1. Standard memberrvsakhadeo
    rvsakhadeo
    India
    Joined
    19 Feb '09
    Moves
    36550
    13 Feb '11 12:03
    Does Science really answer our difficult querries or does it simply help us go through our life without many mishaps,without much ill health,with some solace of having lived well etc. following tried and tested algorithms formulated by Science and Scientific method without
    getting an answer to Why rather than to How?
    The really difficult querries like the nature of our Understanding, the nature of Life,nature of Reality etc. cannot just be shrugged off by saying that these are Metaphysical questions. If so,Man's curiosity and thirst for knowledge seems to have been delimited by our Scientific Method.
    So is Science a collection of successful recipes ?
  2. Germany
    Joined
    27 Oct '08
    Moves
    3087
    13 Feb '11 12:11
    Science does attempt to explain the "nature of our Understanding, the nature of Life,nature of Reality etc." insofar as these questions can be answered by using measurements.
  3. Standard memberrvsakhadeo
    rvsakhadeo
    India
    Joined
    19 Feb '09
    Moves
    36550
    13 Feb '11 12:23
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    Science does attempt to explain the "nature of our Understanding, the nature of Life,nature of Reality etc." insofar as these questions can be answered by using measurements.
    Have these "attempts " succeeded ? If not so far,does the Scientific method lack the tools or is it in need of the correct algorithm ? Or is it the very Limitation imposed by itself that nothing that cannot be proven in a lab is False ? Is the Mankind going in around circles ? Has Logic met its Waterloo ?
  4. Standard memberrvsakhadeo
    rvsakhadeo
    India
    Joined
    19 Feb '09
    Moves
    36550
    13 Feb '11 12:39
    I remember our Logic Professor saying that Logic is concerned with Validity of a premise. Logic was not really concerned about Truth.
  5. Germany
    Joined
    27 Oct '08
    Moves
    3087
    13 Feb '11 13:081 edit
    Originally posted by rvsakhadeo
    I remember our Logic Professor saying that Logic is concerned with Validity of a premise. Logic was not really concerned about Truth.
    Logic is about rearranging information. Science is about adding information using non-logical tools (such as induction), and about putting information into context using logical tools.
  6. Germany
    Joined
    27 Oct '08
    Moves
    3087
    13 Feb '11 13:10
    Originally posted by rvsakhadeo
    Have these "attempts " succeeded ? If not so far,does the Scientific method lack the tools or is it in need of the correct algorithm ? Or is it the very Limitation imposed by itself that nothing that cannot be proven in a lab is False ? Is the Mankind going in around circles ? Has Logic met its Waterloo ?
    That depends on the criteria you use to measure such "success".
  7. Standard memberrvsakhadeo
    rvsakhadeo
    India
    Joined
    19 Feb '09
    Moves
    36550
    13 Feb '11 13:15
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    Logic is about rearranging information. Science is about adding information using non-logical tools (such as induction), and about putting information into context using logical tools.
    Pardon me but I thought Induction was a method of thinking prescribed by Logic.
  8. Germany
    Joined
    27 Oct '08
    Moves
    3087
    13 Feb '11 14:16
    Originally posted by rvsakhadeo
    Pardon me but I thought Induction was a method of thinking prescribed by Logic.
    No, you must be thinking of deduction.
  9. Standard memberrvsakhadeo
    rvsakhadeo
    India
    Joined
    19 Feb '09
    Moves
    36550
    14 Feb '11 09:00
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    That depends on the criteria you use to measure such "success".
    When the result of an investigation convinces the investigator/scientific community of its correctness in letter as well as in spirit,the shout of "Eureka!" will sound by itself-- will it not ? Of course the usual scientic criteria will definitely apply such as repeatability,universal applicability etc.
  10. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    14 Feb '11 09:271 edit
    Originally posted by rvsakhadeo
    Does Science really answer our difficult querries or does it simply help us go through our life without many mishaps,without much ill health,with some solace of having lived well etc. following tried and tested algorithms formulated by Science and Scientific method without getting an answer to Why rather than to How?
    More important than asking 'what does science answer and what does it not answer' might be to ask 'is there any other way of answering questions?'.
    My own feeling is no, there isn't. So if science hasn't answered it then sorry, you will not be getting an answer until it does or if science cant answer it, you will not be getting an answer.

    Of course you probably started this thread because science did give an answer to your question and you don't like that answer, so you are attacking the methodology as inadequate.
  11. Standard memberrvsakhadeo
    rvsakhadeo
    India
    Joined
    19 Feb '09
    Moves
    36550
    14 Feb '11 10:41
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    More important than asking 'what does science answer and what does it not answer' might be to ask 'is there any other way of answering questions?'.
    My own feeling is no, there isn't. So if science hasn't answered it then sorry, you will not be getting an answer until it does or if science cant answer it, you will not be getting an answer.

    Of course yo ...[text shortened]... stion and you don't like that answer, so you are attacking the methodology as inadequate.
    Scientific thinking is limited to observation,measurement, description,establishing logical relationships,developing hypothesis,proving or disproving the hypothesis by experimentation etc. It involves a degree of idealisation or simplification of the matter under examination. But it does not explain the Why although it will answer How. Scientific Method was developed by Mankind out of Intellectual Curiosity,although its beginning was necessitated by primary needs like survival, food, shelter etc. But it seems to have come to a dead end. Certainly a new way of thinking,a new algorithm is required. That is why I posed the question to people believing in scientific method.
  12. Joined
    07 Sep '05
    Moves
    35068
    14 Feb '11 11:511 edit
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    No, you must be thinking of deduction.
    A common mistake - Sherlock Holmes makes the same one 🙂
  13. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    14 Feb '11 12:06
    Originally posted by rvsakhadeo
    But it seems to have come to a dead end.
    I disagree. I do not think it has, or ever will 'come to a dead end'.

    Certainly a new way of thinking,a new algorithm is required. That is why I posed the question to people believing in scientific method.
    Well, can you suggest a new algorithm? I do not believe it is possible, but am willing to hear you out.

    I believe the fundamental principles of the scientific methodology are required for all learning. Let me summarize my understanding of them:
    1. The universe contains patterns.
    2. We can determine some (or all) of these patterns and can determine the cause of these patterns (or the rules of the pattern).
    3. To be sure that we have determined a pattern we must adopt certain practices to ensure that we don't make the error of seeing patterns where there are none, or ascribing the wrong reasons as the cause of the pattern.
    4. The normal practices laid out as 'scientific method'
    a) help to assure us that we have correctly identified a pattern.
    b) if they give contrary results - strongly indicate that we have incorrectly identified a pattern.

    Anyone rejecting the scientific method as valid scrutiny for claims regarding a pattern is essentially saying:
    "My pattern is not subject to the scientific method because it is not a pattern".
    Which is really something of a self contradiction - hence the need for terms like 'supernatural', 'metaphysical' etc. Which usually just mean "I know I'm being illogical so don't bother asking me about it".
  14. Standard memberrvsakhadeo
    rvsakhadeo
    India
    Joined
    19 Feb '09
    Moves
    36550
    14 Feb '11 12:36
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    I disagree. I do not think it has, or ever will 'come to a dead end'.

    [b]Certainly a new way of thinking,a new algorithm is required. That is why I posed the question to people believing in scientific method.

    Well, can you suggest a new algorithm? I do not believe it is possible, but am willing to hear you out.

    I believe the fundamental princip ...[text shortened]... sually just mean "I know I'm being illogical so don't bother asking me about it".[/b]
    Can Science determine the " Causes " of a pattern ? any pattern ? If so,Science should have solved all problems( in so far as acquiring Knowledge is concerned) which are facing mankind. But many contributors in Science Forum seem to indicate that Science has not even tackled questions like Origin of Life etc.They give it a name viz. Abiogenesis and suddenly that area is off limits to everybody including people like me who do think that there are many mysteries not yet explained by Science.Forget Abiogenesis,the answer to comparatively simpler question of Origin of Universe is- to put it bluntly- a matter of Speculation,a good worthy try no doubt but pure and simple Speculation.Science should have a healthy and "scientific" outlook about its own powers and should always be open to self doubts. Yet Multiple Universes are being discussed here in the Science forum as if these are cabbages in your back garden !
  15. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    14 Feb '11 13:02
    Originally posted by rvsakhadeo
    Can Science determine the " Causes " of a pattern ? any pattern ?
    KazetNagorra has said that science includes induction, so my answer would be potentially yes. However the scientific method is primarily concerned with verifying whether or not a pattern really exists and whether or not the suggested cause really is the cause. So the scientific method is not concerned with determining the causes of patterns but rather verifying them once hypothesized.
    I do not think even KazetNagorra would claim that science can and will and must have determined all patterns and all causes of patterns.

    If so,Science should have solved all problems( in so far as acquiring Knowledge is concerned) which are facing mankind.
    Thats a really big leap from 'can it' to 'it should have'. Can mathematics prove all valid theorems that can be proved? Presumably, yes. Has it? No. Can growing more food solve world hunger? Has it? No.

    But many contributors in Science Forum seem to indicate that Science has not even tackled questions like Origin of Life etc.
    The Origin of Life is a problem facing mankind? How so?
    I think that science has tackled it, but does not have all the answers and as far as an exact history goes - never will have all the answers. It is practically impossible to even give an exact history of what I did yesterday let alone what my ancestors billions of years ago were up to.

    They give it a name viz. Abiogenesis and suddenly that area is off limits to everybody including people like me who do think that there are many mysteries not yet explained by Science.
    What sort of explanation are you looking for? What sort of explanation would satisfy you?

    Forget Abiogenesis,the answer to comparatively simpler question of Origin of Universe is- to put it bluntly- a matter of Speculation,a good worthy try no doubt but pure and simple Speculation.
    I generally agree.

    Science should have a healthy and "scientific" outlook about its own powers and should always be open to self doubts. Yet Multiple Universes are being discussed here in the Science forum as if these are cabbages in your back garden !
    At present it is speculation (the induction mentioned earlier). But that does not mean it has to remain speculation. The idea of science is to take that speculation and either verify or disprove it.
    I now realize that KazetNagorra has it right. Without a hypothesis, you cant carry out an experiment.
Back to Top