A recent course in the philosophy of mind led me to question the very fundamental notion of science as the ultimate truth-giver. I eventually wrote my final paper on the subject, but I really want to hear the opinions of others on the matter.
Simply put, the ultimate goal of science is to be able to explain everything. Theoretically, however, there exists the possibility of concepts that we may not even be capable of conceiving, which may influence things in our perceptual realm. What this means is that something that we see may in fact be explained by something we can neither see nor conceive of.
If you are a scientist, chances are you disagree with this fundamentally. My question is, how can you be so sure that science is "right." Is it only because we've defined the word "right" to adhere to science?
I think this quote by Jung illustrates the issue very well:
"People always speak of man and his psychology as though there were nothing "but" that psychology. In the same way one always talks of "reality" as though it were the only one. Reality is simply what works in a human soul and not what is assumed by certain people to work there, and about which prejudiced generalizations are wont to be made. Even when this is done in a scientific spirit, it should not be forgotten that science is not the SUMMA of life, that it is actually only one of the psychological attitudes, only one of the forms of human thought."
We have come to define reality as within the scope of science, but there is no need for this to be true other than the fact that we defined it as such.
So, what do you folks think? Is there more to reality than science? If so are we able to discover it? If not, how can you be so sure?
OK this is my first post but I wanted to expand upon what Neurovurt was asking. Most scientists reject religion on the basis of no proof and seem adamant that theist just blindly follow a fictional deity, but is this not the same thing as axioms? Universal constants and things like gravity are assumed because they have been proven within our realms of perception. 1 obviously never equals one since there is no such thing as universal equality, and nothing can ever be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt so is science not just a replacement religion? How do we know there is nothing that transcends science? Religion seems ludicrous but think of Plato's allegory of the cave, the sunlight seemed ludicrous to those that had not seen it, so is science really the better alternative to religion?
Alright, my opinion on this is that both religion and science are both only the best explanations people can come up with. I think many scientists know that they will never know everything but may make the mistake of thinking that what they have found to be true has to be true. Supporters of religion are even worse in that they believe theyve for the most part found all the truth there is to find. You are correct in stating that there may be things beyond our perception which science cannot touch, but i think really (though most likely contrary to the beliefs of most supporters of religion) that religion is the same way. People have limits to what they can understand and that is why they're human and not god or something, but my point is that in either science or religion we cannot understand things that are just beyond our human abilities. In science it would be things that we cannot perceive and in religion it could be something like the concept of god which of course is going to be beyond our understanding. Both religion and science are only attempts at finding the truth and i think if you are wise at all you will remember that, even with science, it is only the best we can do and that doesnt mean that it encompasses all of reality. We have to look at what reality is for us because if there are things beyond our possible understanding, they dont really ever matter anyway. You can speculate all day on what god can do but its really pointless because hes god and can do anything i.e. he is beyond our understanding and you either believe it or not. So religion and science are alike in that they attempt to go as far as human knowledge can (though in religious cases in the abrahamic faiths believers dont much acknowledge human knowledge limitations, but just consider what they believe complete truth). Never should religion or science be considered the full truth, but only an attempt at learning all we CAN learn.
Re:is science limiting to reality?
« Reply #3 on: 2005-06-01 23:48:41 »
This question seems to hit on the very ideas I was just thinking about earlier today, and I movie I just saw. I just graduated highschool and my friends and I got together to have a Halo/Halo2 LAN party, and we watched the Exorcist. I know if you havnt seen it before you probably think that the Exorcist is just a scary movie, thats what I thought at least; but one of the certral ideas of the movie is the inadequacy of either science or religion to solve the problem at hand: a young girl's mental disorder/possession by the devil.
The movie makes a satire of both science and religion in how they both think they know the answers, and how their answers fall short of solving the problem at hand. One man, who is a doctor and a preist (very knowledged in both science and religion) ends up solving the problem by focusing on the self -- what I consider to be the middleground between the two extremes. He calls the disorder/devil out of the girl into himself, and kills the devil along with his self. There are things to suggest that he, the girl, and the viewer of the movie are all misperceiving things and that it is possible that the girl does just have a mental disorder (ex. non holy water hurting her as if it is holy water) but all of what you see screams that it really is the devil inside of the girl. The scientists ignore a lot of the things wrong with her, and they cant figure it out although the main preist guy does offer a possible explaination psycologically. The other experienced preist who has performed an exorcism before begins exorcising the girl, gets through with one session, but it could take over a month for the exorcism to work.
Both ways limit reality- reality only really extends from the self into what you make of the things you perceive.
Re:is science limiting to reality?
« Reply #4 on: 2005-06-02 17:11:41 »
Quote:
Theoretically, however, there exists the possibility of concepts that we may not even be capable of conceiving, which may influence things in our perceptual realm. What this means is that something that we see may in fact be explained by something we can neither see nor conceive of.
I sometimes consider this possibility. And science is not always right, as we discover new things all the time that refute old scientific claims. When it comes to science and religion, however, I place higher value on science because the scientific method is, as i see it, the most rational way to come to conclusions about the universe.
I think science will allow us to discover all of the universe that is comprehensible to us. If we are not capable of conceiving of something, I don't think that it can be discovered using non scientific methods.
Re:is science limiting to reality?
« Reply #5 on: 2005-06-03 10:14:27 »
Here are some thoughts I had, for whatever it's worth.
[Neurovurt] Simply put, the ultimate goal of science is to be able to explain everything. Theoretically, however, there exists the possibility of concepts that we may not even be capable of conceiving, which may influence things in our perceptual realm. What this means is that something that we see may in fact be explained by something we can neither see nor conceive of.
[rhinoceros] There is something ironic in a concept which cannot be conceived (why would we call is a concept?), but yes, let's ride along with it and see if it gets us anywhere or not (btw, this is something which scientists do). Let's say that there may be things in the underlying reality which are beyond our comprehension in any way that we are capable of.
I think it was Kant who first examined seriously the question of our cognitive limitations in his "Critique of Pure Reason."
The background: "Pure Reason" was Descarte's brainchild: (a) His famous line "I think, therefore I am," and (b) his confidence in reason which miraculously made this line of enquiry valid. He went as far as considering the reliability of reason a proof of God as a "guarantor of reason". On the other end we had the English empiricism (Locke, Hume etc.) To sum it up in a somehow crude quote of John Locke, "There’s nothing in the intellect that wasn’t previously in the senses."
Kant's idea for synthesizing these views was: What we perceive is defined by the way we are built. To quote from the Wikipedia entry:
<quote> In Kant's view, a priori intuitions provide the framework that allows us to construct a posteriori knowledge. For example, Kant argues that space and time are not part of what we might regard as objective reality, but are part of the apparatus of perception. In other words, space and time are a form of seeing. <end quote>
Now, what do we do in practice? When (or if) there is something in the underlying reality which is beyond our reach, the question is whether it causes any effects or not. If it doesn't, science has nothing to talk about -- it makes no difference. If it does cause some effects, then science has a "black box" problem to solve. We don't know what's inside the black box but we know that if we do one thing to the box then we get a certain response. We use our abilities for metaphor to model the inside of the box into something within the reach of our perception, with which we can work. So, although nobody has seen "energy", for example, we measure it every day as if it was a patch of land or a sack of potatoes.
You wonder if it is possible that "something that we see may in fact be explained by something we can neither see nor conceive of"? In theory it sounds possible. Now... how would that be manifested in practice? Would we see random effects which we are unable to model in any way, causal or statistical? Perhaps we have already encountered such effects and we haven't realized it? I don't see much hope in answering this question, because it is formulated in such a way that, by definition, it cannot be resolved with the scientific method. Besides keeping trying, I can't see anything else we could do. I would love to hear any ideas, but of course I wouldn't take any just-so god claim for an answer.
[Neurovurt] If you are a scientist, chances are you disagree with this fundamentally. My question is, how can you be so sure that science is "right." Is it only because we've defined the word "right" to adhere to science?
[rhinoceros] "Science" may mean the scientific method or the body of knowledge we have. The body of scientific knowledge we have is not necessarily right in all details. It evolves. The scientific method is "right" in the sense that it seeks stuff which works. Intuition, modelling, testing... what else could one do to establish stuff that works? Or what could one leave out as too restrictive?
[Neurovurt] We have come to define reality as within the scope of science, but there is no need for this to be true other than the fact that we defined it as such.
So, what do you folks think? Is there more to reality than science? If so are we able to discover it? If not, how can you be so sure?
[rhinoceros] Not all scientists identify "reality" with what we can measure and perceive. The question of the "underlying reality" belongs to philosophy rather than science, and scientist have different metaphysical and ontological views. Many scientists just refuse to address the question of the "underlying reality" when they wear their lab coat, and leave it for other times (if at all). I think that if there is more to reality than science we will never know -- if we can know, then we are back to science.
[benway] OK this is my first post but I wanted to expand upon what Neurovurt was asking. Most scientists reject religion on the basis of no proof and seem adamant that theist just blindly follow a fictional deity, but is this not the same thing as axioms?
[rhinoceros] Empirical science gives no proof. It is tentative. If you drop something a million times and it falls on the ground, there is no proof that the next time it will fall on the ground too. But science does demand something: falsifiability. The theory must allow anyone to try to prove it wrong by dropping something on the ground (with no tricks and no strings) and showing, for example, that it can go up even once.
By the way, in empirical sciences, the logic with "proof" goes like this: (a) If you make a universal claim (like "this is always true"), it can't be proved and it is not expected to. It can only be disproved (falsified) by just showing one instance that it is not true. Allowing falsification is, according to Karl Popper, what distinguishes science from metaphysics. A proper scientific theory must answer the question "What must I do to prove you wrong?" (b) But if you make an existential claim (like "this thing exists") it can't be disporoved. You can't know that the green unicorn or the tooth fairy does not exist somewhere, somehow. You can only prove it by showing one.
About axioms: In science, axioms alone do not tell us anything. They are part of a theory which has (a) logical coherence and (b) empirical grounding. Most times they can replaced with other statements of the theoretical model, with no harm to the model. So, axioms do not necessarily make a fundamental claim about reality; they can be seen as convenient intuitive starting points. An isolated random assertion would be useless as an axiom in science.
[benway] Universal constants and things like gravity are assumed because they have been proven within our realms of perception. 1 obviously never equals one since there is no such thing as universal equality, and nothing can ever be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt so is science not just a replacement religion?
[rhinoceros] If the theory of gravity is to be disproved (actually theories of gravity have already been disproved or revised) it is only because a scientific theory always allows for disproving. Scientist have been as open minded and imaginative as anyone, if not more, but they usually demand from a discussion to get somewhere. Imagine what an alternative approach would be like. Religion? Does it allow itself to be found wrong? If not, how is any progress to be made?
A short digression: About the "1 equals one" question, maths do not belong to the empirical sciences, neither are they confined to reality. They are self-consistent conceptual systems used for modelling. Some people have been mystified by their universal applicability (Descarte's "proof of God" as the guarantor of logic is such a case). You can find several views on this here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_mathematics <quote> The starting point for this was Eugene Wigner's famous 1960 paper "The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences", in which he argued the happy coincidence that mathematics and physics were so well matched, seemed to be "unreasonable" and hard to explain. The embodied-mind or "cognitive" school and the "social" school were responses to this challenge. <end snip>
Lakoff's idea of "embodied mathmatics" in his book "Where mathematics comes from: How the embodied mind brings mathematics into being" is an interesting one which bears some resemblance with Kant's idea of how our physical build, brain, perception, senses define and limit what and how we can know. Perhaps our logic and mathematics is based on our perception of the world as separate, persistent, identifiable objects. Perhaps aliens who have a different perception of the electon clouds and the probability waves which comprise the world have developed their own, totally different, self-consistent logic and mathematics, which may translate to ours or not.
[benway] How do we know there is nothing that transcends science? Religion seems ludicrous but think of Plato's allegory of the cave, the sunlight seemed ludicrous to those that had not seen it, so is science really the better alternative to religion?
[rhinoceros] As I claimed, scientists are no less imaginative than other people -- probably more. They just demand from a discussion to get somewhere. Speaking of Plato's cave, see, for example this related piece by Michio Kaku on string theory.
Re:is science limiting to reality?
« Reply #6 on: 2005-06-03 10:52:15 »
[rhinoceros] There is something ironic in a concept which cannot be conceived (why would we call is a concept?), but yes, let's ride along with it and see if it gets us anywhere or not (btw, this is something which scientists do).
[Lucifer] I think the implication was a concept that no human can currently conceive. It is fairly easy to imagine such a beast. There are concepts that humans can conceive that no (non-human) animal can. There are concepts that only very smart humans can conceive that most cannot.
Quote:
"Anyone who says that they understand Quantum Mechanics does not understand Quantum Mechanics"-Richard Feynman
By extrapolation you can imagine a concept that only an AI or an alien that is very much smarter than any human can conceive. Perhaps in the future some humans will have their intelligence artificially enhanced to the point where they too can grasp the concept, but there will likely always be (hypothetical) ideas so complex that they are out of reach.
Re:is science limiting to reality?
« Reply #7 on: 2005-06-03 11:24:32 »
All scientific theories are models that capture some aspect of (objective) reality. Think of it as a portrait painted or sculpted by an artist. The portrait can never capture every aspect of the subject, but it may convey something important or relevant about the subject. If a model captured every aspect of the subject, it would be identical to the subject and could no longer be called a model. Models are necessarily simplifications of the subject, but a good model allows you to understand and predict the subject.
Some models describe the same subject better than other models. Both Newton and Einstein created mathematical models describing the nature of intereactions between force, mass, space and time. Newton's model is simpler but Einstein's is more accurate. Which is better? It depends whether you want simplicity or accuracy.
Is it possible that there are aspects of reality that can't be modelled? Yes, if there are aspects that can't be detected. But that isn't a problem since if it can't be detected then it can't have any effect on us whatsoever. Or if it does have an effect, then it can be detected (at least indirectly) and it can be modelled.
Are there hypothetical models that we can't create? Almost certainly humans don't have the intellectual capacity to create some more sophisticated models that more accurate than the ones we have. But as I mentioned before accuracy is not the only criterion. Actually our current model of quantum mechanics is already too complex for anyone to understand, but it is extremely accurate and therefore extremely useful.
Author
Logged
