Science explains everything?

Suppose that you make assertion A. However, A is vague and ambiguous, and could mean X or it could mean Y. Now it happens that I agree with X, and I strongly disagree with Y. How should I respond to your post about A?It seems to me that my choices are:

assume you mean X, and express agreement. But this is risky, since you might take me as agreeing to Y, when I strongly disagree with that;

assume you mean Y, and disagree (giving reasons). This is safer, but I might be taken as unable to think outside the box;

parse my answer very carefully, so that it is clear I am agreeing only with X and disagreeing only with Y. You will probably see that as playing games;

just ignore the whole thread and don't post anything. This is the safest response, although it leaves you wondering why there are so few responses.

​

I think that is what has been happening in Do we affect the" physical " indepentent of the laws of physics. And I expect that I won't be posting anything else in that thread unless you make your position and arguments far less ambiguous than they have been up to now.

It may be possible, but we'd be in no position to know that. At the very least at this point. Science was built without an assumption that we could understand everything. In your last post you assumed if everything is measurable. Why does everything have to be measurable. Indeed there is the Heisenberg uncertainty principle within science which pretty much states that our ability to measure ends before reality does. Yes. You'll need to expand that "few other things", because the first two do not add up to knowing what one's purpose must be. It smacks of "insert miracle here". That was a realistic answer. Given the laws regarding time and space as we know them right now, we will only be capable of seeing a portion of the universe. That's what happens when you have a finite speed of light and an accelerating expanding universe. I'm not sure what "more" you expect. No one is saying anything close to "god did it". You keep saying science and even a material universe requires something, which it does not. We keep telling you this and explain why and you ignore it. Personally I have no idea if gods did or did not do "it", but I know that people made science and it has limits built into it.

---

holmes
"What you need is sustained outrage...there's far too much unthinking respect given to authority." (M.Ivins)

Ok, lets try it another way. What explains your purpose?

You do.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

I don't claim to be able to explain Chiroptera's purpose. As for my own purpose in life, I make up the explanation (and maybe the purpose) as I go along.

lol, who built science?Science is not built, it is always in the process of being built, hence why nothing is ever proven. No-one here on this board has the authority to say it can or cannot explain everything. It's just my opinion that it could, unless there is a God. Because matter cannot be either created or destroyed, only observed. The tools we use for observing are not finished being built yet. Probably one of the underlying reasons I believe in God. Ever see someone do something and you say, I knew he was going to do that?That's because your brain processed an incredible amount information to come to that conclusion. Almost as though it wasn't subjective.
I say the possibility exists that feelings may in fact be objective. That's not where I was going with that. I am not saying your wrong, it was only my opinion.

quote:

---

What explains your purpose?

---

Simply that it makes sense to my own subjective opinions and feelings.

---

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt

Yes methodology is an ongoing process. That does not mean that science has not been built by anyone for some purpose with known limitations.And yes, people can say whether it can explain everything or not. It has known limits built into it. People are telling you this and you keep ignoring it. Its sort of like if I started arguing the Bible says God sucks and we should all joing the Devil in an orgy of sex and violence. No matter how much I keep repeating that in order to support some pet theory of mine... it would still be wrong. That is your pet theory and is based on a beliefe regarding science as erroneous as what I stated above about the Bible. If you do not understand that science has a focus and limitations, then you need to read more about science or listen to the people here who are familiar with science and what it can or cannot explain. That was an answer to a point I made which wolly invalidated your argument. It was a limitation. Ever be surprised by someone? Just because we can become familiar with someone and what they have become, does not mean that their feelings are any less subjective. And yet, that is where you ended up, unless you unpack that vague statement. Ahhhh, the devil is always in the details. I am saying your opinion is wrong. This is not one of those toss up things where everyone can just have an opinion and it is legitimate.

---

holmes
"What you need is sustained outrage...there's far too much unthinking respect given to authority." (M.Ivins)

I guess you feel anything subjective is not science then.Thats similiar to anything unexplainable being God (for the creationists)If determinism is true then nothing is really subjective at all.

If I had a true open mind, I would have to take this as a possibility.Scientists are supposed to be open minded. I have, and I will continue to do so. I may not be able to find the threads now, but it has been mentioned that science can explain everything. It remains a possibility for some.I even think it is possibile. Or it could mean that we just didn't know all the variables, as is the case with some science. Devil? What does he have to do with this? Or miracles? Your losing me.
I am pretty much arguing this from a standpoint that science can have the ability to measure all things, and explain all things.I have always thought that if you can imagine it, it is possible. i.e. time travel, and portal travel. That would help us explain all things.The other thing that would stop us is if the universe is truely random. I say that statement is not an open minded statement at all.Show me some literature that says science CANNOT explain everything, and stop telling me about it.NOVA | The Elegant Universe | A Theory of Everything? | PBS

quote:

---

For the first time in the history of physics we therefore have a framework with the capacity to explain every fundamental feature upon which the universe is constructed. For this reason string theory is sometimes described as possibly being the "theory of everything" (T.O.E.) or the "ultimate" or "final" theory.

---

It would seem my pet theory isn't so pet after all.I want ask you guys a question, and that is are you afraid if science can explain everything, that you would lose some sort of feeling of being? If your purpose was mapped out already, and could be discovered by science, does that upset you? Do you believe in free-will? Self-conscience? I think there-for I am?If science explains everything, then we have no real purpose, and that scares you? Whats the point of life?

Barring some code hidden within the text, there is no credible way to argue that the Bible says God sucks and we should join the Devil in an orgy of sex and violence. There is a difference between being openminded and credulous. More importantly, there is a vast difference between being openminded regarding something one knows and speaking from complete ignorance on a subject. Well you have a series of names attached to commentary here which says otherwise. I'd recommend finding where these people have said the opposite in the past. I can tell you that I haven't, and I am pretty sure some of the others haven't.I've been a vocal opponent of those making overreaching comments regarding science and scientific methods. That could be true but doesn't have to be. Have you ever surprised yourself, or chosen to do something out of character for yourself, just to see what the results would be? But it can't. That's your problem. Mmmmm, no. Let's start with you showing where science is employed or thought to be an explanation for everything.Your citation does not suggest what you are saying. It is an overstatement which I'd disagree with anyway, but even taking it at what it says, it is discussing knowledge regarding a subset of all things. I did not deny that science could reach conclusions within subsets, just not EVERYTHING. The everything they are discussing is relative to physics, and specifically meaning that they can use one theory to account for all physical actions/forces, rather than separate theories as is done now. Well it is gamey. You have read something you did not understand and because it used a word or phrase that sounded similar to what you were saying, you mistook it to mean what you said. I would say no. If anything it might be a comfort such that I can sit back and let life take me wherever I was destined to go.I say that science can't because it can't. It's really just that simple.What I don't understand is how religious people can think such a thing would disturb scientists while clinging to an omnipotent god that created everything and runs everything. Can't think of anything that would cause less feeling of being than that.In any case, I do believe in free will. It is bounded however. We are free to act because of our capability to analyze experience and self, within limits set by some hereditary/developmental/cultural factors. Notice how you reverse yourself? You said science is thought to explain everything and thought you had posted an citation explaining that. Now you are arguing why people are afraid to believe it. Pick a side.I'll repeat my own position...Science can't explain everything and was not meant to.If it was able to determine everything then it would define purpose and that would not bother me, and would in effect be just like astrology or any other religious/superstitious explanation for purpose thus far used by humans. If YOU have no problem with that, why would anyone else just because it came off a calculator instead of some tea leaves at the bottom of a cup, or a loud man from behind a pulpit.As it stands, whether science can explain everything and therefore (according to you) say we don't have a purpose, or it can't explain everything and so leave our purposes obscured, there is no practical difference. We don't know and so must create purpose for ourselves. That is what people have been telling you all along. People can find their own purpose. That is valid. It really isn't scary. And it gives one a point to living.On the contrary, gods who know and all and do all and the one thing they want from me is obedience or they will make me suffer, and if they make me suffer anyway I'm supposed to like it and not complain... what is the point of that life? That is much scarier to me, though I suppose I'd at least have a focus for some of my anger.

---

holmes
"What you need is sustained outrage...there's far too much unthinking respect given to authority." (M.Ivins)

I suspect that you are misreading that. It doesn't say that science will explain everything. "Every fundamental feature upon which the universe is constructed" isn't everything. Moreover, it is a rather ambitious statement, with probably lots of wishful thinking mixed in. That's a strange question. My "feeling of being" does not depend on what science is able to explain. I would probably just change my purpose to be different from what science "discovered", if only as a way of showing that science couldn't really do that. Yes. And I don't see any possibility that science could ever show otherwise.The difficult question about "free will" is what exactly do we mean when using that term. That's where most if the disagreement is found. Science does not explain everything. Purpose is subjective, and what science can explain is objective. It's a mismatch.

quote:

---

If determinism is true then nothing is really subjective at all.

---

Maybe we are using "explanation" in different ways.At most, in a completely deterministic universe someone could predict ahead of time what I would feel that my place in the universe is. That person could predict ahead of time what my reasons for these feelings are. But that person could not actually say what my place in the universe actually is.At most, in a completely deterministic universe someone could predict whether I felt that a certain action in a certain set of circumstances was right or wrong. That person could also predict ahead of time what my stated reasons, if any, would be. But that person could not determine whether those actions in those circumstances really are right or wrong.These types of value judgements remain subjective, even in a completely deterministic universe.Maybe this clears up the point of our disagreement.Edited to add the quote and the penultimate sentence.This message has been edited by Chiroptera, 11-Mar-2006 04:21 PM

---

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt

Yes there does seem to be a distict disconect there. One I am apparently not able to breach. I have tried. People apparently see more meanings than what I intented. I do not so I am at a loss to accomodate.
Perhaps I need to ask those participating to inform me of what they each need clarified.

Purpose is only subjective within a context and can be viewed objectively as in "those who run this sight have done so for a purpose"
When it is shared outside ones self and recognised by others.What science can explain can be viewed as subjective to the confines of the concept of science or subject to the human limits of understanding.Perspective changes things.This message has been edited by 2ice_baked_taters, 03-11-2006 01:56 PMThis message has been edited by 2ice_baked_taters, 03-11-2006 01:58 PM