Science_ a collection of successful recipes ?

Why is there something rather than nothing?

Because if there was nothing then the above question wouldn't exist because nothing would exist to ask it.
But the the above question DOES exist therefore there exists something that asked it therefore there must exist something rather than nothing.

I bet this is not the kind of answer many people would want to hear but what do you expect from such a question?

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
Why is there something rather than nothing?

There is nothing rather than something.

Richard

Originally posted by rvsakhadeo
More questions on these lines( about rules) can be innumerable, for example , Right Hand Thumb Rule of Electromagnetism. Why the Electromagnetic field is clockwise ( in the direction of fingers of a fist of right hand)when the current in the wire flows in the direction of the right hand thumb etc. Why it is not anticlockwise ? I mean Science describes the ...[text shortened]... so on but fails to penetrate any mystery like origin of life,nature of reality,what is Mind etc.

So, time for you to stop sitting on the fence and make claims of profundity: get to the point. Why do you think the right-hand rule works? Be precise, be definite, and stop dilly-dallying. You claim that there is something Beyond Science (*gong*) which can give us More Profound Insights (*smell of incense*) about such Whys and Wherefores. Fine by me: cut the dithering, already, and tell us what it is!

Or don't you know, either?

Richard

Originally posted by Shallow Blue
So, time for you to stop sitting on the fence and make claims of profundity: get to the point. Why do you think the right-hand rule works? Be precise, be definite, and stop dilly-dallying. You claim that there is something Beyond Science (*gong*) which can give us More Profound Insights (*smell of incense*) about such Whys and Wherefores. Fine by ...[text shortened]... the dithering, already, and tell us what it is!

Or don't you know, either?

Richard

As I said Science is a collection of rules that work and it is nothing more. Not one scientist can explain WHY a scientific rule works. Circular arguments abound. Nobody can reply why +ve charges attract -ve charges and NOT repel each other.
I am not sitting on any fence neither I can play at being profound.I am seized with the doubt that Science has become a new Religion with scientists unable to countenance any difference of opinion.
I firmly believe in the Spiritualism that my ancient Hindu Tradition has provided and which guides me to seek answers within oneself,or by asking senior and wiser people or by devoting oneself to God's ways or by doing one's duty selflessly or a combination of all these things.
I do not enter into mudslinging matches or personal attacks.I respect everyone of the individual contributors here including you " shallow" blue.

Originally posted by rvsakhadeo
My basic point was :- Science is a collection of successful Recipes. In other words why the rules are the way they are does not seem to be explainable by Science. During the course of exchanges of views I responded to Kazet on 15th Feb. that one question that is not yet answered is the Creation of Life in a lab.starting from inorganic chemicals. I hope th ...[text shortened]... y calling these questions as metaphysical or"senseless" , does not deprive them of importance.

The fact that you capitalize "Life" and speak of its "Creation" is suggestive of the idea that you regard it as something Special. Is there something about life that you think makes it impossible to be synthesized? Can you define the criteria for deciding whether a laboratory product is a living thing? Presumably you have done all this in your other thread, so there's no point in replicating all of that discussion here.

But I would like to add something that a friend who ran a chemical plant once said, to a worker who said they could make the organic product they made, but couldn't make life. It is that we don't exactly make our product, we put certain chemicals together under the certain conditions, and natural processes bring about the result, whatever it is. So using your words, we just have to find the successful recipe.

Regarding the Right Hand Rule, multiple universe concepts would allow for a Left Hand Rule, the same as it would allow for an antimatter-based universe. Of course there, they would ask the opposite questions. We just happen to be in one that is the way it is here.

I agree with you that an important or at least interesting question can be outside the scope of science. There may be limitations, such as knowing the events that occurred before Planck time.

"The Planck time is this limiting scale translated into time units. For times in the history of the universe less than 1E-43seconds, quantum mechanics limits our ability to predict or measure the conditions. Our history of the big bang must therefore begin at 1E-43 seconds."

http://www.suite101.com/content/the-planck-time-and-the-big-bang-a28940

Originally posted by rvsakhadeo
As I said Science is a collection of rules that work and it is nothing more. Not one scientist can explain WHY a scientific rule works. Circular arguments abound. Nobody can reply why +ve charges attract -ve charges and NOT repel each other.
I am not sitting on any fence neither I can play at being profound.I am seized with the doubt that Science has bec ...[text shortened]... ttacks.I respect everyone of the individual contributors here including you " shallow" blue.

“...Not one scientist can explain WHY a scientific rule works. Circular arguments abound. ...”

give us just ONE example of these “Circular arguments”.....any one will do...well? Or do you not know of any?

“...I am seized with the doubt that Science has become a new Religion with scientists unable to countenance any difference of opinion. ...”

scientists are NOT “unable to countenance any difference of opinion”; haven’t you heard of competing scientific hypotheses? Their very existence proves that different scientists can have different opinions. Just one example; some scientists believe that the apparent quantum randomness is TRULY random with no hidden cause. And yet other scientists disagree and believe that the apparent quantum randomness is pseudo-random and illusionary. Each side has its own arguments and counterarguments with no obvious resolution of that particular debate in sight.

“...I do not enter into mudslinging matches or personal attacks. ...”

this is clearly false. Just for starters, does the words “dishonest” and “dumb ass” ring any bells?

Originally posted by rvsakhadeo
As I said Science is a collection of rules that work and it is nothing more. Not one scientist can explain WHY a scientific rule works. Circular arguments abound. Nobody can reply why +ve charges attract -ve charges and NOT repel each other.
I am not sitting on any fence neither I can play at being profound.I am seized with the doubt that Science has bec ...[text shortened]... ttacks.I respect everyone of the individual contributors here including you " shallow" blue.

Er.. charges that attract each other are LABELLED + and -, and the + and - could be labeled - and +, or * and ~, as long as one of them attracts electrons and the other repels them. A better question is why some particles attract and others repel. Maybe there are universes where all the particles attract, or all the particles repel. We aren't in one of them. According to the rules we know about our universe, they wouldn't have atoms, much less, biological life. But who knows? Or there might be universes where there is no attraction or repulsion, or not even any particles. Hard to imagine, but at least the idea can be thought about. And isn't the multiple or alternate universe idea sort of compatible with some aspects of Hinduism? Or wouldn't the Christian Heaven or Hell be sort of like other universes?

Just because someone is in science, that doesn't mean he can't expand his mind beyond it. Francis Collins is a renowned scientist and an evangelical Christian. He believes in divine creation AND evolution.

Finally you say you are seized by the doubt that science (which YOU capitalize) has become a new religion. I won't agree or disagree. But you are talking about what is called scientism, not science. Most of the folks I have run into who over-believe in science, aren't even working scientists.

Originally posted by JS357
Most of the folks I have run into who over-believe in science, aren't even working scientists.

What is 'over-believing' in science? Several posters here, myself included, believe science and its methodology is the only rational and valid way to investigate anything. Is that 'over believing'?

I do not think scientists always get things right, nor do I believe 'science' will ever know everything or answer every question. I don't believe everything I read in a 'science' magazine or even in a peer reviewed journal.
And I don't work as a scientist, but a number of other posters here do.

Originally posted by twhitehead
What is 'over-believing' in science? Several posters here, myself included, believe science and its methodology is the only rational and valid way to investigate anything. Is that 'over believing'?

I do not think scientists always get things right, nor do I believe 'science' will ever know everything or answer every question. I don't believe everything ...[text shortened]... ewed journal.
And I don't work as a scientist, but a number of other posters here do.

Rather than be imprecise I suggest you search on scientism. Of course there are varying degrees. One aspect I have read about it in the Oxford Companion to Philosophy is that it is something that no one ascribes to themselves.

Originally posted by JS357
Rather than be imprecise I suggest you search on scientism. Of course there are varying degrees. One aspect I have read about it in the Oxford Companion to Philosophy is that it is something that no one ascribes to themselves.

Here is a quickie to a Wiki:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism

Originally posted by sonhouse
Here is a quickie to a Wiki:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism

That's a good source. I'd like to recommend another slant that is shorter and maybe even a little tongue in cheek, that is originally from The Oxford Companion to Philosophy.

Quote:

‘Scientism’ is a term of abuse. Therefore, perhaps inevitably, there is no one simple characterization of the views of those who are thought to be identified as prone to it. In philosophy, a commitment to one or more of the following lays one open to the charge of scientism.

* (a) The sciences are more important than the arts for an understanding of the world in which we live, or, even, all we need to understand it.
* (b) Only a scientific methodology is intellectually acceptable. Therefore, if the arts are to be a genuine part of human knowledge they must adopt it.
* (c) Philosophical problems are scientific problems and should only be dealt with as such.

A successful accusation of scientism usually relies upon a restrictive conception of the sciences and an optimistic conception of the arts as hitherto practised. Nobody espouses scientism; it is just detected in the writings of others. Among the accused are P. M. and P. S. Churchland , W. V. Quine , and Logical Positivism.

unquote

http://science.jrank.org/pages/23119/scientism.html

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
“...Not one scientist can explain WHY a scientific rule works. Circular arguments abound. ...”

give us just ONE example of these “Circular arguments”.....any one will do...well? Or do you not know of any?

“...I am seized with the doubt that Science has become a new Religion with scientists unable to countenance any difference of opinion. ...” ...[text shortened]... s is clearly false. Just for starters, does the words “dishonest” and “dumb ass” ring any bells?

I have never used the words "dishonest" and " dumb ass " against any contributor on any of the forums. So I don't know what are you talking about. Forget these forums,in ordinary conversations, I do not use such language.

Originally posted by JS357
The fact that you capitalize "Life" and speak of its "Creation" is suggestive of the idea that you regard it as something Special. Is there something about life that you think makes it impossible to be synthesized? Can you define the criteria for deciding whether a laboratory product is a living thing? Presumably you have done all this in your other thread, so ...[text shortened]... 43 seconds."

http://www.suite101.com/content/the-planck-time-and-the-big-bang-a28940

A mono cellular living being will be,I am sure,be recognized by any biologist as a Live thing.It will be able to react to external stimuli and will be able to ingest food and reproduce itself.
I believe such a mono cellular living being has not been created by Science in a lab,starting from inorganic chemicals.
There were some attempts in the past to recreate the so called"Primordial Soup" which has been said to exist on Earth in the past and which was said to have been conducive to the beginning of Life. Storms were then simulated including Lightning flashes etc. to recreate the conditions of Primordial Soup. Some amino acids were indeed produced. But not Life.
Many thanks for your thoughtful contribution.

Originally posted by JS357
Er.. charges that attract each other are LABELLED + and -, and the + and - could be labeled - and +, or * and ~, as long as one of them attracts electrons and the other repels them. A better question is why some particles attract and others repel. Maybe there are universes where all the particles attract, or all the particles repel. We aren't in one of them. ...[text shortened]... f the folks I have run into who over-believe in science, aren't even working scientists.

I agree to the point of description of the Electrical charges. But my essential point remains i.e. although Science has a great success in describing our universe and the rules underlying the universe,it has i) failed to find answers to many mysteries ii) being basically a baggage of recipes,it does not have any Algorithm for tackling the questions I was talking about.

Originally posted by JS357
In philosophy, a commitment to one or more of the following lays one open to the charge of scientism.

* (a) The sciences are more important than the arts for an understanding of the world in which we live, or, even, all we need to understand it.
* (b) Only a scientific methodology is intellectually acceptable. Therefore, if the arts are to be a genuine p ...[text shortened]... .
* (c) Philosophical problems are scientific problems and should only be dealt with as such.

I probably fit much of the definition you give, but then that is because of:

A successful accusation of scientism usually relies upon a restrictive conception of the sciences and an optimistic conception of the arts as hitherto practised.

I do not think that most of the Arts are used for "understanding the world in which we live".