Is science overrated?

[Swami]

I am often told that science is the greatest tool for knowledge. Then I notice that scientists admit not having a consensus when it comes to the origin of the Universe, origin of life, origin of consciousness, and if there is life after death.

Why can't scientists answer these questions?

Please feel free to provide any book references that provide clarity on these topics. Thank you. Cheers

[benchwarmer]

Or to put it another way, science cannot explain the non-existent. For that you need theology.

Did science prove X to be non-existent? Or, is this yet another empty assertion by the naturalist.

I got my money on the latter.

Perhaps you missed the word 'explain'. Nobody said or implied science proved X to be non-existent so you are tilting at a windmill made out of straw.

[benchwarmer]

If you see Casper then there is something detectable for science to investigate.

Ok, so please explain to me what experiment can you conduct...which will adequately explain how a ghost is able to float through a solid wall.

Go ahead, explain. Do the science.

You see, all of this "we can do this, we can do that. It works like this, it happens this way, etc, etc etc".

All of that stuff sounds good.

But when it comes to actually putting those words to "work"...and doing the actual "science" to back up the "it happens this way" talk..they (naturalists) got NOTHING.

It is all just talk.

That was a nice rant, but you are missing the point. If we are able to observe something i.e. a ghost, then by definition we can conduct science.

If we can't observe ghosts, then of course we can't study them. Just like all god concepts. It's hard to observe an imaginary character.

Let's say for the sake of argument, that you are observing what appears to be a ghost floating through a wall. You have 2 main options:

1) Just assume it's a ghost and be happy with that explanation. i.e. make something up and declare it to be true.

2) Attempt to study the phenomenon and figure out what it really is.

Clearly (2) is science. How would the experiment go? Well, for starters you would place all kinds of cameras pointed at the wall where the ghost is appearing including infrared/ultraviolet/visible wavelengths. You would also probably setup microphones, electromagnetic detection devices, temperature probes, etc. Whatever you can think of to measure what's going on. You will also want to examine the rest of the room for projectors, etc to make sure someone isn't pulling a fast one on you. You should also examine the wall and what's behind it. X-ray the wall. In other words, use every method you can think of to allow observation of all known phenomenon. If you can see this thing with your eyes (which are just detectors of visible electromagnetic radiation), the other instruments should pick something up as well. Unless of course you are just hallucinating. Also a valid thing to rule out via brain scans, etc.

Gee, that seems like a whole lot of stuff that can actually be done. Hardly the NOTHING you speak of.

Assuming this ghost is subsequently observed with some instruments, further study can be done depending on what was detected. Only once the 'ghost' is explained can we even begin to explain how it "goes through a wall". Maybe it's not going through the wall at all. Maybe it just appears gradually on this side of the wall. Ever think of that? In other words, stop making wild assumptions about what's going on and guessing and use the scientific method to figure it out. Unless you enjoy guessing and stopping there.

[Swami]

[Replying to post 30 by For_The_Kingdom]

For_The_Kingdom: "If there is no 'stuff', there is no 'science'."

Or to put it another way, science cannot explain the non-existent. For that you need theology.

People tend to get the impression that scientists have it all figured out based on all of the technological advancements and knowledge we've gained. But when you compare it to what we don't know, it is there that you realize that science is not as dominant over religion as people think. The important questions, although being a few, far outweigh the many questions that science has answered.

Think big picture.

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 47 by For_The_Kingdom]

Ok, so please explain to me what experiment can you conduct...which will adequately explain how a ghost is able to float through a solid wall.

There are no such things as ghosts. Designing experiments to detect the imaginary is a waste of time.

[For_The_Kingdom]

[Replying to post 49 by William]

Bro, with all due respect..this isn't the first time that I haven't the SLIGHTEST idea what you are talking about. You lost me from the very first sentence..."Consciousness is where the consciousness comes from".

......

[For_The_Kingdom]

Or to put it another way, science cannot explain the non-existent. For that you need theology.

Did science prove X to be non-existent? Or, is this yet another empty assertion by the naturalist.

I got my money on the latter.

Perhaps you missed the word 'explain'. Nobody said or implied science proved X to be non-existent so you are tilting at a windmill made out of straw.

Oh, my bad. Since I never said anything about "science explaining the nonexistent", I assumed the statement meant something else and a straw man wasn't being hand-crafted.

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 52 by Razorsedge]

People tend to get the impression that scientists have it all figured out based on all of the technological advancements and knowledge we've gained.

No scientist would claim to 'have it all figured out". That's just a furphy pushed by some theists in their effort to discredit science. It's rather telling that the technological advancements and knowledge you speak of have been gained by application of the scientific method. Religion has often deliberately stood in the way of that progress.

But when you compare it to what we don't know, it is there that you realize that science is not as dominant over religion as people think. The important questions, although being a few, far outweigh the many questions that science has answered.

No one denies that. On the other hand, religion hasn't actually answered any questions at all. God is just an invented answer.

[For_The_Kingdom]

That was a nice rant, but you are missing the point. If we are able to observe something i.e. a ghost, then by definition we can conduct science.

If you can't give me what I ask for, then why are you speaking on the matter?


Let's say for the sake of argument, that you are observing what appears to be a ghost floating through a wall. You have 2 main options:

1) Just assume it's a ghost and be happy with that explanation. i.e. make something up and declare it to be true.

2) Attempt to study the phenomenon and figure out what it really is.

Clearly (2) is science. How would the experiment go? Well, for starters you would place all kinds of cameras pointed at the wall where the ghost is appearing including infrared/ultraviolet/visible wavelengths. You would also probably setup microphones, electromagnetic detection devices, temperature probes, etc. Whatever you can think of to measure what's going on. You will also want to examine the rest of the room for projectors, etc to make sure someone isn't pulling a fast one on you. You should also examine the wall and what's behind it. X-ray the wall. In other words, use every method you can think of to allow observation of all known phenomenon. If you can see this thing with your eyes (which are just detectors of visible electromagnetic radiation), the other instruments should pick something up as well. Unless of course you are just hallucinating. Also a valid thing to rule out via brain scans, etc.

Gee, that seems like a whole lot of stuff that can actually be done. Hardly the NOTHING you speak of.Assuming this ghost is subsequently observed with some instruments, further study can be done depending on what was detected. Only once the 'ghost' is explained can we even begin to explain how it "goes through a wall". Maybe it's not going through the wall at all. Maybe it just appears gradually on this side of the wall. Ever think of that? In other words, stop making wild assumptions about what's going on and guessing and use the scientific method to figure it out. Unless you enjoy guessing and stopping there.

Um, no. First of all, you are giving hypothethicals...giving scenarios such as someone pulling a fast one, hallucinations, and other stuff. No need for all of that. In my scenario, it is an actual GHOST. It is conclusively a ghost. So we bypass all of that other junk. Got it?

Now, I am simply asking you what experiment can you conduct which will adequately explain HOW the ghost is able to float through a solid wall.

We know it is a ghost, now how is it doing it? That is the task. Now, do you have an answer for me, sir?

[William]

[Replying to post 57 by For_The_Kingdom]

We know it is a ghost, now how is it doing it? That is the task. Now, do you have an answer for me, sir?

Actually, what I would be questioning is not how the ghost managers to float through solid objects, but HOW it managed to be seen as a material manifestation.
Maybe it didn't purposefully try and be seen but the individual witnessing it somehow managed to do so through some kind of ability. Maybe the ghost didn't even realize it had been seen, or if so - either thought that the person seeing it had some ability to do so, or maybe thought it had the ability itself, but didn't know how it was able to?

I would consider these kinds of things to be the way to approach the scenario scientifically - in a scientific manner...

[Swami]

No one denies that. On the other hand, religion hasn't actually answered any questions at all. God is just an invented answer.

Not necessarily. Your statement just shows why there needs to be a meeting between the Eastern way of thinking and West. Many scientists search for God in the laboratory or expect him or it to conform to those settings. Such approach is an obvious failure. The answer lies in experience and practice. Try doing 'field research'.

Field research:
"Field research or fieldwork is the collection of raw data outside a laboratory, library, or workplace setting. The approaches and methods used in field research vary across disciplines. For example, biologists who conduct field research may simply observe animals interacting with their environments, whereas social scientists conducting field research may interview or observe people in their natural environments to learn their languages, folklore, and social structures.

Field research involves a range of well-defined, although variable, methods: informal interviews, direct observation, participation in the life of the group, collective discussions, analyses of personal documents produced within the group, self-analysis, results from activities undertaken off- or on-line, and life-histories. Although the method generally is characterized as qualitative research, it may (and often does) include quantitative dimensions. "
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_research

I emphasized "participation" because it's what I find that many atheists are unwilling to do. When you actually practice (meditate/pray, etc.) and experience for yourself instead of expecting for theists to hand you debate arguments then you should come back and give me your perspective.