word ¨PROOF¨ at all costs, as it tends to convey the misplaced notion of absolute certainty. In science we do not strive to KNOW things with perfect certainty, but to examine the evidence and discover the most probable explanations. There´s a wise saying that states: ´Proof is for mathematics and alcohol.´ In the strictest terms science can never ¨prove anything about afterlife and death¨ if only because it can never prove any thing about anything. Moreover we are far more apt to being able to disprove what is not true, than to prove those things which are true, with anything approaching certainty. A clever chap by the name of Albert Einstein was once heard to proclaim:

No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.

This speaks volumes for the tentative nature of scientific ideas and the way they are treated as perpetually open to falsification. It´s a little thing called intellectual honesty, that science can proudly wear as a badge of honor. No idea ever stands to reason unless it follows from logic a priori, even then it is not considered confirmed unless and until it has been tested and there is a body supporting evidence that caries from conjecture to hypothesis and then on to become a working theory. It more prudent to say that we accept things as conclusive, than to regard them as ´PROVEN´ in some absolute sense.

But if science can never prove anything about the afterlife or death, then neither can any other method of inquiry or field of knowledge. The principal of philosophical skepticism is universal. Philosophical skepticism, addresses the fallibility of the human knowledge in all of it´s guises and acknowledges that our senses through which we obtain knowledge of the world, are fallible and limited. We don´t experience the world directly but through the veil of human perception. You don´t perceive radio waves directly for instance, but we have very good reason to understand that radio waves are the very same phenomenon which we DO perceive via our eyes namely electromagnetic radiation in the form of light. This is something we can say we KNOW beyond a shadow of doubt, if not because it is PROVEN conclusively, because there is a massive body of evidence which leads to this conclusion. When on the weight of evidence one explanation seems logically unavoidable, while others appear impossible, then we have some reason to consider that explanation irrefutable, at least in practice. In principal the answer must never be irrefutable as there is always grounds to doubt the unattainable status of perfect certainty of human knowledge.

Another word worth avoiding is ´BELIEVE´. Grrrr! Honestly people, who cares what you believe? If you want to convince others of what you claim as truth, then be prepared to have those ideas challenged. If there is any valid reason to agree with your ideas, I will bend over backwards to see whatever plausibility they might posses, but they will have to accord with evidence, reason and parsimony. How much fairer can I be, without sacrificing intellectual integrity? I wrote a little limerick decades ago, to express my contempt for unreasoned belief:

Show me something believing can do,
I don´t have to believe for it to be true.

I´ll show you some facts you´ll find hard to perceive,
which turn out the same outside of belief.

For here´s just something between me and you:
Facts don´t rely on belief to be true.

I use the term ´facts´ very advisedly BTW. I mean tentative facts, that are confirmed conclusions. So please consider using the words ´confirmed¨ and ´accept´ rather than proven and believe. Adopt the model of intellectual integrity that admits what you think you know, as tentative and have humility in the fallibility of your knowledge.

The next point deals with the ´onus of evidence´. (Again - this is often called the ´onus of proof´, but as I have explained, rivalry over perfect certainty, misses the point of being open minded and willing to accept alternatives on their merit). The onus of evidence, addresses the basic precedence of reasoning. What is accepted as the most parsimonious set of explanations today may be challenged by some other idea which may tend to contradict those explanations, but the claimant is not at liberty to proclaim this idea as being true unless proven otherwise. Established knowledge, is established with good reason, so it requires even better reason to demonstrate any new idea (or even old idea) is more parsimonious (i.e. it fosters less assumptions and more agreement with evidence). All of scientific knowledge is founded on this principal of parsimony or Occam´s Razor. But the onus of evidence is always upon the claimant. They must seek to demonstrate their idea, is better suited to represent an explanation for the full range of ideas they contradict.

Looking at the above discourse again, we see that starscream notes the lack of proof (conclusive evidence perhaps stars? ) for the afterlife.

The Simpleton retorts that ¨science can never prove anything about afterlife and death¨.

But it isn't the job of science to ´prove´ anything about the afterlife. Put aside the question as to whether ´afterlife´ is a supernatural or natural concept (that has implications of it´s own) and note the fact that you don´t have to be a scientist or work in a lab, to apply reason and the principals of critical thinking to ideas and estimate the plausibility according to the principal of parsimony. As I have pointed out previously these concepts or words, don´t necessarily describe anything that is real to begin with. They may be nothing more than fictitious ideas. You cant even BEGIN to contemplate how you might inquire into the idea of an afterlife, if you cant describe what it is you are talking about (i.e. define it unambiguously) and explain how you have come to accept that there is a REAL phenomenon to investigate. To that end, I point back to the onus of evidence. If you wish to use the word as if it related to something we should even consider as real, or even just plausible, then the onus is upon you (or those who speak of such things), to establish the meaning and evidence for such a concept.

Starscream had merely pointed out the absence of evidence in favor of the idea. While absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, the onus of evidence still remains upon the claimant. No ´evidence of absence´ is required to be found by the skeptic of any afterlife, because it, simply doesn't stand to reason in the first place. The claim that science can not prove (or even provide evidence for or against) the afterlife is completely irrelevant, if this idea is meaningless or fictitious. Why science anyhow? We should all be able to think for ourselves. This sort of peevish, truculent, squealing about what science ´can´t prove´ is so annoying and naive, for all the reasons I have explained from the misconceived attitude, that science presents a monolithic tomb of unquestionable concrete facts written in stone, to the misplaced onus put upon science, to prove or disprove the meaningless and baseless claims of superstition and pseudo-science.

Returning to the theme of this discussion, (Does Science Answer All Our Questions?). One reason that science may be of little help in such matters, is because science can only address ideas which lend them-self to logical reasoning and then only make convincing progress towards proper knowledge for ideas which can proffer testable evidence, (i.e. means of confirmation/refutation). It is hardly anything to brag about when you swoon over some superstitious or meaningless concept and point out that science can´t touch it. Why is that so do you think? Science can´t touch fairytales either. Besides; If science cant unravel anything approaching what we may consider understanding, then what can? We can all exercise the same protocols of critical thinking that science exemplifies. Reason is not the sacred liturgies of high priests in secret monastic orders. Detectives, Judges, historians, philosophers, engineers, builders and people watching whodunits, may all exercise critical thinking skills. In any case the evidence comes not from science but from nature.

Science deals rather directly, with what we can learn from nature. Why? As I have explained previously, it comes down to what we know about nature, following from a rational web of cause and effect relationships. Causeless magic or supernatural realms, are presented with no basis in existing knowledge about how the universe appears to work. They are by definition divorced from causality and not required by their partisans, to have any method of reasoning with regards to how or why they work. They are simply baseless assertions, but that is not the point I wish to make. The very definition of ´supernatural´ evades the cause and effect ´web of causality´ that science finds in nature. It is only possible to explain some effect, in terms of a necessary consequence of other known causes. Those causes again are effects of other causes. It is because of this that science can make spectacular predictions based on causes of a particular conjecture. Consider Einsteins relativity. It predicts the displacement of light passing by a source of strong gravity such as a star and not just any amount, but a specific amount. The equations of relativity may given real world variables, such as the mass of a star and the position in the sky of a more distant star, so the equations become calculations about factual events. Not just theoretical but practical science. Because relativity determines that space and time together belong to something resembling a malleable fabric called spacetime, and gravity is required to distort that fabric like a bowling ball on a flat rubber sheet, we can expect the light of a distant star, to kink around a nearby star and make the distant star look like it is in a different place.

The best example of this and indeed the earliest of confirmations used our sun as the source of the nearby gravitational distortion and predicted the displacement of a distant star, to an extraordinary accuracy, but it had to wait until Sir Arthur Eddington´s polar expedition in 1919 to test it on the occasion of a total eclipse, because the sun would otherwise obliterate the tiny amount of light starlight radiating from the distant star.

I use this as an example of how we KNOW anything. You don´t have to understand relativity or WHY the spacetime curvature happens, only that the mathematics predicts it and if it is more than just speculation, it should be able to show some predictable effects in terms of cause and effect. The chance that there is a better explanation for such a particular and precise observation is remote to say the least. It is still possible that a better explanation may come to light, but the chance that relativity is completely wrong, is so unfathomably unlikely because it explains this highly specific behavior, and that was predicted ahead of time. No supernatural phenomenon is presented this way. You are presented with something laughable of not impossible, which makes no predictions (either specific or accurate), which follow from necessity and it holds no connection with any other thing know in reality. How then can the people who profess such things claim -in any way- that they know the things they are talking about are -in any sense- real?

How can knowledge (about anything) be found, if it is not based on testable, (ergo falsifiable) predictions. When were crystal ´energy´, ESP, charkras, or the afterlife tested by their proponents? How were they discovered? We should ALL smell a rat, when we are presented with some dubious claims (often to good to be true anyhow), that are not based on preceding knowledge, do not follow from testable predictions and are conveniently claimed to be beyond the testable limits of science. For anybody to claim to know these thing in the first place, just defies all credulity. The onus is not on science or the skeptic by any means to falsify claims that never stood to reason, least of all if they are just meaningless. How are we to address these concepts and ask what we can learn about them? If they are fictional or even meaningless it is not possible to learn ANYTHING from them or about them, because there is no THEM. What does it mean to KNOW anything? It is not a failing of science to address topics which are fanciful fabrications. The idea of science is to precede from what is established and consider what is possible, then test those speculative ideas that seem plausible. What goes against the myriad of supernatural ideas, is that they do not precede from anything which is established as existing knowledge. That not only makes them unanswerable to science, it makes them irrelevant to knowledge itself. In case that should seem like I lack an open mind, I will leave you with a very good insight on the Open Mind.

[yordan 10]

In order to add my five cents to this nice debate, I would point this :

In science fiction stories, the writers always talk about life on other planets being as being united. Do they talk about different countries on those planets? No

This is absolutely false. In a lot of science-fiction stories, two or more countries are fighting, and our heroes come in the middle of the battle and ask them to stop in order to join our peaceful galactic government!

[The Simpleton1405241582 0]

@Skepticus: Thanks for your in-depth observations. Much as I admire the thoughtful points you've written, I am in no position to comment on them. There's another player (starscream) to continue the constructive debate and I thank you for the good time I've had pondering about the points you've given.

This is absolutely false. In a lot of science-fiction stories, two or more countries are fighting, and our heroes come in the middle of the battle and ask them to stop in order to join our peaceful galactic government!

Then I must be too ignorant - could you give some examples for a "lot" of these stories, please? Be it novels, movies or any other form of sci-fi, planets have mostly been treated as a whole, and some of them mention cities and capitals but a wide-spread idea of countries on other planets? I haven't seen it till now though so could you please point them out?

[Skepticus 0]

In response to what I said:

What I was trying to express was the futility of supernatural ´explanations´ because they don´t even begin with understood concepts and their language is meaningless. They are manifestly untestable, because they are proffered as causeless or caused by some ´UNKNOWN´ forces/entities beyond nature. How anybody then professes to KNOW this in the first place, is the biggest mystery of all.

You replied:

Well I can't argue much about that. All I can say is that if we think these explanations are futile, then we shouldn't try to explain. Let it remain unexplained. Let those forces remain a mystery. Let's not waste much time discussing about something if we think beforehand that it's a bad idea to do so.

You are are attempting to play devils advocate on both sides of the fence here. With regards to supernatural explanations (what I was talking about), WE are not trying to explain anything. Moreover, you are completely missing my point. Supernatural ideas are flat out meaningless and not in any sense explanations of any kind ¨Let those forces remain a mystery.¨ WHAT FORCES? You are completely missing the point (I am beginning to suspect deliberately), that the evidence of supernatural effects is altogether absent from reality and there IS nothing to explain. WE, can´t then ´let those forces remain a mystery´ if no such thing exists. Furthermore, it is proponents of supernatural beliefs, that posit them as worthy contenders for the mantle of ´explanations´ using meaningless jargon and rhetoric that confuses science with fantasy. What we shouldn't try to explain, is that which doesn't exist. The point of trying to proclaim crystal ´energy´ for instance as an explanation of say, why Aunt Mary got better, is to pretend that an effect was caused by some form of energy (EUTS) that CAUSED Aunt Mary to get better. The proponent never demonstrates how they KNOW such healing energy exists in the first place and never shows how the allegedly correlated, effect is caused by the bogus energy. There´s just nothing mysterious to explain. The main trick is with inventing language and speaking as if those fictional concepts are real... Like you just did.

 

I didn´t say that it was futile to explain supernatural effects (as if there really were any to explain). I said supernatural explanations are futile. The broader point which is not getting through, is that alleged supernatural phenomenon (which we have -and can have- no reason to be convinced even exist) are by definition CAUSELESS and not based on existing knowledge of any-kind. So they have no logical connection with the web of causality that EXPLAINS how we even could know they exist, or why they are justified as necessary facts. Don´t try to pretend that we all agree supernatural phenomena exist and that what I was talking about was how difficult it is to explain why they do?

 

This is the core of the principal, of what makes the supernatural separate from and irreconcilable with the natural. If something must logically be accepted, as a consequence of other known things in this web of causality, then it must be natural. If it is supernatural then it´s not only exempt but prohibited from having any connection to any known causes and as such can not be explained at all. But that very same exemption is the divorce warrant that excludes them from all knowledge. You can´t KNOW crystal healing energy exists if it doesn't follow from causes. You can´t know something is supernatural by definition of what it means to ´know´ and what supernatural means.

 

We know things by establishing causal chains linked into a web of causality. If we discover something as unexplained, then there is no way to discount the possibility of it having a natural explanation. Invariably it does turn out to have a natural explanation, because it can be seen as a consequence of other known natural phenomena. To demonstrate that something is not natural, but rather supernatural, would be akin to demonstrating that it is impossible in principal and in fact. All that is known to be possible is also known to be natural.

 

 

Come on now, spiritual doesn't just mean spirits, ghosts, etc!

Do you want to play semantic word games or get down to objective reasoning?

 

There's more to spirituality than just that.

How do you know this?

 

I'm no expert on that matter so I won't go deep into that, but there are matters related to the mental power of an individual that can be accessed through techniques like meditation.

So we are talking about a cognitive process brought about in the activity of the brain then? Note: I have done some meditation in my time and I have experienced altered states of conciseness, that are quite remarkable to be quite sure and beneficial too, but altogether nothing that I would consider other worldly and certainly not supernatural.

 

There are claims that individuals immersed deep in spiritual powers can perform astonishing feats with their mind.

What spiritual powers? What IS a spiritual power? You appear to be talking about a fanciful ambiguous notion. If you wish to define what you are claiming to exist and demonstrate that it is something other than a natural phenomenon, then it´s your floor.

 

There are also claims that Elvis never died, but was abducted by aliens. Words like spirituality, faith and not to mention god, are favorites of the goal post shifting brigade. It is PURE ambiguity. In any case the common definition of spirituality is closely associated and based on the same etymology, as the word spirit. Whether it portends a supernatural or merely some seemingly numinous aspect of nature, depends upon who is running around with the goal posts at any given time. It would be FAR more honest and accurate, to attribute the properties of ambiguity words like spirituality, than to words like science, as you have so conveniently done. Perhaps you are fond of spirituality meaning what you profess it should mean, while words like science, are as slippery as a bar of soap in bath water, because you don´t want to ´come clean´

 

Maybe you're right. And maybe you're not. Everyone has their own perceptions about science and look at it in a different way.

Well I would certainly hope not. Science is a rational method of inquiry into how nature works. It follows rules that must be learned, as it is a community activity. What is up for grabs, is what evidence can be found for particular artifacts and phenomenon. If we wish to foster agreement and common understanding about nature, then learning the methods of research and reasoning is vital. Those methods do not differ according to what a persons opinion or cultural perspective may be. If you are looking for options for words to turn into ambiguous concepts, you might like to try spirituality, faith or god. Many people will profess these ideas to be quite concrete, as they (each of them) use these words to cement the goalposts wherever they (individually) want them to be.

 

As to how science works, maybe I don't know anything about it. Or maybe I'm just too lazy to explain myself better over here.

Yeah? Do ya think?

 

When talking about science being used for development I'm talking about using what we have achieved through all these years to help make people's lives better. Hmm I'm not doing a good job defending myself so for now I'll just agree - yes, I have a minuscule idea about science

Well that´s the smartest thing you have said so far. I´m not being facetious. As I have implored about science, the first thing anybody must do to learn something... anything! Is admit what they don´t know and then only begin the quest for knowledge based on what they do know.

 

That said, I don't think I can justify anything I've said so far, and can't comment on your other fine arguments.

NO!! No!! What you just said was great. But how to reconcile your pressing desire to answer questions about the origins of the universe, with the lament about the money spent on the Large Hadron Collider, that requires a rethink and that can´t happen in the total absence of, or even a minuscule idea about science.

 

So I'll stop by summarizing some of my views on what you've said - spending money on science is not a bad thing and we shouldn't stop in any case. You said we're not spending enough while I'm saying we should be spending on better things.

ER... No sorry. One of the subjects you have listed as a question worthy of this alternative research (origin of universe), is precisely what you condemned in that it is the central focus of the LHC. Another is mainstream science (extinction of dinosaurs), that hardly counts as cutting edge research and has fairly well run it´s course. While the existence of God (as an omnipotent sentient being) is no more a scientific concept than is the existence of the tooth fairy. While the ´direction of mankind´ is likewise not amenable to science unless you carve out some objective parameters. We are still orbiting the sun as I understand, in the same direction as always if that helps.

 

I think both can be done if we recognize where the money is actually going. Science does give us knowledge and we should try to use this knowledge to improve our lives; not make it worse.

!!Sigh!! When will people understand that the manner in which knowledge is used, has nothing to do with the manner in which it is gained. How is not having a Large Hadron Collider going to prevent us from using what knowledge we do have poorly? I think we do quite well as it happens. Besides crass consumerism and the arms race, I would not give up the vast majority of the technological providence of science, but I also have twice as many years to enjoy it. Above all I can think of nothing that is more noble, than the pursuit of understanding why we are here at all. Why should this universe exist at all, and why should it´s laws be the way appear to be? Was intelligent life inevitable or even probable? Besides saving us from whatever perils our uncertain future may hold, science is a bountiful lens of insight trained upon nature. Eating shitting and pumping out babies, then teaching them to believe, believe, believe, in ignorant superstitious dogma, THAT is what we need to do much much less of. Nature is your god and science is your savior. Give thanks to the REAL ALMIGHTY.