Limits of Scientific Inquiry

[McCulloch]

Science does not have all the answers. It never did, and it never will.

Question for debate: What are the limits to scientific inquiry? Specifically, what answers would be impossible to address scientifically? What, if any, valid means of inquiry are there to find these answers?

Please note, we are not talking about the current limits of our scientific knowledge, but on the theoretical limits of scientific inquiry.

[cnorman18]

The basics or extremes are clear enough; life is generally better than death, pain is generally better than no pain. The objectives are as scientific as the science of making paint or carving stone. But the desirability and "good" or "bad" of the final result, particularly in non-extreme or complex cases, are inalterably fuzzy, in my opinion.

The sciences of anthropology, economics and biology necessarily have areas of a certain amount of fuzziness. Yet, no one claims that these fields cannot be studied scientifically.

Did I?

What is good and what is bad can be both easy and difficult to define. Good is that which increases well-being. Bad the opposite. The difficulty lies in measuring, estimating or otherwise determining well-being.

Even if we could measure pain, that doesn't solve the problem of ethics.

I never said that it would. My point about the current lack of an objective measure of pain is that this lack does not prohibit scientists from studying methods of pain management.

And again, I never said so. I said that fields which depend "on axioms that are human constructs -- right and wrong, for instance, or metaphysical thought in general" -- may not be accessible to science. Pain is not one of those things; it clearly and objectively exists. Ethical concepts, including the "right" and "wrong" of medical treatment in a particular case -- not so much. Those are human mental constructs, though, as I also said, that doesn't make them "false." "Nonexistent" in an objective sense, maybe; but that's not the same thing.

Medical treatment sometimes involves pain. How much is permissible? Any amount? Doesn't that answer vary from person to person, and doesn't that render it subjective?

Of course. Good science recognizes individual differences. Take the science of nutrition. Depending on various conditions, allergies, development stage and even personal preferences, the scientific advise of a nutritionist will vary.

Take the case of my own client from last year, for instance. Alzheimer's and cancer. How does one quantify and objectivize whether chemotherapy is beneficial enough to warrant extension of life, when one must simultaneously judge, in advance, the potential quality of that life?

I don't know. Do you? I just don't share your pessimism that such decisions will forever be a shot in the dark.

I don't think that ethical decisions (including, as I said, medical treatment in particular cases), or any other decisions that aren't determinable by objective science, are necessarily "a shot in the dark" -- and I certainly don't think my point of view amounts to "pessimism." Indeed, I'd say that that characterization betrays an unprovable value judgment on your own part -- that any thought or judgment not objectively provable by science is somehow "bad."

Ethical standards may not be objectively provable, but that's not the same as saying they don't exist at all or are necessarily false and invalid.

The experience of beauty, may, in the future, be quantified, yes; but that isn't what I'm talking about. The quality of beauty itself, as an attribute of an object or a person, is as different from the experience of it as the taste of food is from the recipe we use to make it. Those are related, but not identical. I love bananas; my Lynell hates them. She loves tomatoes; I find them nauseating. Same banana, same tomato.

You've confused me. On one hand you make reference to the quality of beauty as if it is an intrinsic characteristic of the thing perceived to be beautiful. But on the other hand, you argue that beauty is relative and subjective, equating it with the experience of beauty. What I claim is that what is experienced to be beautiful could in principle be scientifically explained. And yes, that explanation would have to take into account the effects of culture, and personal history of the subject.

How does one measure beauty itself, as opposed to reactions to it? If the reaction is all there is, why do we draw a distinction between "I don't care for this painting" and "that's a bad painting"? And don't tell me we don't; any art historian or critic knows better. Taste isn't the same as talent or artistry.

The difference is in how general the statement is. "I don't care for this painting" implies that there may be others who could in the understanding of the speaker, who would care for that painting. "That's a bad painting" on the other hand implies that the speaker cannot comprehend others appreciating the work, that he expects that his dislike for the painting to be almost universal. Obviously the science of art appreciation, if it is to be developed, would have to be able to find both the elements that have somewhat universal appeal as well as what makes certain individuals like this or that while others do not. While the first task, in itself, would be an incredibly daunting and complex task, the second would be hugely moreso.

I admit my being unclear on the subject of beauty; what I had in mind here was more the difference between recognizing that a painting is not to one's taste and the judgment that the artist has no talent or is an incompetent draftsman. The former is subjective, the latter may not be.

Maybe the comparison to food is more apropos; recipes are a matter of objective science and inarguable, while an individual's reactions to flavors are subjective. Even those reactions can be measured, though, so that might eventually be something that is scientifically quantifiable as well -- or might someday be, as we understand why people react to certain tastes (or paintings, for that matter).

But again, taste, paintings, and music actually exist. Do ethical standards, in an objective and measurable sense? I don't think so; those are concepts, pure mental constructs which do not objectively exist in the real world.

Do you really think that EVERYTHING is quantifiable and measurable?

In principle, yes. There may be practical barriers, but yes.[/quote]

To get back to the subject of this forum, I repeat:

Obviously, religious concepts are ALL human constructs; speculation, imagination, ideals. That doesn't make them "false," any more than any other speculation or imaginative construct of the mind is "false" on account of that only. "Not objectively real" is arguable, but that's not the same thing.

[McCulloch]

I said that fields which depend "on axioms that are human constructs -- right and wrong, for instance, or metaphysical thought in general" -- may not be accessible to science. Pain is not one of those things; it clearly and objectively exists. Ethical concepts, including the "right" and "wrong" of medical treatment in a particular case -- not so much. Those are human mental constructs, though, as I also said, that doesn't make them "false." "Nonexistent" in an objective sense, maybe; but that's not the same thing.

I disagree. I reject the arbitrary distinction between the realms of what is and what should be. How we should behave should be possible to analyze scientifically.

Take the case of my own client from last year, for instance. Alzheimer's and cancer. How does one quantify and objectivize whether chemotherapy is beneficial enough to warrant extension of life, when one must simultaneously judge, in advance, the potential quality of that life?

I don't know. Do you? I just don't share your pessimism that such decisions will forever be a shot in the dark.

I don't think that ethical decisions (including, as I said, medical treatment in particular cases), or any other decisions that aren't determinable by objective science, are necessarily "a shot in the dark" -- and I certainly don't think my point of view amounts to "pessimism." Indeed, I'd say that that characterization betrays an unprovable value judgment on your own part -- that any thought or judgment not objectively provable by science is somehow "bad."

Ethical standards may not be objectively provable, but that's not the same as saying they don't exist at all or are necessarily false and invalid.

I don't see the distinction between that which cannot be determined objectively and a guess, speculation or shot in the dark. We may not have yet developed the science to properly evaluate ethical standards, but that does not mean that they will be forever subjective.

Do ethical standards, in an objective and measurable sense? I don't think so; those are concepts, pure mental constructs which do not objectively exist in the real world.

I disagree. Ethical standards are ultimately about human well-being. Human well-being is really about human brain states.

Obviously, religious concepts are ALL human constructs; speculation, imagination, ideals. That doesn't make them "false," any more than any other speculation or imaginative construct of the mind is "false" on account of that only. "Not objectively real" is arguable, but that's not the same thing.

Yes, most of religion is beyond objective analysis. Ethics should be taken away from such systems of guessworking into more objective fields of study.

[cnorman18]

I said that fields which depend "on axioms that are human constructs -- right and wrong, for instance, or metaphysical thought in general" -- may not be accessible to science. Pain is not one of those things; it clearly and objectively exists. Ethical concepts, including the "right" and "wrong" of medical treatment in a particular case -- not so much. Those are human mental constructs, though, as I also said, that doesn't make them "false." "Nonexistent" in an objective sense, maybe; but that's not the same thing.

I disagree. I reject the arbitrary distinction between the realms of what is and what should be. How we should behave should be possible to analyze scientifically.

Take the case of my own client from last year, for instance. Alzheimer's and cancer. How does one quantify and objectivize whether chemotherapy is beneficial enough to warrant extension of life, when one must simultaneously judge, in advance, the potential quality of that life?

I don't know. Do you? I just don't share your pessimism that such decisions will forever be a shot in the dark.

I don't think that ethical decisions (including, as I said, medical treatment in particular cases), or any other decisions that aren't determinable by objective science, are necessarily "a shot in the dark" -- and I certainly don't think my point of view amounts to "pessimism." Indeed, I'd say that that characterization betrays an unprovable value judgment on your own part -- that any thought or judgment not objectively provable by science is somehow "bad."

Ethical standards may not be objectively provable, but that's not the same as saying they don't exist at all or are necessarily false and invalid.

I don't see the distinction between that which cannot be determined objectively and a guess, speculation or shot in the dark. We may not have yet developed the science to properly evaluate ethical standards, but that does not mean that they will be forever subjective.

Do ethical standards, in an objective and measurable sense? I don't think so; those are concepts, pure mental constructs which do not objectively exist in the real world.

I disagree. Ethical standards are ultimately about human well-being. Human well-being is really about human brain states.

Obviously, religious concepts are ALL human constructs; speculation, imagination, ideals. That doesn't make them "false," any more than any other speculation or imaginative construct of the mind is "false" on account of that only. "Not objectively real" is arguable, but that's not the same thing.

Yes, most of religion is beyond objective analysis. Ethics should be taken away from such systems of guessworking into more objective fields of study.

I'll concede everything but that last. Once an ethical standard is reached, it might very well be scientifically accessible; but can that standard itself be objectively and scientifically produced?

How do you scientifically and objectively prove whether or not capital punishment is immoral?

[McCulloch]

How do you scientifically and objectively prove whether or not capital punishment is immoral?

In principle, I think that it could be done. Do we have a better level of human well-being overall, in a society with or without capital punishment? If capital punishment is used, what safeguards should be put into place to provide assurances that the innocent are not put to death, thereby improving the feeling of well-being of the innocent against the fear of unjustified punishment? If not used, how best to provide assurances to the public that sociopaths will not re-offend? These and others are all questions which need to be asked and which I believe can be answered objectively and eventually scientifically.

[cnorman18]

How do you scientifically and objectively prove whether or not capital punishment is immoral?

In principle, I think that it could be done. Do we have a better level of human well-being overall, in a society with or without capital punishment? If capital punishment is used, what safeguards should be put into place to provide assurances that the innocent are not put to death, thereby improving the feeling of well-being of the innocent against the fear of unjustified punishment? If not used, how best to provide assurances to the public that sociopaths will not re-offend? These and others are all questions which need to be asked and which I believe can be answered objectively and eventually scientifically.

That gets us back to an old dilemma; as Spock put it, "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one." Again, what are the limits? The extreme example still comes to mind: If the health, happiness and security of all mankind required the annual death by slow torture of one innocent child, would that be the right thing to do? I don't think an instant answer either way is defensible.

"Can be answered eventually," in my book, means "cannot be answered now," and as you know, my approach to my religion is practical, which means theology is irrelevant. Theory means nothing, practice is everything. I don't waste my time breaking my teeth on trying to define God, because my acceptance of abstract doctrines means nothing. If someday we evolve a new way to think about right and wrong that makes everything inarguably clear to everyone, and subjectivity becomes entirely obsolete, I guess I'd be okay with that; but I can't help suspecting that that will make us a species of robots, and no longer human beings. If judgment is mechanical and the same for everyone, individual identity and personality become meaningless. There will be only one acceptable art, one acceptable music, one acceptable philosophy, and one acceptable approach to human relationships.

If it becomes possible to scientifically and objectively decide who we fall in love with, love will no longer exist. Eventually that may happen. I'm very grateful indeed that I won't live to see that Brave New World.

[McCulloch]

That gets us back to an old dilemma; as Spock put it, "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one."

Mr. Spock is fictional. Dr. Spock should have been.

Again, what are the limits? The extreme example still comes to mind: If the health, happiness and security of all mankind required the annual death by slow torture of one innocent child, would that be the right thing to do? I don't think an instant answer either way is defensible.

Christian theology seems to answer this question one way. My own answer would be to question the premises. I doubt that humanity's psychological well-being would benefit from such an act.

"Can be answered eventually," in my book, means "cannot be answered now," and as you know, my approach to my religion is practical, which means theology is irrelevant. Theory means nothing, practice is everything.

You are correct, we do not have the basis to fully answer ethical questions objectively or scientifically yet. But we also do not have the basis to fully answer neurological questions or certain questions of physics yet. To me ethics are the same. Let us stop wasting time looking to revelations from some God for the answers to these questions and start to look at these questions through the lens of objective science.

I don't waste my time breaking my teeth on trying to define God,

Yet you continue to use the word God as if it has meaning.

because my acceptance of abstract doctrines means nothing. If someday we evolve a new way to think about right and wrong that makes everything inarguably clear to everyone, and subjectivity becomes entirely obsolete, I guess I'd be okay with that; but I can't help suspecting that that will make us a species of robots, and no longer human beings. If judgment is mechanical and the same for everyone, individual identity and personality become meaningless. There will be only one acceptable art, one acceptable music, one acceptable philosophy, and one acceptable approach to human relationships.

If it becomes possible to scientifically and objectively decide who we fall in love with, love will no longer exist. Eventually that may happen. I'm very grateful indeed that I won't live to see that Brave New World.

Science has already found out much about love, the arts, cuisine and it has not made life meaningless. The knowledge that, for example, sensual arousal is a bio-chemical reaction in my body does not in the least diminish its meaning or enjoyment for me. The fact that some cooks use the science of molecular gastronomy to perfect their art does not diminish the results. see also Food for tomorrow? How the scientific discipline of molecular gastronomy could change the way we eat

Could the same be done for love, art, music and ethics? Why not? If blandness and sameness are not desired characteristics of these arts, then could we not use science to find something close to that perfect balance between uniformity and risk?

[cnorman18]

That gets us back to an old dilemma; as Spock put it, "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one."

Mr. Spock is fictional. Dr. Spock should have been.

So what? The question is not about the objective existence of Spock, but about whether the needs of the many really do outweigh the needs of the one, when, and what is the line between circumstances when they do and when they do not. I say that individual circumstances and sometimes subjective considerations are sometimes the only way to answer that question.

Of course, you knew that.

Again, what are the limits? The extreme example still comes to mind: If the health, happiness and security of all mankind required the annual death by slow torture of one innocent child, would that be the right thing to do? I don't think an instant answer either way is defensible.

Christian theology seems to answer this question one way. My own answer would be to question the premises. I doubt that humanity's psychological well-being would benefit from such an act.

Which brings us to the question of whether, when, and to what extent "humanity's psychological well-being" outweighs its physical health and security and to what extent it affects "happiness." Is objective efficiency in terms of statistical analysis the only significant measure here? How will living by that coldly objective standard affect "humanity's psychological well-being"?

If considering abstract theoretical questions like that one is a waste of time, so is considering the abstract theoretical possibility of someday measuring things which cannot at present be measured.

"Can be answered eventually," in my book, means "cannot be answered now," and as you know, my approach to my religion is practical, which means theology is irrelevant. Theory means nothing, practice is everything.

You are correct, we do not have the basis to fully answer ethical questions objectively or scientifically yet. But we also do not have the basis to fully answer neurological questions or certain questions of physics yet. To me ethics are the same. Let us stop wasting time looking to revelations from some God for the answers to these questions and start to look at these questions through the lens of objective science.

Please show where I have ever advocated "looking to revelations from some God for the answers to these questions."

Rational debate among human beings, who speak from irreducibly subjective viewpoints, is as far as I go; and I don't think that those viewpoints can or will ever be completely eliminated, nor do I think that it would be a good thing if they ever are.

I don't waste my time breaking my teeth on trying to define God,

Yet you continue to use the word God as if it has meaning.

Not in this debate; not in this thread. Not once. Which makes your remark irrelevant at best, and at worst a red herring.

Further, I have never used the word "God" as if it had "meaning" in the way you suggest. I am no fundamentalist, and I have never claimed that God, as a matter of objective, verifiable and material fact, even exists. So knock it off.

because my acceptance of abstract doctrines means nothing. If someday we evolve a new way to think about right and wrong that makes everything inarguably clear to everyone, and subjectivity becomes entirely obsolete, I guess I'd be okay with that; but I can't help suspecting that that will make us a species of robots, and no longer human beings. If judgment is mechanical and the same for everyone, individual identity and personality become meaningless. There will be only one acceptable art, one acceptable music, one acceptable philosophy, and one acceptable approach to human relationships.

If it becomes possible to scientifically and objectively decide who we fall in love with, love will no longer exist. Eventually that may happen. I'm very grateful indeed that I won't live to see that Brave New World.

Science has already found out much about love, the arts, cuisine and it has not made life meaningless. The knowledge that, for example, sensual arousal is a bio-chemical reaction in my body does not in the least diminish its meaning or enjoyment for me. The fact that some cooks use the science of molecular gastronomy to perfect their art does not diminish the results. see also Food for tomorrow? How the scientific discipline of molecular gastronomy could change the way we eat

Could the same be done for love, art, music and ethics? Why not? If blandness and sameness are not desired characteristics of these arts, then could we not use science to find something close to that perfect balance between uniformity and risk?

You're still not getting what I'm saying. How can objective science determine one's subjective decisions? Are there to be none?

"Well, let's see what the computer says... Doris fulfills 78% of my sexual satisfaction potential, 91% of my intellectual compatibility potential, but only 72% of my emotional compatibility potential, and she carries a gene for Crohn's disease that might be trouble for our grandchildren. On the other hand, Jeannette's percentages are 65%, 72% and 93% respectively, and she doesn't carry any genetic negatives. My own personality analysis shows that I should consider first emotional compatibility, then sexual, and only then intellectual. Hmmm. I guess I should marry Jeannette. I'll be glad when that new system kicks in next year, when the Government computers identify everyone's perfect match. Maybe I should wait."

What's going to happen to just having a glass of wine and talking quietly in front of the fireplace?

Do you see what I'm talking about? Or do you think we should just turn all our decisions over to objective scientific analysis and never just decide anything on the basis of how it fricken FEELS any more? Do you really think that this would be a good thing?

[flitzerbiest]

"Well, let's see what the computer says... Doris fulfills 78% of my sexual satisfaction potential, 91% of my intellectual compatibility potential, but only 72% of my emotional compatibility potential, and she carries a gene for Crohn's disease that might be trouble for our grandchildren. On the other hand, Jeannette's percentages are 65%, 72% and 93% respectively, and she doesn't carry any genetic negatives. My own personality analysis shows that I should consider first emotional compatibility, then sexual, and only then intellectual. Hmmm. I guess I should marry Jeannette. I'll be glad when that new system kicks in next year, when the Government computers identify everyone's perfect match. Maybe I should wait."

What's going to happen to just having a glass of wine and talking quietly in front of the fireplace?

Do you see what I'm talking about? Or do you think we should just turn all our decisions over to objective scientific analysis and never just decide anything on the basis of how it fricken FEELS any more? Do you really think that this would be a good thing?

Excellent point (colorfully made), and yet, I think we can agree that when science is operating within its sphere of explanatory power (e.g. on matters of human origins) it ought to be given intellectual precedence over mythology, tradition and deliberately poor science (i.e. that which ignores the scientific method and the broad base of established fact). Further, we can probably agree that there is much to be learned about feeling/intuition, and that in the future, we might be able to exercise more control over both to our overall benefit.

[cnorman18]

"Well, let's see what the computer says... Doris fulfills 78% of my sexual satisfaction potential, 91% of my intellectual compatibility potential, but only 72% of my emotional compatibility potential, and she carries a gene for Crohn's disease that might be trouble for our grandchildren. On the other hand, Jeannette's percentages are 65%, 72% and 93% respectively, and she doesn't carry any genetic negatives. My own personality analysis shows that I should consider first emotional compatibility, then sexual, and only then intellectual. Hmmm. I guess I should marry Jeannette. I'll be glad when that new system kicks in next year, when the Government computers identify everyone's perfect match. Maybe I should wait."

What's going to happen to just having a glass of wine and talking quietly in front of the fireplace?

Do you see what I'm talking about? Or do you think we should just turn all our decisions over to objective scientific analysis and never just decide anything on the basis of how it fricken FEELS any more? Do you really think that this would be a good thing?

Excellent point (colorfully made), and yet, I think we can agree that when science is operating within its sphere of explanatory power (e.g. on matters of human origins) it ought to be given intellectual precedence over mythology, tradition and deliberately poor science (i.e. that which ignores the scientific method and the broad base of established fact).

No argument there at all. I'm not advocating DISCARDING or IGNORING science, for God's sake (you'll excuse the expression, irony intended).

Further, we can probably agree that there is much to be learned about feeling/intuition, and that in the future, we might be able to exercise more control over both to our overall benefit.

I agree with that too. A cure for broken hearts, for instance -- I could have used one of those, and more than once.

[ChaosBorders]

Excellent point (colorfully made), and yet, I think we can agree that when science is operating within its sphere of explanatory power (e.g. on matters of human origins) it ought to be given intellectual precedence over mythology, tradition and deliberately poor science (i.e. that which ignores the scientific method and the broad base of established fact).

Generally, I think poor science does not ignore the scientific method so much as it does not apply it very well and thus leads to faulty conclusions. I think the term you're looking for is pseudoscience, which isn't really 'science' at all.

But I agree that properly done science should generally be given intellectual precedence over both.