Science_ a collection of successful recipes ?

Originally posted by rvsakhadeo
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.

By those "usual criteria", your questions are simply too vague to have any scientific relevance.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
By those "usual criteria", your questions are simply too vague to have any scientific relevance.

OK,let me state my first question. Can Science create a mono cellular living being,starting from from inorganic chemicals, in a lab in foreseeable future?

Originally posted by rvsakhadeo
OK,let me state my first question. Can Science create a mono cellular living being,starting from from inorganic chemicals, in a lab in foreseeable future?

Possibly.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Possibly.

Ribosome was successfully synthesised in a lab.,for which Ida Yonath and others have recently won the Nobel Prize, I am aware of that. But Ribosome is said to be the "cellular factory which aids in building up Proteins". Yet it is one thing to synthesise one chemical component of a Cell and quite another to infuse"life" in a mass of proteins,sort of kick start it into a living being. Massively different order of difficulty,when one is told that it took Yonath 25000 trials to synthesize Ribosome ! Have the biologists even the vaguest line of attack conceived for creating an artificial life ?

Originally posted by rvsakhadeo
Ribosome was successfully synthesised in a lab.,for which Ida Yonath and others have recently won the Nobel Prize, I am aware of that. But Ribosome is said to be the "cellular factory which aids in building up Proteins". Yet it is one thing to synthesise one chemical component of a Cell and quite another to infuse"life" in a mass of proteins,sort of kick ...[text shortened]... the biologists even the vaguest line of attack conceived for creating an artificial life ?

I don't know, I'm not a biologist. Where are you going with this, surely if science has already discovered everything there is to discover then scientific research would be meaningless (and I would be out of a job)?

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
I don't know, I'm not a biologist. Where are you going with this, surely if science has already discovered everything there is to discover then scientific research would be meaningless (and I would be out of a job)?

All I am saying is that there no Algorithm available to Science to discover the really deep mysteries.

Originally posted by rvsakhadeo
All I am saying is that there no Algorithm available to Science to discover the really deep mysteries.

Fortunately, not many scientists share this attitude, as a great deal of mysteries have been solved since the advent of modern science. Ever wonder why the sky is blue? God just threw around his blue brush, right?

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Fortunately, not many scientists share this attitude, as a great deal of mysteries have been solved since the advent of modern science. Ever wonder why the sky is blue? God just threw around his blue brush, right?

Science can very well explain how sky appears blue to us but not why the rules of physics are the way they are. It is a recipe that works and nothing more.

Originally posted by rvsakhadeo
Science can very well explain how sky appears blue to us but not why the rules of physics are the way they are. It is a recipe that works and nothing more.

Science does not explain metaphysics indeed - you're on to something here.

Originally posted by rvsakhadeo
All I am saying is that there no Algorithm available to Science to discover the really deep mysteries.

Are you asserting that creating life in the lab is a 'really deep mystery'? If so, why?

Originally posted by rvsakhadeo
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 w ...[text shortened]... lgorithm is required. That is why I posed the question to people believing in scientific method.

How about you give us some examples of questions science can't answer, and tell us why science can't answer them? I'm not asking this question with any attitude, I just think it would help the discussion.

Originally posted by JS357
How about you give us some examples of questions science can't answer, and tell us why science can't answer them? I'm not asking this question with any attitude, I just think it would help the discussion.

Please see my first question addressed to Kazet on 15th Feb.

Originally posted by rvsakhadeo
Please see my first question addressed to Kazet on 15th Feb.

The question is in two parts.
1. Creating organic chemicals in the lab.
2. Creating life from organic chemicals in the lab.

I believe both steps have been performed individually. What may not have been done, is creating all the individual organic chemicals required for step 2.
So are there specific organic chemicals you believe science may have a problem with?

Originally posted by twhitehead
The question is in two parts.
1. Creating organic chemicals in the lab.
2. Creating life from organic chemicals in the lab.

I believe both steps have been performed individually. What may not have been done, is creating all the individual organic chemicals required for step 2.
So are there specific organic chemicals you believe science may have a problem with?

I think he's talking about "not why the rules of physics are the way they are". Which is true - science is good at working out what the rules are. Why the rules are is probably out of scope.

The creation of life, though, doesn't appear to be in that category. There's no reason to believe that how it can happen is any more mysterious than lots of things that used to be considered mysterious before science explained them.

Originally posted by mtthw
I think he's talking about "not why the rules of physics are the way they are". Which is true - science is good at working out what the rules are. Why the rules are is probably out of scope.

The creation of life, though, doesn't appear to be in that category. There's no reason to believe that how it can happen is any more mysterious than lots of things that used to be considered mysterious before science explained them.

My response to someone who says a "why" question can't be answered by science is, what would be the earmarks of a good answer? Would it produce a sense of satisfaction? That's a psychological answer. Is it that the answer increases our ability to predict events? That's perhaps a scientific answer, worth revisiting down below, but let's look at the question about why the rules are the way they are.

Analogy time: Lately, a theory of life on other planets is forming around the idea that nearby at least some of the billions of stars, there is a planet in a habitable zone, where liquid H2O can exist and energy is sufficient for chemical reactions that form and not immediately destroy complex molecules, and that's where to look for life. We can predict that if we are to find recognizable life somewhere, it's a good bet to look were the temperature is somewhere between 0 and 100 centigrade at least some of the time. We have one example at hand, where life came about.

Analogously, of all the conceivable universes, there is obviously at least one where the question is eventually asked by some being in that universe, "Why are the rules of the universe the way they are?" We are in one. The rules are the way they are in this universe (meaning there are observable, regular correlations between events) because a universe where that is not the case would not harbor life. We can perhaps speculate about the range of "rules" that make a universe habitable. One of them to speculate on is that conditions have to allow for liquids to exist, like the planetary habitable zone analogy above. But it may be the case where we can't test that prediction unless we can find a way to observe other universes and do in fact observe them.

This is a variation of the Anthropic Principle, the "weak" variation.

One view of reality is that there is an ever-growing "foam" of universes. In some of them, conditions are such that the question is eventually asked. Others are not conducive to the question being asked, so it is "universally" the case that conditions seem "just right" to all beings that evolve to the point where they ask the question.

Is it satisfactory? That's the question. Ask another question: Why is there something rather than nothing? Is the answer the same? Where would the question be asked, other than where there is something? It that answer satisfactory?