First  Prev  1  2  3  Next  Last
Post Reply What science does and does not do
49109 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 3/11/15 , edited 3/11/15
The metaphor proposed could be construed as being inhibited by the restrictions of the examples limitations to just two physical planes.(Up and down)Mathematics is not limited to that perspective which could render the examples too simple to be accurate.The use of a finite alphabet could also visit these restrictions."Metaphysical" is an old explanation that suffers from the limitations afforded it by the ongoing evolution of language rather than it's literal translation in this era.
29118 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
83 / F / Bite the pillow.
Offline
Posted 3/11/15

xeneria wrote:


nanikore2 wrote:


pandrasb wrote:

Wait haven't I seen this post before


Nope. It has never appeared as a separate post. However, since evidently people DON'T really know what science does and does not do (despite my past replies, and as evidenced by "recent posts" on certain "subjects"), I thought I'd make a separate post out of this instead of just as a reply somewhere.


Sure? I too feel like I have seen this post before.


It hasn't been it's own "thread" or Topic, but he/she posted it here before:

- http://www.crunchyroll.com/forumtopic-889311/what-is-your-perception-of-the-world#49299665
12472 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / M / Utopia
Offline
Posted 3/11/15 , edited 3/11/15

Hairbelly wrote:


xeneria wrote:


nanikore2 wrote:


pandrasb wrote:

Wait haven't I seen this post before


Nope. It has never appeared as a separate post. However, since evidently people DON'T really know what science does and does not do (despite my past replies, and as evidenced by "recent posts" on certain "subjects"), I thought I'd make a separate post out of this instead of just as a reply somewhere.


Sure? I too feel like I have seen this post before.


It hasn't been it's own "thread" or Topic, but he/she posted it here before:

- http://www.crunchyroll.com/forumtopic-889311/what-is-your-perception-of-the-world#49299665


busted



82916 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
44 / M / WA
Offline
Posted 3/11/15
"Science moves forward by Metaphysical assumptions, made in advance of actual observation and experimentation."
23206 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / Long Island
Online
Posted 3/11/15
Posted 3/11/15
I think it's only human nature to believe that we can "know" things but it's more along the lines of this...https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OHbtcvk_KBs Not saying it's good or bad to further our knowledge, however we should ask why we search so hard in the first place.
9200 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
35 / M
Offline
Posted 3/11/15 , edited 3/11/15

nanikore2 wrote:

What Science Does And Does Not Do

Let's say that we witness two things, A and B. B comes after A, and as far as we can tell, B is "caused" by A.

A ---> B

We confirm this by doing stuff so that whenever A happens, B seems to always happen after A. Do this a lot of times (more than a few), and this is become somewhat of a "law."

A ---> B
A ---> B
A ---> B
A ---> B
A ---> B
A ---> B
A ---> B


Lemme stop your right there.

"Correlation does not mean causation"


So basically, science describe things in smaller and smaller steps, and predicts how things would repeat in a more and more accurate basis, but never actually manages to explain exactly how or why any of these "smallest steps" have to happen at all. Why do anything change, at all? Divide things long enough, and you get a really small piece that you don't really have a good explanation for, other than "it looks to always goes to this next step if we have this other step before" So what?

Science describes and predicts phenomena. It never "explains" any of it.

It does't have to. That's actually not what science is for.

Science is about the knowledge of the physical universe. Scientists don't do metaphysics**, and they don't do "metaphysical experiments" to "test the density of a person's spirit," because there's no such thing as "metaphysical experiments."


Yup... But what also gets forgotten is that it's a functional explanation... Meaning "well this explanation works, and has yet to be proven wrong" so it may or may not be true, but what makes it true is that it works and works in a way that has the least amount of "plot holes" so to speak.

Seriously, pick up Hume. It's good stuff.
27824 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Ohio, USA
Offline
Posted 3/11/15
Science helps make the world a better place.
Science doesn't make people stop believing in religion.
Posted 3/11/15

forkberry wrote:


GayAsianBoy wrote:


forkberry wrote:

My friend slipped on a banana peel and fell over. What caused my friend to fall over?


[ ] gravity
[ ] banana peel
[ ] lack of balance/unfit
[ ] stupidity
[x] all of the above


Ding ding ding!

It's impossible to squeeze causation down to one subject or object, when the nature of reality is that all is one, and one is all. Free will is an illusion. I am you and you are me.


i feel smart

50 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M
Offline
Posted 3/11/15

jeffcoatstephen wrote:

Science helps make the world a better place.
Science doesn't make people stop believing in religion.


from my perspective I disagree. I think I'd prefer a free, beautiful, open world to the concrete prison its been turned into even if its likely I won't live as long. working a 9-5 job every day for half your life is essentially death anyway.

You're right science doesn't stop people from believing in religion, I think the comfort science provides does that. Seems to me like people tend to get so invested in their routines that it becomes second nature, to the extent where they don't have to think, to the extent where thinking becomes uncomfortable and philosophy (a thinking man's game) become uncomfortable by association. A world where both the practicality brought about by science and the discipline brought about by philosophy would be ideal in my opinion, but whether or not its possible I can't say.
26821 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / M / Chicago, IL
Offline
Posted 3/11/15


I'd pretty much say the same thing. lol.
3555 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 3/11/15
eww science
65319 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
32 / M / Atlanta, GA
Offline
Posted 3/11/15 , edited 3/11/15

nanikore2 wrote:

What Science Does And Does Not Do

Actually, this division can go on downwards pretty much forever, until you hit a "wall of non-explanation"...

"We have the protons and neutrons of an atom which are made up of even smaller subatomic particles, but what is holding those together? All the atoms in the universe should all be flying apart by now... Wait, we have detected some evidence that something must be holding them together. Since it sort of "glues" the subatomic particles together we'll call it GLUONS..." (hmm ok, so what makes up these "gluons?" Let's play "dissect a gluon" and see what happens next... and next...)

or

"At the base of evolution is genetic mutation, which is caused by some kind of gene damage via the collision of high-energy particles to the DNA or carcinogenic (or otherwise disruptive/distabilizing) substances to the same..." (...which goes back to "what made up those chemicals" and "what produces that high energy radiation" and the question ultimately ends up going back to the sort of stuff you see in physics, like I described earlier)


So basically, science describe things in smaller and smaller steps, and predicts how things would repeat in a more and more accurate basis, but never actually manages to explain exactly how or why any of these "smallest steps" have to happen at all. Why do anything change, at all? Divide things long enough, and you get a really small piece that you don't really have a good explanation for, other than "it looks to always goes to this next step if we have this other step before" So what?

Science describes and predicts phenomena. It never "explains" any of it.

I think this post assumes a lot more than you're really allowed.

How do you differentiate your "wall of non-explanation" from something that just needs to be actively researched? It's really not clear the the "gluon" that you mentioned and the explanation of mutation aren't just things scientists haven't been able to figure out yet.
27273 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
39 / Inside your compu...
Offline
Posted 3/11/15 , edited 3/11/15

pirththee wrote:

The metaphor proposed could be construed as being inhibited by the restrictions of the examples limitations to just two physical planes.(Up and down)Mathematics is not limited to that perspective which could render the examples too simple to be accurate.The use of a finite alphabet could also visit these restrictions."Metaphysical" is an old explanation that suffers from the limitations afforded it by the ongoing evolution of language rather than it's literal translation in this era.


Note that the topic at hand is simply "what science does and does not do". No more, no less.


crazykl45 wrote:

I think this post assumes a lot more than you're really allowed.

How do you differentiate your "wall of non-explanation" from something that just needs to be actively researched? It's really not clear the the "gluon" that you mentioned and the explanation of mutation aren't just things scientists haven't been able to figure out yet.


The possibility of an explanation is different than an actual explanation.
27273 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
39 / Inside your compu...
Offline
Posted 3/11/15

serifsansserif wrote:

Lemme stop your right there.

"Correlation does not mean causation"

Yup... But what also gets forgotten is that it's a functional explanation... Meaning "well this explanation works, and has yet to be proven wrong" so it may or may not be true, but what makes it true is that it works and works in a way that has the least amount of "plot holes" so to speak.

Seriously, pick up Hume. It's good stuff.


You're too quick to the draw.

As far as you can tell, are you sure that I was attempting to demonstrate that correlation IS causation, or something else- As in our perceptual limitations?

Not everyone else in this forum read Hume. This is for them. Some don't even want to think at all. Just be patient.
First  Prev  1  2  3  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.