What does life do outside of science?

We have been through something very similar to this before. I am firmly on Ben's side with respect to this issue.Science is merely a methodology which attempts to produce accurate models of natural phenomena through inductive reasoning. There is no focus or tools for subjective moral phenomena to be studied via this methodology. Science can at best place you in a physical context with other natural entities. It cannot address your "internal" life, much less place it in a "meaningful" context.Here is an example. Meteorology can determine that a hurricane is almost guaranteed to hit a coastline where many other people live. Geology can determine that vast segments of that coastline are likely to be submerged and anything less than 20 feet in height are likely to be washed away/killed. Geography can determine exactly where you will be in relation to that coastline (within, or outside).There is no science which can determine (quantify or qualify) what meaning that hurricane has for your life or vice versa. Beyond being an entity likely or unlikely to feel the direct effects of that hurricane, there is no other context science can give you.Only initial subjective positions, which science cannot measure, will tell you whether you must flee the area to protect your family (or yourself), or whether you should stay to help others, or move from a position of safety to risk your own life to help out. Nor can it tell you whether you did right or wrong depending on your choice.You may choose to answer my reply or not. I simply throw this example into the arena so that you can see the distinction I believe Ben is addressing.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

You are not understanding Ben's distinction. There is a difference between you using science to model or calculate something, and science being able to model or calculate the natural phenomena which might make up your actions. Not really no. If you've seen simple robotics, they do not bother calculating anything. They simply have on off switches that react when necessary to get a limb to move. They don't even have to calculate "when necessary", it can be a simple agitation trigger.Your learning to walk is experiential however not very scientific. You did not build sophisticated models, but rather trained motor response mechanisms. That is also not science. You may choose not to buy a certain brand of food because you are aware the owner gives profits to prolife causes, or that the company abuses animals, or that you don't like the name of the product.Even your taste, though it may come down to some amount of brain chemistry, is fashioned by all sorts of experiences and can change over time. Maybe one day you decide to try a food you never wanted to try, because someone had suggested it might be healthy.The build up of memories may be able to be (in the future) modeled by science, but that does not mean that the method you use to build those memories is in any way scientific. Tell me how science determines whether abortion is right or wrong, or whether you should work a few extra hours this week in order to buy something you have had your eye on.You cannot escape this by then arguing that you do not believe in objective moralities. Ben is discussing subjectives and explaining that they are the portion of life that is beyond science. The subjectives are what make up most of your life, unless you are a very dull person, with no capability of forming emotional responces.You can understand, or model, the physical world using science. But science is not the physical world (you'd be confusing epistemology with metaphysics), and is not necessary for the physical world to continue on just the way it does. That would simply be the world of raw natural phenomena.You live and understand the world in a personal sense, likes and dislikes, without relying solely on scientific models. Well it even goes beyond likes and dislikes. For example red is not an objective color, and may be different to many different people. You are aware that there are logical limits to science, right? There are not only things that we may never be capable of knowing because of limits of technology, but there are things wholly excluded from study/understanding based on the nature of scientific methodology.Science is a tool and it has benefits and limits. What is "true" may never actually be known by science.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

The basis of morality is not an objective "thing", nor a logical rule/paradigm. Thus the results of science cannot form the basis for a morality.The foundation of all moral systems is a subjective statement. That is how you get from pure statements of "is", to statements of "ought" or "good".Science could be said to allow us to see the stage and the actors, but it is only the subjective which gives them their meaning... creates the moral "scene". Science can certainly inform an individual what there is in the world to deal with, interact with. Given certain subjective opinions held by a consistent logic, that might mean a scientific finding will drive a moral conclusion. But this is not always the case, and some moral systems stand (absolutism) regardless of scientific findings.For example science can explain that you are causing another pain with an action, but only a subjective moral system can take that info and say whether the action is good (and you should continue), or not. Otherwise it just is."Is" helps, but does not decide.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

The cell is a "thing". That there are cells, and what makes them up is a scientific paradigm. Science forms the basis for your knowledge about the cell. The problem appears to be stemming from your use of the term "basis". There is no limit which says that the knowledge gained from science can't be used in formulating a moral conclusion.However "basis" suggests something fundamental. The foundation of moral rules are not objective statements of "is", but subjective imperative or judgemental statements like "ought" or "good" or "like".Here is an example. We can use science to determine what qualities a fertilized egg has. That knowledge can help us decide (come to a moral conclusion) whether it is something we would call a "person", or whether its destruction is "wrong". But the basis of the conclusion is not the knowledge we plug into the moral formula, it is the formula itself... how you feel one should define "person" and "wrong".Science cannot in any way shape or form guide you in how to define "person" and "wrong". In fact, things like "wrong" go right out the window, which is why I don't use a moral system which includes such statements. Because I do like to use science as much as possible, I try to avoid moral systems which make objective sounding claims regarding actions and the state of their position in the universe.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

First of all that is the basis for morality in our species, not the basis of any particular moral system or conclusion which is what I was discussing.Second I do not necessarily believe the above is quite as definite as you make it out to be. That we are social does not mean that it was an evolved trait, and we certainly are not dependent on cooperation for our survival. As long as evolution is meant in the neutral sense I agree. If it is meant in a directional sense (getting better or more complete) then I disagree.Moral systems are certainly a partially a product of social interaction, and given the state of general human life a rather large product.Do you believe a person would not develop a moral system of some kind without others to interact with?

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

It seems to me that you are equivocating between a procedure and the subject of a procedure. Science is the study of natural phenomena, yet you are claiming that natural phemona is science because it is subject to scientific inquiry?That doesn't seem useful as a definition. This is not correct. I hesitate to get into robotics as it is somewhat boring to me. There are robots which move with no computational assessment of surroundings or "all situations". Such robots were constructed by a guy who realized how complex and weighty such systems as you described needed to be. So he created robots which simply worked on/off and motors did the rest when it was "on"... hardwired.Given enough limbs they managed to avoid most obstacles, without having to think about it.In any case, I hesitate to describe a robot working according to a set program, and so simply reacting, as doing science. No, that is curiosity followed by mimicry. It requires no understanding or modelling of natural phenomena. This view of science is so broad that it ceases to have much meaning.I don't see a parrot repeating "polly wants a cracker" as science. Reacting to external criteria is not science. Do you seriously view gaybashing as some sort of scientific enterprise?Science is about gathering information. The reacting part is subjective and that part of life which is not science. When did I suggest that memories are not data? The point is that data can be used for many different things, not just science. Yes, actually you did. Ben's point was that there are things that life does outside of science (that is the thread title in fact). You appeared to be suggesting that you disagreed with his position and nothing was outside of science.If what you say above is true, that science itself cannot determine if abortion is wrong, then you are patently agreeing that there are some things that fall outside of science. Theoretically this is true. But that does not support a notion that those physical pieces as they are put together do not process/analyze items in a way that are not scientific or deal with science. Controlled by natural processes and so alterable by natural processes, does not mean that they are "inside" the field of "science".I have the theoretical capability of blowing everyone's brains out with a rifle. That does not mean all thoughts/feelings are within the field of sharpshooting. Whoa, you missed the beam with this routine. Science is a method with known limits. The idea is not that beyond its limits nothing actually exists. The idea is that the method contains rules which limit what we can study, with the full knowledge that some things off limits may in fact be true and exist.We are counting on empirical evidence to get us through everything we need to model. If not in a primary sensory sense, then secondary sensory sense (detectors, etc). But there are phenomena and mechanisms which will not register on any possible detector we currently or may ever have.For example there may be multiple dimensions. Currently scientists postulate that they may very well exist, and could act as an answer for certain cosmological or subatomic phenomena. But they are also as of yet unstudiable and by their nature never studiable. Their natures may always remain speculative and beyond the realm of science.That would not mean they do not exist.Reading your posts I am left with a question of what science actually means to you. It seems at this point that science = everything. How do you define science in a meaningful (more specific) way?

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

I think you are making more out of what I wrote than I meant.Certainly to keep our standard of living we need to depend on others. Our modern societies are built on cooperative action.In the past this was not so much the case, and indeed there is no reason to believe that humans cannot live (survive) in a generally noncooperative environment.About the only cooperative feature that would be required is childcare, which does not even require both parents.Certainly life improves via cooperation, and humans have thrived on it. But I think claiming our bare survival depends on it is a bit extreme.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Language ability was not driven by adaptation, unless we are using a lamarkian system of evolution. Genetic change produced the ability for more complex communication, and those with that ability developed language over the course of time. If you mean language itself (not just the ability) has developed over time within human culture, that is certainly true.I am at a loss to see what long periods from birth to self-sufficiency, and especially loss of fur have to do with social adaptation. The former could be true with just maternal care (as seen with lions) rather than societal care, and the latter may have only to do with genetics and the lack of necessity for fur. What is the "use" of a moral system anyway? It appears mainly to be a way for a person to understand themselves, produce a narrative or force a consistency of narrative for one's identity and that's it.Imagine you have no other person to interact with. Aren't there rules that you might construct for yourself, including prohibitions you might set feeling that following them will result in something better for you, or the world as a whole?For example, would you then destroy a beaver's dam as much as look and admire it? Or would you feel that perhaps there is some sense in treating it as the beaver's property, or maybe even that it has extra value as it increases order within that system (there is thought/effort/organization within it)?

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

I am not talking about single people. Clearly almost NOTHING survives completely on its own. Those which require care for young have some need for rudimentary cooperation at a base level.What I am discussing is societal level cooperation. That really is not necessary for survival. People could just as easily like lions which are at best loose collections. There would be no need for cultures to develop... social adaptations.If you are going to suggest that ultimately we would not survive without them, my question to you is why you believe we'll survive forever with them?As far as I understand it the human species will terminate at some point in time regardless.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This model appears to break down at the quantum level. You are aware of that, yes?In any case, I can agree that for the most part the natural world influences things in the natural world. That seems to be what you are saying. They could not exist except that humans with scientific aptitude reached a level of material and physical engineering they could construct the robots. This is true. But they could continue to walk regardless if the scientific enterprise sank into the sand tomorrow. No, I do not believe this accurately represents a child's attempts to walk. Why not simply ask a person who was injured in a way that forced them to learn to walk again, or use prostheses? They might use visualization but that is different than "knowing" the model of how walking is accomplished. Indeed that level of info would likely reduce one's accomplishments.Here is an example. I was in martial arts. While we learned skills, there was no scientific study of exactly how a block would deflect a blow. One could do this of course, but it was not necessary to properly block a blow. And thinking about blocking a blow could simply make things worse. Thinking seemed to be death to a martial artist.The main thing was feeling and allowing one's body to react quickly. You trained muscles and nerves to react in specific ways (whether you knew why or not) until they built up memory. You trained your senses to be more alert than they usually are (not hindered by analysis). Then you let them go.In many cases it is a state of the body doing exactly what it will and can do. One interesting experiment for you would be to find a young child and see if you can get it to understand the concept of volume. It is known that no matter how you try, the child is incapable of understanding until a certain formation in the brain occurs. Then the child gets it. No amount of scientific investigation is linked to form this understanding, yet much scientific investigation hinges on this understanding.Hmmmmmm. So a reflex action is considered knowledge and science? In fact, according to this info all creatures on this planet are conducting science at every moment. Don't you see how weak this makes your def?I might add once again, it even places a bunch of gaybashers or a lynch mob in the category of scientists (social sciences I guess). That is a bit odious. Are you kidding me? Go get yourself a bar of uranium and set it a few feet from you. You will never see, hear, feel, or smell any of the particles coming off of it that will most certainly kill you. Many people cannot detect the smell of cyanide (which you also cannot see, feel, or hear) until you drop dead.I don't know how many numbers of tiny things you cannot sense, as well as vast things you cannot sense, that there are in the universe. Maybe somebody has a list. You realize there are whole ranges of EM that you cannot sense and never will directly? Wrong. Science is the pursuit of knowledge, a form of epistemology devoted to natural phenomena. It may even (at a stretch) refer to the products of that pursuit. Scientific method is the most advanced set of rules we have crafted toward that end. Here is a link to Science at Wiki.I would have said that's what Ben was trying to get at, but I see he already did.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Check again. I did not say it weakened your argument. I said it weakened your definition.You can have it of course, but it is spread so thin that it is almost meaningless for use and will actually result in confusion. We also already have a term for it... sensory experience. Perhaps I misunderstood your question. I said we could use our senses or detectors, then I thought your response was questioning what couldn't be sensed such that we'd need detectors.If you want me to come up with something that is not detectable by detectors, then I will end up in a sort of circular argument. I can tell you there is certainly the possibility of things that we cannot even detect now, and perhaps never.Subatomic particles are a great example. There have been many stages where new ones are proposed but no tech to examine them. We can reach a stage where no new technology is possible for us to measure a theorized entity. That will not mean it does not exist. Well now your just being disengenuous. Your def for science did not say "knowledge". On top of that I supplied you with an encyclopedia-like examination of the term science.If I wanted to cut to the chase I suppose I should just ask you to define what knowledge is. Then you will end up having to discuss epistemology and rules for knowing... which is what I was talking about. But if you can discuss knowledge without that, please feel free to suprise me.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

They are outside the realm of empirical knowledge and so outside the reach of the scientific method, and so outside of modern science. It will be touched on by scientists engage in theoretical speculation, not in practicing modern science. I thought Ben criticized you for doing this, but in case he didn't I will... Guess what you don't get to do with definitions? Single out words an pretend they are the single most important part of the definition. The above definition does not mean science = knowledge. If it meant that then it would simply say "knowing" or "knowledge". There is a reason it says "THE STATE OF knowing" and then adds "knowledge AS DISTINGUISHED FROM ignorance etc".Science is a form of epistemology meant to define and then delineate knowledge from not knowing. You decided it would read better with a carefully placed comma, and it sure would if it said what you wanted it to say. The wiki article went on to say more which should have straightened out exactly want it meant.But I want to point out what should have been obvious. Look at that last sentence. If science and knowledge are the same, identical, then the first phrase of that last sentence is redundant. "Knowledgific knowledge" "Scientific Science"I would argue what was likely meant in that first sentence was...Science is knowledge, especially as obtained and tested through the scientific method.Science contains a specific type of knowledge... not all knowledge.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

A theoretical physicist remains a theoretical physicist regardless of whether or not an entity within a theory (or a theory itself) the physicist speculates on can eventually become a part of scientific knowledge.A theoretical entity does not have to remain theoretical and much work by theoretical scientists is not about stuff that can never be detected. Its about stuff that may not be detectable now, and they try and figure out ways to bring it inside the realm of science through possible experiments... duh.So that you can understand this better here is a Wiki page on theoretical physcis. Take note on what it says regarding what they do, and what they propose. The final section on fringe theory denotes what happens to entities which cannot entire science.I stand corrected on the definitional connection between science and knowledge. Apparently it can be used synonymously. I have never heard it used that way before, appears less than useless to me, and again makes terms like scientific knowledge redundant in the hands of a person who claims to use that definition of science.It seems doubtful to me that you actually stick with that definition in real life. For example, when you walk into a book store I feel confident you don't wonder which section you'll find a book on physics, or if you ask an employee and they say "science section" that you argue that everything beyond fiction should be the science section.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

I would agree that proposed are in the realm of science, as long as there is work being done to try and find how they can move beyond proposed, to working theory.As soon as it becomes obvious that it will always have to remain proposed, then it appears to move to proto, and in some sad cases pseudo, science.That's where things like God and ID end up landing pretty quickly. The nature of such theory seems to presuppose never actually moving from proposal to working theory... except by fiat. Unfortunately ID is in the science section, and I don't mean the books debating the issue.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

If God is detectable, then why don't you be the scientist to show this to be true? Don't you mean "they"? There is evidence over the years to support pretty much all systems of religious conviction, especially if one does not press too hard for literal interpretations. How do you know this? And if this is true, doesn't this suggest a rather ridiculous God? First of all it will prove nothing to those that are destroyed, and those observing the destruction already believe anyway so what's the point? This is known as Pascal's wager. It is flawed in that it works for every religion. Also choosing one specific creation story out of all of the possible religions to believe in may even be counterproductive as most religions allow for mistaken doubt, but do not sanction belief in another system.To be honest, honesty in one's own ignorance is the best bet... if one bases faith on gambling propositions.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)