Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Does science ask and answer "why" questions?
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 317 of 353 (648712)
01-17-2012 6:00 PM
Reply to: Message 316 by New Cat's Eye
01-17-2012 5:42 PM


Re: Whose Purpose Is Being Investigated?
Please - Explicitly ask RAZ whether or not science can and does answer 'why' questions and if it does which 'why' questions can or cannot be answered by science.
Straggler writes:
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?
CS writes:
That's neither here nor there. I'm not demanding an answer, nor that a meaningful purpose actually exists. I'm just explaining what I think the phrase means.
And I'm explaining that the very question being asked is assuming or demanding that a purposeful agent exist for it to have any meaning at all.
Straggler writes:
Whose purpose?
CS writes:
Nobody in particular. I haven't gotten that specific.
Yes. And that's the problem. For the question to have any meaning there must be a purposeful agent must there not? The ambiguity about who this unstated entity might be is what leads to the whole debacle of people insisting that science cannot answer "why" questions. This ambiguity is the root of the problem.
CS writes:
You cannot set-up a proper scientific experiment without scientific controls to eliminate the variables and one-off events do not allow for that luxery.
We scientifically investigate the Big Bang, murders which cannot be repeated (the victim is already dead), human evolution from a common ancestor with chimps, Earthquakes which we cannot repeat, etc. etc. etc.
This idea of yours that no matter how much data we have science is limited to answering questions about things directly and wholly repeatable in laboratories is nonsense.
Straggler writes:
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......
CS writes:
No, you're just trying to force me down that path. My position has nothing to do with dualism.
Question: What data is it that you think science is inherently unable to obtain such that it cannot answer "why" the person in question did what they did?
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 316 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-17-2012 5:42 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 320 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-18-2012 10:49 AM Straggler has replied
 Message 325 by xongsmith, posted 01-31-2012 5:22 AM Straggler has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 323 of 353 (648788)
01-18-2012 1:53 PM
Reply to: Message 320 by New Cat's Eye
01-18-2012 10:49 AM


Re: Whose Purpose Is Being Investigated?
It still remains a mystery as to how are you objectively identifying which questions of purpose are beyond the scope of science and which are not? It seems to be based on some rather flawed notion that science can only legitimately answer questions about things which are directly and wholly repeatable in laboratories.
Straggler writes:
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?
CS writes:
You cannot set-up a proper scientific experiment without scientific controls to eliminate the variables and one-off events do not allow for that luxery.
Straggler writes:
We scientifically investigate the Big Bang, murders which cannot be repeated (the victim is already dead), human evolution from a common ancestor with chimps, Earthquakes which we cannot repeat, etc. etc. etc. This idea of yours that no matter how much data we have science is limited to answering questions about things directly and wholly repeatable in laboratories is nonsense.
CS writes:
I've already told you that I'm distinguishing between laboratory science and general empirical investigation.
If your entire position is based on science being unable to legitimately answer questions about one-off events then you are just blatantly wrong. Science can and does do this.
CS writes:
Straggler writes:
And I'm explaining that the very question being asked is assuming or demanding that a purposeful agent exist for it to have any meaning at all.
I understand that, I just don't care if you think it has meaning.
It isn't about whether I personally think it has meaning you numbskull. It is about the fact the questions of purpose are innately meaningless unless one assumes that there is a purposeful being behind the phenomenon in question.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 320 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-18-2012 10:49 AM New Cat's Eye has seen this message but not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 326 of 353 (650433)
01-31-2012 7:31 AM
Reply to: Message 325 by xongsmith
01-31-2012 5:22 AM


More Dualism..........
It has already been pointed out to you that all of the interrogatives have a variety of meanings based on context. Message 274.
There is nothing special about "why" in this respect no matter how much you assert otherwise.
X writes:
I singled out this particular exchange to nail it.
The ambiguity in your example is derived from people insisting on querying purpose whilst refusing to give any indication of whose purpose it is they are seeking. It is like expecting science to address the question "How did it happen?" without specifying what "it" is. Again - The problem has nothing inherently to do with "why" questions.
X writes:
But in fact (!!!) the scientific investigation of these events uses and relies on tests that can be repeated.
And in principle all the physical activity taking place in a brain can be recorded and repeatedly and independently analysed in exactly the same way. You and CS are trying to make human behaviour somehow innately and inherently unable to be scientifically investigated. Presumably because you want to believe we are "special" or something. But there is nothing in principle that makes physical human brains any different from any other physical thing and to insist otherwise inevitably leads to the sort substance dualism jar eventually conceded to.
X writes:
If we strap all these electrical/chemical/visual detectors using the latest MRI++ advances with Javacationisms about our skulls will we eventually reduce Free Will to Determinism?
We are already progressing down that very path. The evidence increasingly suggests that we don't have freewill in the sense that we subjectively seem to have.
See the thread Does Evolution Have An Objective? for more on this.
X writes:
Do you, Straggler, believe in Free Will?
I think freewill (of the sort most people mean) is an illusion.
X writes:
Or won't there be - at least ultimately due to the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle itself - a point at which this sort of fantasmagorical equipment cannot help you?
Firstly there is nothing to suggest that quantum effects are particularly relevant to brain activity. Secondly quantum indeterminacy would result in randomness rather than freewill of any meaningful sort. From the Wiki entry on freewill:
quote:
In modern times, J. J. C. Smart has described the problem of admitting indeterminism,
"Indeterminism does not confer freedom on us: I would feel that my freedom was impaired if I thought that a quantum mechanical trigger in my brain might cause me to leap into the garden and eat a slug".
Wiki on Freewill
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 325 by xongsmith, posted 01-31-2012 5:22 AM xongsmith has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 327 by 1.61803, posted 01-31-2012 9:56 AM Straggler has replied
 Message 330 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-31-2012 3:57 PM Straggler has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 329 of 353 (650447)
01-31-2012 12:40 PM
Reply to: Message 327 by 1.61803
01-31-2012 9:56 AM


Quantum Dualism..........?
I’m well aware of the views of people like Bohm and Penrose. But these are either philosophical arguments that effectively amount to dualism with wishful-thinking-quantum-knobs-on or conjectures about deeply speculative aspects of physics. Penrose’s position, for example, is based on the notion that the same as-yet-unknown all encompassing physics that will one day explain quantum gravity will also explain human consciousness. It amounts to a sort of quantum of the gaps argument.
If there is anything concrete on which to base the idea that human brains are non-deterministic I have yet to see it. Certainly it is not the view of the scientific consensus. Link
Link writes:
Phillip Tetlow, although himself supportive of Penrose's views, acknowledges that Penrose's ideas about the human thought process are at present a minority view in scientific circles, citing Minsky's criticisms and quoting science journalist Charles Seife's description of Penrose as "one of a handful of scientists" who believe that the nature of consciousness suggests a quantum process.
Pinker on Penrose writes:
Penrose’s mathematical argument have been dismissed as fallacious by logicians, and his other claims have been reviewed unkindly by experts in the relevant disciplines. In fact, the most interesting implication of The Emperor’s New Mind was pointed out by Dennett. Penrose’s denunciation of the computational theory of mind turns out to be a backhanded compliment. The computation theory fits so well into our understanding of the world that, in trying to overthrow it, Penrose had to reject most of contemporary neuroscience, evolutionary biology, and physics!
Beyond the wholly subjective feeling that our minds are not determined by mere physicality is there really anything to suggest that common conceptions of free-will hold any water?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 327 by 1.61803, posted 01-31-2012 9:56 AM 1.61803 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 331 by 1.61803, posted 01-31-2012 4:05 PM Straggler has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 336 of 353 (650498)
01-31-2012 4:41 PM
Reply to: Message 331 by 1.61803
01-31-2012 4:05 PM


Re: Quantum Dualism..........?
Numbers writes:
Since initial condition are inherently indeterminable, causality breaks down on the subatomic level. Causality is dependent on prior initial conditions, it is inherently impossible to "determine" the attribute of an electron or subatomic particle fully. randomness is natures way of maximizing entropy.
And quantum mechanics is inherently random. So do you think your thoughts are indeterminate and random?
quote:
In modern times, J. J. C. Smart has described the problem of admitting indeterminism,
"Indeterminism does not confer freedom on us: I would feel that my freedom was impaired if I thought that a quantum mechanical trigger in my brain might cause me to leap into the garden and eat a slug".
Wiki on Freewill
Numbers writes:
I do not think dualism exist, I think our conscious brain can not be removed from the equation of what is manifesting our thoughts.
What does that even mean? Our thoughts are physical brain activity. Right? What else is there?
Numbers writes:
Not woo per se, but some yet unexplained phenomenon.
So you don't like determinism because it is....well...a bit too deterministic. You presumably don't think that your thoughts are just the product of quantum randomness. So you have decided that just the right mix of determinism and indeterminism to allow things like "free will" must be present even if you cannot see any reason for that to be true or any reason that it would be.
Numbers writes:
Not woo per se, but some yet unexplained phenomenon.
On what basis do you invoke this "unexplained phenomenon"....?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 331 by 1.61803, posted 01-31-2012 4:05 PM 1.61803 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 340 by 1.61803, posted 01-31-2012 5:20 PM Straggler has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 338 of 353 (650501)
01-31-2012 4:48 PM
Reply to: Message 330 by New Cat's Eye
01-31-2012 3:57 PM


Re: More Dualism..........
CS writes:
But to do that to test why Grandma X chose that particular tea, we'd have to have multiple Grandma X's, or put her in the exact same situations multiple times - which is impossible.
Why would we "have to" do those things?
CS writes:
Actually, I wasn't. In fact, I was specifically avoiding it. Re-read my posts without this bias and see if you can make more sense out of them.
In principle (even if not remotely present technological practise) we could have recorded all of the relevant information about grandma's brain activity and sensory input. Her entire brain history if you will. And in doing so we could in principle answer why grandma chose that tea in that situation.
Question: What data is it that you think science is inherently unable to obtain such that it cannot answer "why" the person in question did what they did?
CS writes:
Presuming about people makes you look like an ass.
Dictating what it is science can and cannot do in principle based on your own prejudices makes you look like an ass.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 330 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-31-2012 3:57 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 339 of 353 (650503)
01-31-2012 5:02 PM
Reply to: Message 334 by New Cat's Eye
01-31-2012 4:35 PM


Re: More Dualism..........
CS writes:
The fundamental aspects of Grandma X's brain that lead to her decision making do not address the purpose for her picking that particular tea.
Yes they do. Unless that is you are suggesting that Grandma has a "will" or "self" that is capable of imposing purpose but which is itself not a product of her physical brain.
Dualism.......
CS writes:
The fundamental aspects of Grandma X's brain that lead to her decision making do not address the purpose for her picking that particular tea.
Whose purpose? Grandma's? But Grandma is her physical brain. Right?
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 334 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-31-2012 4:35 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 341 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-31-2012 5:50 PM Straggler has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 345 of 353 (650579)
02-01-2012 7:32 AM
Reply to: Message 341 by New Cat's Eye
01-31-2012 5:50 PM


Re: More Dualism..........
Grandma's purposes are a product of grandma's brain activity. With sufficient information about grandma's brain activity and the sensory inputs that cause this brain activity we can scientifically investigate grandma's purposes.
CS writes:
The actual purpose for Grandma X choosing that particular tea is going to have some fundamental aspect in her brain.
Yes. And we can, in principle, obtain all of the physical data pertaining to that can't we?
CS writes:
You could figure conditions that cause brains make decisions, but that's not an answer to the purpose in this situation.
Yes it is. Unless you are saying that grandma's purposes are not the product of her brain activity. But you can't be saying that because that would be dualism. Which you say you are not invoking.
CS writes:
Because a scientific investigation relies on running controlled experiments.
I have described to you how in principle all of the necessary data can be recorded in a controlled manner which can be subsequently analysed objectively.
CS writes:
How are you going to control the experiment to eliminate other variables? She only did it once. You can't even repeat it.
We can't repeat the Big Bang, human evolution, the formation of the Andes, the origin of the moon etc. etc. etc. etc. Most of the things science does investigate cannot be replicated and repeated in whole in laboratories. What the hell is it that you think is so special about grandma's brain that means we need more than all of the sensory input and brain activity data in order to investigate her purposes? Purposes which are themselves products of this brain activity.
CS writes:
Its not about some dualistic data that science cannot touch, its about the limits of the methodology.
On one hand you insist that we cannot discern purpose from brain activity. This seems pretty darn dualistic whether you accept it or not.
On the other hand you seem to be asserting that science can only ever investigate events which can be repeated in whole in laboratories. This later assertion is just demonstrable nonsense.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 341 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-31-2012 5:50 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 346 of 353 (650580)
02-01-2012 7:47 AM
Reply to: Message 340 by 1.61803
01-31-2012 5:20 PM


Re: Quantum Dualism..........?
Numbers writes:
I do not think my thoughts are determined. I think they are products of random determinism.
Which would make your thoughts ultimately random rather than the result of anything remotely recognisable as the common concept of "free will".
Have a look at Wiki On The Dilemma of Determinism
Numbers writes:
It is yet to be determined if quantum discoherence in ambient media like brains can not have coherent domains like within molecules.
And even if it can is there any reason to think it will provide a basis for freewill as commonly conceived?
The question of this thread pertains to the questions science cannot answer. Even if we accept that there is this as yet unknown quantum effect going on in human brains there is no reason to think that this effect is somehow unable to be investgated or understood by science is there?
Human purpose is not inherently beyond the scope of science to investigate unless one takes a dualistic approach. Do you disagree?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 340 by 1.61803, posted 01-31-2012 5:20 PM 1.61803 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 347 by 1.61803, posted 02-01-2012 9:43 AM Straggler has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 348 of 353 (650603)
02-01-2012 11:26 AM
Reply to: Message 347 by 1.61803
02-01-2012 9:43 AM


Re: Quantum Dualism..........?
Nobody is disputing that there will always be mysteries to be solved.
But beyond the feeling that we have free-will and the subjective need to have an explanation that allows for this I am not sure what the point of these mysterious and as-yet-unavailable explanations is. All the evidence indicates that the entire notion of us consciously making non-deterministic choices is simply false rather than something that demands a mysterious explanation.
Numbers writes:
And science is working on developing a quantum computer.
Do you think quantum computers will have free will?
Numbers writes:
Science has already developed and embraced the random nature of QM and it poses no barrier to human ingenuity.
Why would it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 347 by 1.61803, posted 02-01-2012 9:43 AM 1.61803 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 349 by 1.61803, posted 02-01-2012 11:52 AM Straggler has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 350 of 353 (650614)
02-01-2012 11:58 AM
Reply to: Message 349 by 1.61803
02-01-2012 11:52 AM


Re: Quantum Dualism..........?
Whatever you need to believe to get you through the day with your subjective notions intact I guess.....
Numbers writes:
However who's not to say some quantum entanglement is not going on?
Why would anyone say that is going on?
Straggler writes:
Do you think quantum computers will have free will?
Numbers writes:
Yes.
Cool!!! I feel a new thread coming on.....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 349 by 1.61803, posted 02-01-2012 11:52 AM 1.61803 has seen this message but not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 352 of 353 (651345)
02-06-2012 3:23 PM


Summary
As my summary for this thread I am simply going to quote the best parts of those who have already made the same arguments better than I have.
Mr Jack writes:
Science can answer why questions unless:
a) You have a silly notion of reality (dualism) or
b) You have a silly definition of why (purpose only)
Cavediver writes:
Thinking that "why" is something different to "how" (other than mere depth of observation) is begging the question. Stating that science cannot ascertain "purpose" is begging the question. Until evidence is forthcoming, God, "purpose", and teleology are merely hypotheses, and I refer you to the comments made by our mutual predecessor, Laplace.
Cavediver writes:
It is assuming that there is something (purpose?) that makes "why" a different question to "how", in order to take "why" outside the realm of science - and it is assuming that "purpose" is something more than emergent behaviour of certain complex systems.
Cavediver writes:
There is no teleology other than that dreamt up by theologians and philosophers. And the mindsets that produced these dreams of teleology are very much within the realms of science.
If there is no "purpose", there is only the natural world, and then all concepts are ultimately reducible to science. To claim that questions of teleology are outside the realm of science is to claim that there exists a relam outside of science...
Mod writes:
Unless you are a substance dualist, the reason why you had a thought is an empirical question, being as it is based on physical phenomena. It is a difficult thing to study, but it is not in principle necessarily impossible.
Booyaka.

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024