Summations Only

If you want to say 'Science can't answer questions that make unstated assumptions that we stipulate are uninvestigatable through science' then yes, obviously. I believe I said largely the same earlier.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

Well OK. But this thread was borne from RAZ's rather explicit assertion that "The proper use of "why" is to answer questions of purpose". And his insistence that science doesn't address 'why' questions on that basis.Given that science demonstrably does address 'why' questions, including some pertaining to purpose where a purposeful agent demonstrably exists - This is factually wrong and blatant nonsense. I think we have established in this thread that the type of answers that science cannot provide, but which religion claims to, are answers to those questions which pertain to things which are not demonstrably real.It doesn't matter whether the question is who, what, where, when, why etc. It matters whether it pertains to something that demonstrably exists. The sort of 'why' questions that religions claim to answer are those where the assumed purpose of some un-evidenced entity (whether a higher being or the dualistically assumed disembodied minds of men) is implicit.

Yeah, and I agreed with you in Message 71:

quote:

---

you writes:

​

Science can succesfully answer purpose questions, where purpose exists. It cannot answer purpose questions where there is no evidence of any purpose.

​

Right, there you go. I think that's a great way to phrase it.

---

Further, I think that's what the catchphrase is getting at. From Message 192:

quote:

---

Its setting up a dichotomy that is practically taughtological - the why-questions that science cannot answer are the ones being referred to that religion can.

---

So all religion is essentially a "something of the gaps"........?

I read him as saying that the proper use of why, in the context of this catchphrase, is one of purpose, not that he was speaking generally. Most why-questions that are not about purpose can be better expressed with a different question, so even generally, its not a terrible point if you try to get what he's saying rather than try to make him out to be wrong. Has there been an example given? Are you sure you're not conflating strict scientific testing with simple empirical investigation?As I said earlier, a paricular human's purpose for doing a particular thing isn't something that you can scientifically control in order to properly test, although you can investigate it empirically. When I'm investigating something in our lab, I never get into the why's of things and I don't care at all about them. I want to figure out how things are happening, the conditions that cause them to happen, but any underlying purpose behind all of it is totally irrelvant to my scientific tests. In that sense, science does not answer the why-questions.

The only context RAZ ever mentioned was the context of science and it's inability to answer 'why' questions because he had already defined 'why' questions as pertaining to purpose. Yet in RAZ's actual posts questions like 'Why are plants green' and 'Why is the sky blue?' are being pointlessly and clumsily rephrased as 'How is the sky blue?' and 'How are plants green'.Did you actually read his posts in the thread this one is a spin-off from? An example of science studying human purpose? Isn't that what a large part of psychology is innately about? Are you sure that you are not conflating practical limitations with what science can in principle study? The fact that we are not all walking around with sophisticated MRI scanners attached to our heads recording every neurological event doesn't mean that our thoughts and associated purposes are inherently beyond the scope of scientific enquiry (not unless you are adopting the dualistic position already discussed anyway) You blatantly are conflating existing practical limitations with what science can in principle explore. Why can't we scientifically investigate a "paricular human's purpose for doing a particular thing"......? Imagine everyone walking around with tiny MRI recorders in their head sending the results back to a lab. These 'why' questions that you are talking about above - Whose purpose are you referring to exactly?

I wonder why it wasn't phrased: "Science answers the why questions, and religion answers the how questions."Or: "Science answers the how questions, and religion answers the what questions."Then, the type of people that I've noticed on the internet coming up with the ridiculous "science doesn't answer why questions" could instead make the equally silly mistakes of saying "science doesn't answer how questions" or "science doesn't answer what questions."I say this because what, how and why can all be used to ask questions about the meaning and purpose of the world, and about the purposes and actions of God, Satan and the angels.So, choosing how and why in the particular order they are chosen in statement three is actually pretty random.A better statement would be: There are certain questions that science doesn't address, but which religion does, like "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin" and "how charitable should Christians be to non-believers" and "what was God's purpose in making the world".As I say in the O.P., why pick on why?

quote:

---

I think we have established in this thread that the type of answers that science cannot provide, but which religion claims to, are answers to those questions which pertain to things which are not demonstrably real.

---

You have claimed this, but I don't think we have established it. And I don't think it is true.First, what do you mean by "demonstrably" real? Presumably you mean things which can be demonstrated through testable, scientific evidence. But if so, all you have done is to state a tautology. The only things that science can address are the things that science can address. Is there any reality outside of science, in the non-material world? Maybe or maybe not, but science can't tell us one way or the other.Second, science addresses and investigates a number of things which are not demonstrably "real", and which may never be so. Science asks and answers questions about quarks, cosmic strings, multiverses, etc. These provide good models of reality, but they are not necessarily "real" themselves.

I don't exactly know, but I suspect that those don't make the point that I think is trying to be made: that the kinds of answer that science and religion provides are different in the way that you can discribe how something occurs or you can speculate on what purpose it serves, i.e. the how and the why.Like I said, its not about proclaiming a limit on the abilities of science to answer specific semantics. Because what people mean by "why", in the context of "for what purpose", is what the catchphrase is trying to touch on.

The context I saw was DB saying that the TOE wasn't falsifyable because it didn't address the purpose behind evolution and then RAZD countering that by saying that, as a scientific theory, it isn't supposed to be addressing that question because, in general, science doesn't address the why-questions. That was to distinguish between the question of the conditions and functions of plants being green with the question of some underlying prupose for plants being green. I'm not sure. Can you come up with an example? That's true, but beside the point. With which we can make theories about why people do things in general, but you wouldn't be able to determine why a specific individual made that particular choice. Without multiples of that individual, how could you introduce a scientific control to eliminate other variables in the decision making process? I'm not referring to anyone's exact purpose...

They don't. But neither does the version in the O.P.. And that's my point.If the claim is: "Some questions are better answered by science and others by religion", then why not phrase it: "some questions are better answered by science and others by religion"? Or "addressed" instead of "answered".There's no need to bring the interrogatives into it at all.If you look at the O.P., I'm talking about wrong and clumsy use of language, more than anything else.

OK. I suppose it boils down to being able to be objectively evidenced (in principle even if not in practise for mundane reasons of technological limitation or absence of equipment or whatever). Scientific hypotheses are not limited to that which is demonstrably real. But scientific answers are. Given the thread topic - Pointing out that the reason science cannot answer questions pertaining to the purpose of purposeful agents which don't demonstrably exist is because they don't demonstrably exist seems fair enough. Call it tautological if you will. But there seem to be enough people who don't realise this and who want to grant 'why' questions some special status for the point to be relevant. Science cannot answer who what when or why questions about the motives or actions of imagined entities. The phraseology as 'why' has nothing to do with it.When people ask "why" in such a way that religion can (apparently) provide an answer but science cannot whose purpose are they purporting to have found answers for? For every purposeful "why" there must be an agent of purpose must there not? And if they are found to be false models they will be abandoned by science. If they are found to be in accordance with reality then science will have provided answers about the nature of these things. Scientific hypotheses are not limited to that which is demonstrably real. But scientific answers are.We can all ask "are quarks real or just models borne of our perceptual limitations". But equally we can ask "are bananas real of just models borne of perceptual limitations". But what matters in both cases is that the "model" is based on demonstrable aspects of reality. Whether there is or not can you explain how anyone claiming to know anything about this immaterial reality could possibly do so?

For me, science can address any questions about reality. It can ask anything. But we don't know how much it can meaningfully answer. We can't know whether or not humans at some point in the future could have what might be considered a complete understanding of everything through science. I see science as an attempt to explore reality, so a reality outside science wouldn't make sense, but areas of reality beyond the scope of current science would.Hypothetically, if there's a "non-material world" that in anyway effects the material world, those effects could be observed and perhaps measured. For example, you mentioned Simon Conway-Morris seeing convergence as evidence for teleology. I see nothing wrong in scientists making such observations. There should be no a priori exclusion of teleology as an answer to the "why" question: Why is there convergence?

I think you are being particularly charitable to RAZ and that your interpretation of his position isn't justified by his actual responses to bluegenes. Why don't you explicitly ask RAZ himself if science can and does answer 'why' questions and if it does what sort of 'why' questions it can and cannot answer? Whose purpose? If there is purpose about which questions can be asked then there must be an agent capable of purpose behind the phenomenon in question must there not? If you ask "Why are plants green?" and demand an answer involving purpose there must be an agent of purpose behind the colour of plants in order to make the question meaningful - Right? It is entirely the point. Hold on - Are you seriously claiming that science cannot investigate and answer questions pertaining to individual one-off events? Even if all the data pertaining to that event has been recorded? Science can and does study why it is that people come up with teleological answers to questions of why natural events happen. With detailed enough knowledge, recorded neuron level information of brain activity and full data of sensory input, why not?You are simply going down the substance dualist path without realising it......

The reason that I think the interrogatives are brought into it is that that's how people think about it. When they're looking for some underlying purpose or meaning behind some phenomenon, besides an otherwise mundane mechanical explanation, they'll ask themselves why its happening. For what reason does this occur... not under what conditions, i.e. how it occurs.That's just how some people think and those are the ones who take the most meaning from the statement. I think you're over-analyzing it.