Science is limited

[livingwordlabels]

Science, by definition, can only accept something which can be proven or tested in some way. It is therefore limited to making conclusions about physical things.
I'm not saying this limitation undermines science as a valid and extremely useful source of knowledge. However, what does undermine its reliability is when people use it to make assumptions and conclusions without acknowledging this limitation.

For example, when people try to use their scientific way of thinking to decide whether God exists or not. God is spiritual, not physical - a concept completely alien to science.

Also when people use only what they can observe to explain how mankind was created. This inevitably fails, as they have to limit life to something physical and we get the absurd idea of life evolving out of matter. The Bible offers us a more plausible explanation - that God created man from the dust of the ground and breathed into him the breath of life. If we believe the Bible, we can see that humans are spiritual as well as physical.

My conclusion? If you want to understand God, how we were made, our purpose for living, our relationship with God and even our future, then you need something more than science.

[JohnA]

...Well. State your argument then. Can you do this - in P and C format?
You can not move forward if you have no argument to support your claim. We have not even got close to evidence as yet.
I merely took what you wrote to extract that argument. Am not going to use or if you are not 100% happy with it.

I was giving examples, not making a formal argument. But if you want a more formal argument, here goes:

1. Humans are complex beings, with a variety of interests and abilities and approaches to knowledge.
2. Science constitutes one field of interest for some humans.
3. Art, music, literature, philosophy, ethics, religion are other fields of interest for some humans.
4. Science is distinct from such fields as art, music, literature, philosophy, ethics, religion.
5. Therefore, science is limited, since not all humans are interested in it, and not all humans have an aptitude for it.

Moreover,

A. Science depends on abstract principles and assumptions which cannot be proven.
B. Science cannot address metaphysical concerns.
C. Science deals with regularities and probabilities and predictions. It is descriptive, not prescriptive.
D. Science is always adapting to new information. There appears to be no end to the supply of new information. We do not have, and never will have, a theory of everything.
E. Therefore, science is limited.

OK, great. Seems like you have two arguments (am just rewriting it with P and C):

ARGUMENT A:
P1. Humans are complex beings, with a variety of interests and abilities and approaches to knowledge.
P2. Science constitutes one field of interest for some humans.
P3. Art, music, literature, philosophy, ethics, religion are other fields of interest for some humans.
P4. Science is distinct from such fields as art, music, literature, philosophy, ethics, religion.
C1. Therefore, science is limited, since not all humans are interested in it, and not all humans have an aptitude for it.


ARGUMENT B:
P1. Science depends on abstract principles and assumptions which cannot be proven.
P2. Science cannot address metaphysical concerns.
P3 Science deals with regularities and probabilities and predictions. It is descriptive, not prescriptive.
P4. Science is always adapting to new information. There appears to be no end to the supply of new information. We do not have, and never will have, a theory of everything.
C1. Therefore, science is limited.[/quote]


It seems to me that in Argument A, you have a premise in your conclusion. Maybe we should re-write it as:

ARGUMENT A:
P1. Humans are complex beings, with a variety of interests and abilities and approaches to knowledge.
P2. Science constitutes one field of interest for some humans.
P3. Art, music, literature, philosophy, ethics, religion are other fields of interest for some humans.
P4. Science is distinct from such fields as art, music, literature, philosophy, ethics, religion.
P5. Not all humans are interested in Science, and not all humans have an aptitude for it.
C1. Therefore, science is limited.


If you are happy with this, can we combine these two into one Argument?

P1. Humans are complex beings, with a variety of interests and abilities and approaches to knowledge.
P2. Science constitutes one field of interest for some humans.
P3. Art, music, literature, philosophy, ethics, religion are other fields of interest for some humans.
P4. Science is distinct from such fields as art, music, literature, philosophy, ethics, religion.
P5. Not all humans are interested in Science, and not all humans have an aptitude for it.
P6. Humans are complex beings, with a variety of interests and abilities and approaches to knowledge.
P7. Science constitutes one field of interest for some humans.
P8. Art, music, literature, philosophy, ethics, religion are other fields of interest for some humans.
P9. Science is distinct from such fields as art, music, literature, philosophy, ethics, religion.
P10. Not all humans are interested in Science, and not all humans have an aptitude for it.
C1. Therefore, science is limited.


If you are happy with that, then we can proceed.
The next step is that you need to convince me that your argument is both VALID and SOUND. If you do that, then I will except your conclusion (claim that science is limited).

Can you now convince me that your Argument is VALID (we will do the SOUND bit after the validity check)?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valid_argument
An argument is valid if and only if the truth of its premises entails the truth of its conclusion and each step, sub-argument, or logical operation in the argument is valid.

For example, I do not see how the truth of P1 justifies C1 at all. You may as well say: JohnA liked tomatoes, therefore science is limited. the fact that I like tomatoes hass nothing to do with the claim that science is limited. Can you go through each one of your Ps (premises) (assuming they are true) and convince me that they do indeed justify the C (science is limited).

My suggestion is that you read up on VALID arguments before you just answer. I gave you a link above, but you are most welcome to use any other reference to Valid Arguments (please just state it - just so that we avoid fallacies upfront).

Thank you.

[EduChris]

...ARGUMENT A:
P1. Humans are complex beings, with a variety of interests and abilities and approaches to knowledge.
P2. Science constitutes one field of interest for some humans.
P3. Art, music, literature, philosophy, ethics, religion are other fields of interest for some humans.
P4. Science is distinct from such fields as art, music, literature, philosophy, ethics, religion.
P5. Not all humans are interested in Science, and not all humans have an aptitude for it.
C1. Therefore, science is limited.


ARGUMENT B:
P1. Science depends on abstract principles and assumptions which cannot be proven.
P2. Science cannot address metaphysical concerns.
P3 Science deals with regularities and probabilities and predictions. It is descriptive, not prescriptive.
P4. Science is always adapting to new information. There appears to be no end to the supply of new information. We do not have, and never will have, a theory of everything.
C1. Therefore, science is limited.

I am happy enough with the two arguments as stated above. The arguments are separate and should not be conflated. Argument A deals with the fact that any human endeavor, because it is a human endeavor, is necessarily limited because humans are both limited and complex at the same time. Argument B, by contrast, deals with the intrinsic limitations of science, which would remain true even if an "ideal scientist" were invoked.

...The next step is that you need to convince me that your argument is both VALID and SOUND. If you do that, then I will except your conclusion (claim that science is limited)...An argument is valid if and only if the truth of its premises entails the truth of its conclusion and each step, sub-argument, or logical operation in the argument is valid.

For example, I do not see how the truth of P1 justifies C1 at all. You may as well say: JohnA liked tomatoes, therefore science is limited. the fact that I like tomatoes hass nothing to do with the claim that science is limited. Can you go through each one of your Ps (premises) (assuming they are true) and convince me that they do indeed justify the C (science is limited)...

I don't think that each and every one of the premises, taken separately, needs to justify the conclusion. If that were the case, then each premise would be an argument all by itself. Argument A, in that case, would actually amount to five distinct arguments, rather than just one argument.

For example:

P1) All men are mortal
P2) Jones is a man
C1) Jones is mortal

P1, all by itself, does not entail the conclusion. The conclusion is only justified if P1 and P2, taken together, are true.

[JohnA]

Are you denying that humans are responsible for the climate change and that it is harming the planet?

Are you denying that the planet is made up of multiple self correcting systems? A great may things are responsible for climate change; sunspots, magnetic polar shifts, plate tectonics, occasional meteors, the tilt on the axis and yes, the activities of the various life forms. Framing the other persons argument as denial, presumes one's own position to have been established as correct. That is bad form.

Even if we are irreparably changing the climate, there are other factors related that human life that need to be taken into consideration, ie that ability to change human behavior on a global scale, the nature of our economy and the practicality of the alternatives. These are my points, there are too many factors both environmental and political for science to provide the answers in cases like this.

You have not answered my question.

Are you denying that humans are responsible for the climate change and that it is harming the planet?

As a suggestion, your answer could take the format of:
Yes, humans are not causing climate change. or
No, humans are causing climate change.
You do not know, but you reject the evidence that says humans are causing climate change.


Thank you.

As I said, I am not denying what is not established. I am asserting that humans, as organisms within the multiple systems that make up the biosphere of the earth, effect those systems. Are humans responsible for changes in the biosphere? Responsible to whom? Responsibility is a value judgment and thus is beyond the scope of science. KÄ«lauea is not responsible for the lava flows in Hawaii. It is the proximate cause of those lava flows.

Is man the proximate cause of "climate change"? One can not say because that phrase is so ill defined. It has been insisted here that "climate change" is not weather. Yet, it is weather that is being used as the boogieman to sell the concept. Is human activity the proximate cause of Hurricane Sandy? No. Is human activity A cause of increases in the average of temperatures on earth. Yes, human activity has effected the climate as long as there have been humans. Is human activity the proximate cause of increases in the average of temperatures on earth. There are way too many factors to determine that.

I am not asking if humans are the ONLY cause of climate change, that would be just absurd for me to neglect natural processes. I am saying
that humans are currently contributing more to climate change than what they did in the past, and that is what I mean by "Humans are causing climate change".
By 'climate change' I mean: a faster shift in weather conditions than under natural processes - over longer periods.
By 'responsible' I mean: humans are to blame because they are now contributing more to this than the past and that this increased contribution has negative effects on earth and on humans currently and for the future (if these naughty humans do not reduce their contribution to climate change)


From your response I'm understanding that you are saying:
You do not know if humans are causing climate change. That it because you say that it can not be determined.

1) Are you saying there is an increased climate change (compared to historical evidence) - but you do not know if human are the cause? or
2) Are you saying there is no increased climate change - it is just all natural processes?

If you ay 1), can you tell you why you think the the research into this ('climate change' now vs the past) can not/and will not answer if "Humans are causing climate change"?

[JohnA]

...ARGUMENT A:
P1. Humans are complex beings, with a variety of interests and abilities and approaches to knowledge.
P2. Science constitutes one field of interest for some humans.
P3. Art, music, literature, philosophy, ethics, religion are other fields of interest for some humans.
P4. Science is distinct from such fields as art, music, literature, philosophy, ethics, religion.
P5. Not all humans are interested in Science, and not all humans have an aptitude for it.
C1. Therefore, science is limited.


ARGUMENT B:
P1. Science depends on abstract principles and assumptions which cannot be proven.
P2. Science cannot address metaphysical concerns.
P3 Science deals with regularities and probabilities and predictions. It is descriptive, not prescriptive.
P4. Science is always adapting to new information. There appears to be no end to the supply of new information. We do not have, and never will have, a theory of everything.
C1. Therefore, science is limited.

I am happy enough with the two arguments as stated above. The arguments are separate and should not be conflated. Argument A deals with the fact that any human endeavor, because it is a human endeavor, is necessarily limited because humans are both limited and complex at the same time. Argument B, by contrast, deals with the intrinsic limitations of science, which would remain true even if an "ideal scientist" were invoked.

...The next step is that you need to convince me that your argument is both VALID and SOUND. If you do that, then I will except your conclusion (claim that science is limited)...An argument is valid if and only if the truth of its premises entails the truth of its conclusion and each step, sub-argument, or logical operation in the argument is valid.

For example, I do not see how the truth of P1 justifies C1 at all. You may as well say: JohnA liked tomatoes, therefore science is limited. the fact that I like tomatoes hass nothing to do with the claim that science is limited. Can you go through each one of your Ps (premises) (assuming they are true) and convince me that they do indeed justify the C (science is limited)...

I don't think that each and every one of the premises, taken separately, needs to justify the conclusion. If that were the case, then each premise would be an argument all by itself. Argument A, in that case, would actually amount to five distinct arguments, rather than just one argument.

For example:

P1) All men are mortal
P2) Jones is a man
C1) Jones is mortal

P1, all by itself, does not entail the conclusion. The conclusion is only justified if P1 and P2, taken together, are true.

But your P1 does entail the conclusion: e.g. the word "mortal" is in P1 and C1.
Each and every one of the premises, taken separately, needs to justify or entail the conclusion. It would not make it 5 arguments, because you need at least 2 Ps and one C for an argument (you can not have an argument with just one P and one C).
Your argument needs to be VALID and SOUND for it to support a claim (to convince me).


I think you are a little confused with Validity of arguments. Is the below a valid argument or not, and why?

All men are mortal.
Jones is mortal.
Therefore, Jones is a man.

I am questioning the Validity of your argument because it seems to be that your logical form is not correct. EACH of the premises needs to induce or justify a conclusion (NOT only the all Ps taken together, they will be if each P does).

Consider the Argument Form:
All H are M.
S is H.
Therefore, S is M

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_form
A premise is a statement that an argument claims will induce OR justify a conclusion. The above shows it clearly.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Premise

I am also questioning your premises, because I am not convinced they entail or justify the conclusion.


Now let's look at your argument again:

P1. Humans are complex beings, with a variety of interests and abilities and approaches to knowledge.
P2. Science constitutes one field of interest for some humans.
P3. Art, music, literature, philosophy, ethics, religion are other fields of interest for some humans.
P4. Science is distinct from such fields as art, music, literature, philosophy, ethics, religion.
P5. Not all humans are interested in Science, and not all humans have an aptitude for it.
C1. Therefore, science is limited.

How does P1 entail or justify the conclusion?

Why not just say:

P1. JohnA liked tomatoes
P2
P3
....
C1: Therefore science is limited

or:

P1. X are complex things
P2.
P3.
P4.
P5.
C1. Therefore, Y is limited.

Argument A deals with the fact that any human endeavor, because it is a human endeavor, is necessarily limited because humans are both limited and complex at the same time.

So, your argument A deals with humans that are limited, not science that is limited? You your are admitting that your conclusion does not follow from any of your premises.

If so, then I reject Argument A because it does not support your claim (science is limited).

[EduChris]

...For example:

P1) All men are mortal
P2) Jones is a man
C1) Jones is mortal

P1, all by itself, does not entail the conclusion. The conclusion is only justified if P1 and P2, taken together, are true.

But your P1 does entail the conclusion: e.g. the word "mortal" is in P1 and C1.
Each and every one of the premises, taken separately, needs to justify or entail the conclusion...

The P1 of my example does not, by itself, entail C1, as you seem to think. The reason for this is that nowhere does P1 assert that "Jones" is a man. For all we know, "Jones" might refer to a statue of someone's favorite horse.

[JohnA]

...For example:

P1) All men are mortal
P2) Jones is a man
C1) Jones is mortal

P1, all by itself, does not entail the conclusion. The conclusion is only justified if P1 and P2, taken together, are true.

But your P1 does entail the conclusion: e.g. the word "mortal" is in P1 and C1.
Each and every one of the premises, taken separately, needs to justify or entail the conclusion...

The P1 of my example does not, by itself, entail C1, as you seem to think. The reason for this is that nowhere does P1 assert that "Jones" is a man. For all we know, "Jones" might refer to a statue of someone's favorite horse.

You are merely confusing VALID with SOUND arguments.

Consider:
All P are Q.
S is a P.
Therefore, S is a Q.

Rewritten as:
All men are mortal.
Jones is a man.
Therefore, Jones is mortal.


The argument is VALID (because the conclusion is true based on the premises, that is, that the conclusion follows the premises) and since the premises are in fact true (i.e. if your EVIDENCE that 'Jones is exist and is indeed a man' and that 'All men are mortal' are shown to be true), the argument is SOUND.
We will get the SOUND arguments once you can convince me your Argument B is VALID.


I think you are confused with Validity of arguments.
Is the below a valid argument or not, and why?

All men are mortal.
Jones is mortal.
Therefore, Jones is a man.

---------------------------------

Seems to me you agree we can dismiss Argument A.

Can you convince me that Argument B is VALID?

The floor is yours.

[EduChris]

...Seems to me you agree we can dismiss Argument A...The floor is yours.

I'm not following your logic at all. If you want me to simply Argument A, here goes:

P1. All humans endeavors are limited
P2. Science is a human endeavor
C1. Science is limited

[10CC]

...Seems to me you agree we can dismiss Argument A...The floor is yours.

I'm not following your logic at all. If you want me to simply Argument A, here goes:

P1. All humans endeavors are limited
P2. Science is a human endeavor
C1. Science is limited

P1. All humans endeavors are limited
P2. Religion is a human endeavor
C1. Religion is limited

[EduChris]

[Replying to post 178 by 10CC]
Let me rephrase:

P1. All strictly human endeavors are limited
P2. Science is a strictly human endeavor
C1. Science is limited

Now with respect to your proposal, most people would argue that the whole point of any religion is that it is not a strictly human endeavor; somehow, and in some fashion, the Divine is associated with the purpose and practice and rationale of the religion. To the extent that this is the case, your P2 is flawed, thus rendering your argument invalid.

[JohnA]

...Seems to me you agree we can dismiss Argument A...The floor is yours.

I'm not following your logic at all. If you want me to simply Argument A, here goes:

P1. All humans endeavors are limited
P2. Science is a human endeavor
C1. Science is limited

I'm not following your logic at all.

I rejected that previous Argument A because you said:

Argument A deals with the fact that any human endeavor, because it is a human endeavor, is necessarily limited because humans are both limited and complex at the same time.

I then gave you my reason why I reject your argument A based on your above statement:
"So, your argument A deals with humans that are limited, not science that is limited? You your are admitting that your conclusion does not follow from any of your premises.

If so, then I reject Argument A because it does not support your claim (science is limited)."

Notice, I asked for clarification from you. It seems like you accepted this because you now offer a new version of your Argument A.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Your new argument is not VALID.

P1. All strictly human endeavors are limited
P2. Science is a strictly human endeavor
C1. Science is limited

Your premises includes and entails the conclusion; the Argument Form is not valid. It is begging the question. You state what you try to conclude. The problem is with the word "endeavor" because it means "try hard to do or achieve something" which means it does not achieve it, only tries to. An endeavor is therefore limited in itself, a statement of limitation, by definition.

Your argument can be reduced to:
P1. All Limitations are Limited
P2. S is a Limitation
C1. S is Limited

You may as well say:
P1. All strictly human endeavors are limited
P2. X is a strictly human endeavor
C1. X is limited


And I think you are still confusing VALIDITY with SOUNDNESS.
To do a VALIDITY check of an argument, you assume the premises are true to check is the premises entail or justify the conclusion and that the Argument Form is valid.
If it passes this VALIDITY check, then you check for SOUNDNESS.
This is where you employ evidence again, but this time for the premises. You use evidence to show that each premise is not false. If you can, then the argument is SOUND.

Besides, running a 10km race and completing it is NOT a Limited endeavor, because you completed the race. If you did not complete the 10km race, then it would be a limited endeavor.
And yes, we have evidence that Religions are man made: Scientology, Mormon, Christianity (and its thousands of denominations), Islam, Judaism, etc. And we have evidence that they are limited because of the fact that there are so many of them, they are contradictory, they all can not be true because the pontificate different truth claims.

Want another go?