Does Science Answer All Our Questions?

[Skepticus 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.

I had a good time too, pondering, er... ah... well, I had a GOOD time.

[The Simpleton1405241582 0]

I had a good time too, pondering, er... ah... well, I had a GOOD time. laugh.gif

Lol you don't have to be modest - you can say directly that my posts didn't make much/any sense I did the best I could but its not up to the expectations of the forum so the best thing is that I stay quiet

[Skepticus 0]

[Note: This was supposed to be the first of a two part series responding to the same post]

 

 

By "beginning" I mean the beginning of life, in whatever way it was created.

Well I will have to object, that it very much matters in which way life came about and er... IF it was ¨created¨ is another example of baseless conjecture. What mountains of evidence establishes beyond reasonable doubt, is that primordial life had no capacity whatsoever to contemplate anything at all, let alone the mysteries of it´s own existence. Like I said, you might just as well be contemplating the aerodynamics of Tinkerbell´s wings. Better off to start with the beginnings of human society, an advancement clearly made possible by the development of language and advanced tool making. Although I don´t think we could have been asking any interesting questions until many thousands of years latter.

 

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.

No?

 

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

Sounds a bit like a lament to me.

 

 

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?!)

Why do you think? Why did you claim that we asked TOO MANY questions? Too many for what or who?

 

What you said is right - we can never ask enough questions

Now you appear to be contradicting yourself. You wonder why I am confused?

 

 

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.

The way I see it, the new questions follow from the answers to the old. I don´t count meaningless questions and loaded questions that make presumption about baseless or meaningless concepts.

 

 

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

--> Proof of origins of the universe

That isn´t a question my friend. That isn´t even a statement. That is a meaningless sentence fragment. Sorry if English is not your first language but in any language, questions need to make sense. You want to prove the Universe had an origin perhaps. Or perhaps you wish to prove that the Universe originated in some particular way. Perhaps you wish for others to do the work of ´proving´ their particular claims. You can look to my previous post for my take on the idea of PROOF.

 

Relative probability of cosmological origin theories, is available NOW and has been for a very long time. Fifteen years ago you could have been forgiven for holding out on such ideas as whether the universe is open or closed. Ten years hence, whether the universe was once compressed into a unimaginably dense singularity might still have been an open question. The evidence found by way of such research as the COBE (COsmic Background Explorer) ruled out numerous competing cosmologies, but as usual opened up even more questions. If you wish to ask a more specific question about the origin of the universe, it helps to understand something about what has been discovered first, then construct a meaningful, direct, grammatically correct question, that knowledges what can reasonably be considered questionable, on the basis of cogent reasoning and valid evidence.

 

--> Death of dinosaurs

Again, that isn´t a question is it? Again, that is a meaningless sentence fragment. OK. I can presume, to read between the lines and speculate that what you wish to know, is something like ´How did the dinosaurs become extinct?´, but it is highly suggestive of lazy, sloppy thinking, that you fail to articulate meaningful questions, based on any well informed understandings of current knowledge within the area of knowledge, in which you are suggesting we are lacking answers. Perhaps you might consider going back and rephrasing the question in light of existing research about the subject. Suggest the reasons why you feel existing understandings about this subject, leave important questions open and how we might better consider the current conclusions.

 

-->Existence of God

Yet again, do I need to reiterate the abomination of English this (and I mean it literally) ´non-sense´ represents? In this case, I can´t even begin to fathom what question you have in mind, nor who you portend as the rightful owner of accountability to whatever the question is that you seem to be avoiding. I can smell the god of the gaps around here. He has a distinct odor and when his followers arrive, there is a distinct non-committal way they assert questions, that rhetorically imply unanswered questions in science, without explaining what those questions are and how they know this; nor indeed what the better answer is and how they know that. Rather, the implication is that if there is anything left unexplained goddidit.

 

I won´t point fingers TS, but you should be getting the idea by now, that if you want to make a bold claim and defend it with valid reasoning and evidence which appeals to parsimony, then I am all ears. The reality of something such as a god is not something anybody needs to take on board, unless and until it is explained what precisely is meant by such an expression and how exactly we should consider it as having any relevance to any discussion contemplating MEANINGFUL answers to MEANINGFUL questions. The onus is on the claimant (as always) to establish a case for the existence of anything and meanwhile, we might just as well ask questions about the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster or The Invisible Pink Unicorn or Russell´s Teapot for that matter.

 

 

-->Where is mankind headed to

At last, bar for the lack of the appropriate punctuation you have succeed in asking a grammatically correct question. Well done. If it weren't for the gross ambiguity of it, this question might have even been meaningful. Before we even begin to sort out what you mean by this question, we should first ask if what you had in mind is even relevant to science as an objective enterprise inquiring into natural cause and effect relationships, and how the answers proffered can be expected to establish any objective understanding.

 

I could go on if you like but I think you get the point.

What point? I can smell a fish, if that was 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.

Who´s fault do you consider this to be?

 

In the meantime other issues have taken up the time of our researchers and thus it's become like a long waiting list.

Wait! Do you actually consider it to be the job of the scientific establishment to contemplate and answer questions regarding the existence of a god? How about the FSM then? Is sentient celestial pasta, also the providence scientific research?

 

As for where mankind is headed, have you considered consulting sociological texts. Considering the masses of scientifically illiterate people in the developed world, who haven´t yet woken up to where mankind has come from, the time to press for speculations of this kind seems rather remote. How do you propose to make an objective study of this kind? When you get past the ambiguity of your question, you might then consider the subjectivity and again contemplate the objectivity of science and then formulate a cogent line of inquiry. Nobody is prevented from doing such research, but it is generally covered in sociology, which sometimes also masquerades as a kind of science.

 

As for the extinction of the dinosaurs. Well Rumpelstiltskin, you might have some catching up to do. And for the origin of the universe, well to answer REAL questions about REALITY (outside of bronze-age fairytales that is), we are going to need that Large Hadron Collider after all. What do you think the LHC is for?

 

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.

That only serves demonstrate the need to ask meaningful and relevant questions. It should be considered fairly reasonable to assume that ¨all of our questions¨ doesn´t include meaningless or irrelevant questions. I haven´t gone out of my way to point out the futility of asking a question like ´Who will win the next world cup?´ It isn´t a question relevant to science. If the OP were intended to include the set of all possible questions, then the question ¨Does science Answer All Our Questions?¨ itself would be a silly question. Of course it doesn´t. I maybe bending over backwards to turn a blind eye to ambiguity and subjectivity as it is., but I assume that the range of questions posited must be relevant to science to begin with, or the strait answer is don´t be ridiculous. Sheeesh!

 

 

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.

Yes! and the more questions we find the more interesting the universe becomes and the more doors are open to solving real problems and answering real questions. So stay tuned. Edited June 15, 2010 by Skepticus (see edit history)

[The Simpleton1405241582 0]

[Note: This was supposed to be the first of a two part series responding to the same post]

You needed to build a series to bash my comments? Wow that's actually quite flattering. You actually took the time to write all of this, weaving complex sentences, just to prove my comments were lame? Well anyway you got the satisfaction of hitting out at me (not to mention the additional benefit of myCENTs )

 

On the topic of Does Science Answer All Our Questions? , I've had my full. I mentioned this earlier and you should have at least held back your comments because I had made myself clear that I'm not going to talk more about it, and I don't see a flurry of activity from other members any soon. Anyway, your post did make me type a few more comments, though completely unrelated to the original topic but regarding something which you brought up.

 

That isn´t a question my friend. That isn´t even a statement. That is a meaningless sentence fragment. blink.gif Sorry if English is not your first language but in any language, questions need to make sense.

Again, that isn´t a question is it? Again, that is a meaningless sentence fragment. OK. I can presume, to read between the lines and speculate that what you wish to know, is something like ´How did the dinosaurs become extinct?´

Yet again, do I need to reiterate the abomination of English this (and I mean it literally) ´non-sense´ represents?

At last, bar for the lack of the appropriate punctuation you have succeed in asking a grammatically correct question. Well done. wink.gif

Why do you keep focusing on the fragments? They were in a list usually represented by bullets and it's common to use fragments. You did focus on the meaning later (in detail) but all this pointing out about grammar was unnecessary. This isn't a creative writing community! And in any case, English is my third language but I don't write something like "Me no know English", do I?

 

it is highly suggestive of lazy, sloppy thinking, that you fail to articulate meaningful questions, based on any well informed understandings of current knowledge within the area of knowledge, in which you are suggesting we are lacking answers. Perhaps you might consider going back and rephrasing the question in light of existing research about the subject.

What was the intention behind constructing this mountain of words? You already made yourself clear that I wasn't using good English so why do you extend it with this?

 

And now before I end up writing more meaningless lines, I'll reach out for the period.

[mahesh2k 0]

What was the intention behind constructing this mountain of words? You already made yourself clear that I wasn't using good English so why do you extend it with this?And now before I end up writing more meaningless lines, I'll reach out for the period.

Looks like you're not in mood of discussion i guess :/
That is why you consider this quoting as bashing. You're considering quoting separately everytime as offense, which is not. This is how online debates and discussion goes. Cheer up mate...

[Бојан 0]

Yeah, i think the sience is the only answer to our questions.

[Skepticus 0]

You needed to build a series to bash my comments? Wow that's actually quite flattering.

Sorry to disappoint you, but I start writing sometimes and just cant stop. It´s an idiosyncrasy of mine, but don´t let that stop you from stroking your ego (and that other thing)

 

You actually took the time to write all of this, weaving complex sentences, just to prove my comments were lame?

NO! I had my own points in the discussion, that I was presenting and none of them were to prove your comments were lame. The fact that your comments were lame was incidental. If you were focused on the point of the discourse, you might realize the word does not revolve around you.

 

 

On the topic of Does Science Answer All Our Questions? , I've had my full. I mentioned this earlier and you should have at least held back your comments because I had made myself clear that I'm not going to talk more about it,..

Well I didn't get the memo until after I had written this, and besides that isn't going to stop me criticizing what you have already written. The discussion may continue whether you wish to engage in it or not.

 

Why do you keep focusing on the fragments?

Because they fail to convey an articulate, meaningful, question or statement.

 

They were in a list usually represented by bullets and it's common to use fragments.

Is common and it´s bad grammar in every case. It is not compulsory to use incomplete sentences in a bullet list, nor is it compulsory to use bullet lists at all, if there were some reason they might get in the way of contributing to meaningful discourse. Did somebody hold a gun loaded with a bullet list to your head?

 

You did focus on the meaning later (in detail) but all this pointing out about grammar was unnecessary.

No I didn't focus on the meaning of those sentence fragments. From where I stand, they have no meaning. They do however identify a subject matter. I pointed out the ambiguity in general and addressed the subject matter, pointing out also, where I might be reading between the lines and addressing several interpretations to illustrate the ambiguity. The purpose of pointing out bad grammar, in this case is not for the sheer pleasure of being pedantic. The questions you are alluding to, are representative of the case you were making, for science to answer with more useful research than it already does. Your commitment of meaningful questions in that context, makes the difference between ambiguous rhetoric and cogent debate.

 

This isn't a creative writing community! And in any case, English is my third language but I don't write something like "Me no know English", do I?

Precisely. If you will kindly look at the above sentence and note it´s structure and grammar, you will see the writer is quite capable of constructing a grammatically correct English sentence, with valid syntax and structure. You don´t write ¨Me no know English¨ because it isn't true. You are perfectly capable of constructing cogent, grammatically correct, English statements and questions. In fact. a person could be forgiven for assuming English is your first language. If it looked like you were struggling with English I wouldn't be so blunt.

 

(In the voice of David Attenborough...)

On the Serengeti savannas, there exists a species of bird (I forget the name), which, because it nests on the ground, has adapted to a very vulnerable environment, by luring predators away from it´s nest. It does this, by feigning sickness or injury. It pretends to be lame in order to entice the predator to give chase and thereby creates a diversion from the nest. At the very last moment, the healthy bird takes to the sky, leaving the predator to wander off hungry. You remind me of this bird, because I believe you are feigning your lameness both in your reason for abandoning the debate, and also here with this ¨crying wolf¨ about English skills.

 

it is highly suggestive of lazy, sloppy thinking, that you fail to articulate meaningful questions, based on any well informed understandings of current knowledge within the area of knowledge, in which you are suggesting we are lacking answers. Perhaps you might consider going back and rephrasing the question in light of existing research about the subject.

What was the intention behind constructing this mountain of words? You already made yourself clear that I wasn't using good English so why do you extend it with this?

What do you think the intention was? Unlike some of the discourse you have contributed, this statement CONTAINS it´s own meaning.The intention is to communicate this meaning. It´s very purpose is to convey that meaning. It means what it says. Apparently you are new to the idea that statements actually contain their own meaning. Yeah I know!! How incredibly convenient huh? The idea is that you look at the words, interpret their meaning and right there you can have instant comprehension of the thoughts expressed by another person. I call it COM-MUN-I-CAT-ING

 

In any case, I am not focusing on your perfectly adequate English skills in this comment, but rather pointing out the poverty of your claim that science lacks answers, based on what can be inferred from the sentence fragments you have contributed, as questions and the implications this brings to bare on your intellectual discipline. Instead of first understanding the research which you are second guessing and deliberating upon, you have ´shot from the hip´ as they say, and put your foot in your mouth. You don´t even know what the Large Hadron Collider is for, but you simultaneously want more research on the origins of the universe and less money for projects like the LHC. It is sloppy thinking I suggest, BOTH, that you have such an ill-conceived understanding of the subject you are deliberating upon AND that you do not make the effort, to properly articulate a well considered opinion based on such understanding.

 

Your saving grace is that you have the humility to admit that you don´t know something, but even then, you lack precision and use this as a ´lame bird´ defense, in order to excuse yourself from a debate you were more than happy to contribute to earlier. Rather than concede any particular points, stand corrected and learn, you pass in a vague and general ¨well I don´t know much about all that, so I´ll just bow out¨, kind of cop out. Thanking me for my considered points without responding to how they reflect upon your own, is paying insincere lip service IMHO. Admitting you don´t know about a particular subject is noble, as well as a necessary prerequisite to learn about that subject, but it´s doesn´t excuse pretending to know about that subject in the first place, nor is such an admission any consolation for admitting you were wrong. I hold little hope that your admission of ignorance is a prelude to a search for better understanding anyhow. So the possible benefit of admitting what you don´t know in order that you may find out, may be a totally redundant advantage.

 

I hope that I am wrong about this, but if you were sincere, I don´t think you would be running away from the debate, but staying in to ask questions and revise your understandings. Debate doesn't have to be about animosity and adversarial opposition. It can be about searching for common understandings, reaching agreement and finding the dialectic That of course depends on the participants having some measure of intellectual integrity and willingness to clearly state their position, make unambiguous claims, reason honestly and stand corrected if they must. That is how it is done in the peer review process of science, and that is what everybody should learn to do. It cant be done where dogmatic, superstitious or supernatural beliefs are concerned. They are anathema to honesty of all forms. I said previously, that I smell the god of the gaps around here. That odor hasn't yet diminished. I expect it to fade sometime after you make your final post.

 

And now before I end up writing more meaningless lines, I'll reach out for the period.

I think you also need to purchase a more compact keyboard.

[Skepticus 0]

It may be too much to expect but I hope you watch this video TS. You could learn something. You might even enjoy it.

 

THE BIG BANG MACHINE

[The Simpleton1405241582 0]

Wow you certainly have a good skill of making long posts that seem to go on and on. Good for you. You've said a lot of things against me and my behaviour and although replying to each of them will give me a nice long post of my own, I won't give in to the temptation. For one, I don't think the world revolves around me - people who think that way talk in a very unique manner, and that's just not me. Next you are right about some of the things you said about me and I don't know whether you said those with an intention to help me improve myself or just to mock me, but in any case, thanks for trying

I've said in my introduction post that the only reason I was here is to earn myCENTs. I've tried to do it by participating in discussions like these. It's not of much use to continue discussing if I have nothing more sensible to add. All that "lame bird" stuff you said - it's true to some extent, but I'm not feigning anything. I just feel it's the right time to stop for me to stop so that the discussion can move on more sensibly.

I said previously, that I smell the god of the gaps around here. That odor hasn't yet diminished. I expect it to fade sometime after you make your final post. dry.gif

You got that right - this is my last post for this thread so you can enjoy a meaningful discussion from now onwards. Just a small suggestion - if you have anything more to say about how I'm "feigning" or "faking" anything, don't put it in this thread; it only deviates the topic. Start a thread in the Life Talk forum about this sort of behaviour and say all that you want to

[grim reaper1666 0]

"what will I have for breakfast?"

you can have anything you want provided you have the ingridents to make it. science can answer alot of questions but unlike people say it works on creating a theory on something and then testing it to see if it is right. what i have noticed about some relgious people is they take a book to be total a utter truth and block out anything else. i can guaruntee you that some relgious people who follow the bible literally might even think because the bible doesn't mention dinosaurs then dinosaurs never existed. and because no other planets with life are mentioned in the bible then they don't exist either in my opinion that is a backwards way of doing it, thinking of a theory and then testing if it is true is better. instead of creating your theory of apes can fly and not testing it.

[HannahI 0]

Well, Sten's answer I agree with. When answering question and getting answer from other, make sure you know all of the facts. Are they religous? Do the keep up with technology? Do they really understand what the question's asking?

Just my oppinion.

[grim reaper1666 0]

science may be able to one day answer all of our questions but this topic does not say if they are the right answer. in that case you could ask a computer what is the sun made of, the computer tells you cookies but you know that is not right. in my opinion we could use science to answer our questions but then we need to check the answers to see if they are right. instead of saying cars are blue, that would be a right answer but you can have your car any colour you want so any colour is the right answer. what i mean in the previous sentence is that for some questions there are multiple answers.

[yordan 10]

you can have your car any colour you want so any colour is the right answer.

The correct answer is "Today my car is blue". If I have $100 available, tomorrow it will be pink. So, the answer would not be "any color", the answer would be "any colour I could happen to have to money to have it painted and the time for waiting until the paint is wet".

[aloKNsh 0]

not all questions but some i assume... science has some limititations till date. Science just believes in facts and proof but science fails in medical (the best example as i can think now) in medical field i dont think that science has much comand on a human considering todays scene. maybe in near future if we are alive science will surpass everything includin God. maybe we dont know but science do aswer some questions.. we believe anything and everything said by our elders but we do forget to find out as how and why are we saying this or that but in science you can say coz you have the proof. so i say science so asnwer some questions but not all